Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

2.   Remove all pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements for industries never discharging more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of regulated industrial wastewater to the sanitary sewer.

3.   Reduce pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements (from twice per year to once per year) for industries which discharge less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to.

4.   Reduce pretreatment inspection requirements (from once per year to once per 2 years) for municipal wastewater treatment plants, with industrial pretreatment programs, when inspecting industries which discharge less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to.

5.   Require municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to repeat sampling at industries if a test result from the municipal sample exceeded a limit.

6.   Allow municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to use a general discharge permit to regulate several similar industries rather than several individual discharge permits.

7.   Require municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to include applicable Best Management Practices and slug control measures in industrial discharge permits.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

Ch. NR 211 is currently deficient in many respects compared with its federal counterpart, 40 CFR Part 403, which was revised in 2005 to include the changes collectively known as the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule. These changes include the above significant changes, along with a number of lesser changes which address more detailed aspects of pretreatment regulations such as signature requirements and record keeping.

In its July 18, 2011 letter, U.S. EPA stated that existing state pretreatment regulations did not incorporate the changes made by EPA to the federal pretreatment regulations in 2005. Some of these changes made the federal regulation less stringent than it used to be, by reducing requirements; others made it more stringent. EPA has stated that Wisconsin must adopt the more stringent provisions into NR 211. (These, more stringent, provisions are described at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pretreatment_streamlining_required_changes.pdf.)

The proposed revision to NR 211 is intended to address EPA's concerns and also to incorporate those Streamlining changes that reduce pretreatment requirements for regulated industries and delegated POTWs without adversely affecting environmental protection.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

The following U.S. EPA Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and Ohio) have adopted the 2005 changes to the federal pretreatment regulation into their corresponding state regulations. In Michigan, a streamlining rule has been drafted but the authority of the state's environmental agency to adopt such a rule has been removed.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Department has compared Wisconsin pretreatment regulations in ch. NR 211 with the federal rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 403, and has proposed these changes to ch. NR 211 to make it consistent with its federal counterpart and to address recent EPA concerns about the lack of consistency between these two rules.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis

As part of its research in creating the federal Pretreatment Streamlining Rule in 2005, U.S. EPA was required to address the economic impact of the same rule changes on small entities, i.e., small governmental units, industries and not-for-profit organizations, as are being proposed here. EPA concluded, in its Final Rule published Oct. 14, 2005, in the Federal Register, at 70 Fed. Reg. 60134 (Oct.14, 2005), that the national economic effect of its rule, “will either relieve regulatory burden or have no significant impact for all small entities." It also estimated that, overall, governmental units and industries would save $10.1 million annually by implementing the Streamlining changes.

Effect on Small Business

The Department estimates that the biggest impact of the proposed rule changes on small business will be the small cost savings (<$100 per year) in reduced wastewater sample test fees available to those industries, both large and small, that demonstrate that one or more of the pollutants they are required to test for are not present nor expected to be present. This estimate is based on recent pricing information the Department received from two analytical laboratories for the most common pollutants pretreatment industries are required to test for.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Summary

The Department is proposing these changes because state law (s. 283.11(2), Wis. Stats.) requires that state wastewater rules comply with – and not exceed – requirements in federal wastewater regulations. Because the current version of NR 211 has different requirements than its federal counterpart, 40 CFR Part 403, the Department is proposing this action. In addition, the Department has been notified by US EPA that Wisconsin's pretreatment requirements are not consistent with those in federal regulations. Also, all surrounding states have already adopted these federal pretreatment changes into their respective state pretreatment regulations.

Fiscal Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis Summary

From August 21, 2012 through September 21, 2012, the department solicited comments from industries and municipalities on the economic impact of the proposed rule change via a survey distributed to 108 DNR-regulated pretreatment industries and to 26 municipal pretreatment programs. The survey identified eight rule changes that could affect businesses and municipal pretreatment programs and requested comments from the recipients regarding the anticipated annual cost or benefit from the proposed changes

Based on the responses from 27 industries and four municipal pretreatment programs and Department estimates of the impact to commercial labs, the statewide economic impact of this rule appears to be minor. Totaling the costs and benefits reported by survey respondents, 224 industries likely to be affected by these rule changes may see average savings of $810 each, with total statewide savings approaching $181,000, three years after rule implementation; of the 20 municipal programs likely to be affected, two-thirds of them may see initial, one-time costs averaging $15,000 each and one-third, increasing annual benefits of $15,000 each, culminating in net, total statewide savings of $90,000 annually after 3 years. Finally, the ten commercial laboratories affected may see combined, total revenue losses of $33,000 per year after all affected industries have taken advantage of the rule changes in three years. While we recognize that these facilities are only a sampling of those in the state, we believe that their responses are representative of similar facilities throughout the state. Ultimately, the costs and benefits are both small enough that the economic impact of the streamlining regulations on the state is minimally positive at best, negligible at worst.

Environmental Impact

The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code.

Agency contact

Robert Liska

Department of Natural Resources

P. O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

Email: [e-mail]

Telephone: [phone].

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
NR 211, General Pretreatment Requirement
3. Subject
Revision of NR 211 to include "Streamlining" rule additions made to the federal pretreatment regulations in 2005.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			None.
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy X Local Government Units		X Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers X Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule Adoption of these changes is necessary in order to comply with state law (ss. 283.11(2)), federal pretreatment regulations and to comply with DNR's May 18, 2012, commitment to Region 5 – US EPA, to adopt these measures and address this NR rule deficiency identified by EPA in its July 18,2011, letter to Secretary Stepp.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
To revise ch. DHS 163 relating to training, certification and work practice requirements for lead-safe renovation activities in pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. 108 manufacturers, subject to pretreatment requirements, directly regulated by the Department, and 26 municipal pretreatment programs regulating another 320 manufacturers subject to pretreatment requirements.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
The following municipalities provided comments to DNR regarding the impact of these rule changes on their pretreatment programs: City of Beloit, Grand Chute Menasha West Sewerage Commission, Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District, City of Manitowoc Wastewater Treatment Facility and Walworth County Metropolitan Sewerage District.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred) From August 21, 2012 through September 21, 2012, the department solicited comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule change via a survey distributed to 108 DNR-regulated pretreatment industries and to 26 municipal pretreatment programs. The survey identified eight rule changes that could affect businesses and municipal pretreatment programs and requested comments from the recipients regarding the anticipated annual cost or benefit from the proposed changes. (A copy of the survey is attached in Attachment C.) Twenty-seven industries and five municipal pretreatment program coordinators responded. Twelve industries reported that the proposed changes would have no effect and 15 reported some anticipated savings, largely from survey items 1-3. Two municipal programs reported that making changes to their sewer use ordinances and industrial permits (survey item 8) could increase up-front costs, one program reported savings from reduced sampling, one reported no change and one responded for local industries rather than the municipal program. Brief summaries of the economic impacts follow with more detailed breakdowns of survey responses and economic impacts in Tables 1 -3 in Attachment B. The data in these tables were generated by assuming that the responses from industries and municipal programs represented anticipated impacts from all 400 eligible pretreatment industries and all 26 municipal pretreatment programs. Thus, the total of 224 affected industries was generated by assuming that 56% of all industries were affected just as 56% of all industrial respondents (15 of 27) were affected. The average savings of $810 was then applied to all affected industries and distributed over 3 years to allow for delays in implementation. Similarly with municipal programs, 20 of 26 were assumed to be affected because 3 of 4 program respondents reported impacts. The average cost of $15,000 was then applied to 2/3 of the 20 affected programs (13), the average savings of $15,000 was applied to 1/3 of the 20 (6) and both costs and savings were applied to all affected programs and distributed over 3 years.
SAVINGS: Streamlining pretreatment regulations will provide modest savings for industries. These savings result from a decrease in laboratory costs, labor, reporting, and filing burdens. For businesses, the estimated savings of this rule range from $80 to $3000. (See Table 1, Attachment B.) One municipality (Grand Chute-Menasha) predicted saving $15,000-$17,000 per year. (See Table 2, Attachment B).
COSTS: Revising municipal sewer use ordinances and industrial permits will present cost increases to municipal programs. Municipalities will either have to absorb these costs or pass them onto the industries they regulate. However, these revisions are single, one-time program costs, which may be partially offset over time by the benefits of reduced sampling costs and reduced staff time for inspections. Walworth Country Metropolitan Sewerage District estimated upfront costs of $10,094, and the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District estimated upfront costs of $20,000. There may also be costs, in the form of reduced revenue, for commercial laboratories in Wisconsin as they will receive fewer wastewater samples for testing from industries and programs. According to pretreatment reports submitted by industries, ten laboratories perform the great majority of testing done by these industries. Table 3, (Attachment B), shows the Department's estimates of the economic impact of this reduced revenue on the labs based on the following assumptions: 1)   56% of all eligible industries (224) receive permission to reduce pollutant testing by four tests/year, for an average, reduced revenue to labs of $100/year/industry. 2) 5% of all eligible industries (11) receive permission to eliminate all testing because they qualify as Non-significant Categorical Industrial Users for an average reduction to labs of $500/year/affected industry. 3)   10% of all eligible industries (22) receive permission to reduce all testing by 50%, for an average reduction to labs of $250/year/affected industry. 4)   Total revenue reductions ($33,000/year) after all affected industries take advantage of the rule changes will take more than one year to be realized. Reductions have been distributed over 3 years to allow industries and municipalities time to make, or approve, reduced sampling requests and time to request and receive DNR permission to change sewer use ordinances and industrial permits.
NO CHANGE: Twelve businesses, of the 27 that responded, and one municipal respondent, out of four, reported that the proposed rule would have no fiscal impact on their operations: National Plating; Master Lock Company; Cintas Corporation; Gusmer Enterprises; Wisconsin Paperboard Corp; Alsco; TAB; Precision Metalsmiths; Tasman Leather Group, LLC; Madison Gas and Electric; Glover's Manufacturing, Inc.; Catalytic Converters; and the City of Beloit. Impacts from the proposed rule changes are also not expected at an additional ten industries, categorized as centralized waste treatment facilities (CWTs) by federal pretreatment regulations. These rule changes will repeal extra requirements for CWTs that conflict with corresponding federal requirements. Because the requirements to be repealed have not been consistently applied, or enforced, their repeal should not add or detract from routine operating expenses at CWTs.
ECONOMIC IMPACT: Based on the responses from 27 industries and four municipal pretreatment programs and Department estimates of the impact to commercial labs, the statewide economic impact of this rule appears to be minor. Because the impact of these changes may take as many as three years to be fully realized, it has been distributed over three years, and beyond, to account for this. (See Table 3.) Totaling the costs and benefits reported by survey respondents, 224 industries likely to be affected by these rule changes may see average savings of $810 each, with total statewide savings approaching $181,000, three years after rule implementation; of the 20 municipal programs likely to be affected, two-thirds of them may see initial, one-time costs averaging $15,000 each and one-third, increasing annual benefits of $15,000 each, culminating in net, total statewide savings of $90,000 annually after 3 years. Finally, the ten commercial laboratories affected may see combined, total revenue losses of $33,000 per year after all affected industries have taken advantage of the rule changes in three years. While we recognize that these facilities are only a sampling of those in the state, we believe that their responses are representative of similar facilities throughout the state. Ultimately, the costs and benefits are both small enough that the economic impact of the streamlining regulations on the state is minimally positive at best, negligible at worst.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule This rule modification offers modest savings in sampling costs to those industries that can meet the requirements and receive DNR or municipal approval, as appropriate. Adopting these changes will also satisfy DNR's 2010 commitment to EPA to make DNR pretreatment requirements consistent with federal requirements.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Industries can realize small cost savings through reduced sampling and testing fees - if they request them and meet the requirements. Municipalities and laboratories will have initial implementation costs but municipalities may achieve small savings over time due to reduced staff time, if they adopt the voluntary, cost-saving measures into their ordinances and industrial permits.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Rule changes equivalent to those proposed have been in effect in federal pretreatment regulations since 2005.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
All the above neighboring states have already adopted these proposed rule changes into their respective administrative codes.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Robert J. Liska				608 267 7631

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

Based on responses from industrial manufacturers, about one-half of small business manufacturers are expected to realize small reductions in costs ($810 annually) for wastewater sampling and testing.

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

Comments received by the Department from 27 industries regarding the economic impact of the proposed rule changes on their businesses.

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements ⍽ Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting ⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements ⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards ⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements X Other, describe: The rule's impact on Small Business is expected to be small and beneficial, therefore methods to reduce this impact were not considered. In addition, enactment of the proposed rule changes was presumed because state law (ss. 283.11(2)) requires that state rules comply with and not exceed federal regulations, which already contain the proposed changes.

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

The rule adopts the federal “Streamlining" changes to Wisconsin's pretreatment requirements which offer reduced sampling costs to industries that qualify.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

This rule contains no enforcement provisions but the Department follows a "stepped enforcement" policy in which the severity of DNR enforcement responses increases with each succeeding violation, culminating in referral of a facility to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

⍽ Yes X No

ATTACHMENT B

Table 1. Savings reported by industries affected by new rule.

Company	Annual Savings ($)	Company	Annual Savings ($)
Mayville Engineering Company	80	Millennium Technologies	620
Miller St. Nazianz Inc.	100	Worth Company	783
Professional Plating	100	UltraCoat	1,000
Scot Industries	150	Shelmat	1,500
GEA Farm Technologies, Inc.	200	Silgan Containers	1,650
Donaldson Company	300	SAFC	1,800
Spectrum Brands- Rayovac	300	Grover Co.	3,000
Pierce Manufacturing Inc.	515	Average Savings*	$810

*Note: When savings were reported as a range, the more conservative estimate is listed. To focus on the rule's impact, only reported costs and savings were used in averaging, responses of “No change" were excluded.

Table 2. Costs and savings reported by municipalities affected by new rule.

Municipality	Initial Cost ($)	Annual Savings ($)
Walworth County Metro. Sewerage District	10,094	No Change
Grand Chute-Menasha West Sewerage Commission (GCMWSC)	Not Reported	15,000
Madison Metro. Sewerage District	20,000	No Change
Average Initial Cost*	$15,000	--------------
Average Annual Savings*	-----------------	$15,000

*Note: When savings were reported as a range, the more conservative estimate is listed. To focus on the rule's impact, only reported costs and savings were used in averaging, responses of “No change" were excluded.

Table 3. Total anticipated costs (-) and savings (+) after implementation of rule.

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	After Year 3
224 Affected Industries	+61,000	+121,000	+181,000	+181,000
20 Affected Municipal Programs
Annual Savings	+30,000	+60,000	+90,000	+90,000
Initial Costs	-65,000	-65,000	-65,000	No future costs
10 Commercial Laboratories
Lost Revenue	-11,000	-22,000	-33,000	-33,000
Total Net Cost (-) or Savings (+)	+15,000	+94,000	+173,000	+238,000

ATTACHMENT C

August 21, 2012

Subject: Request for comments regarding the economic impact of proposed changes to Wisconsin's General Pretreatment Regulations (Wis. Admin. Code Chap. NR 211)

The Department of Natural Resources is conducting an economic impact analysis of its rule proposal, WT-28-10, that would reduce wastewater pretreatment regulations for regulated industries discharging to sanitary sewers (pretreatment industries) and for municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs. The Department is gathering information to determine if there is an economic effect of the proposed rule on specific businesses, business sectors, local governmental units, and the state economy as a whole. Information and advice is requested from businesses, business associations, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule.

Would you, your business, your association, or your local unit of government be affected economically if this proposed rule implemented the following?

1 Removed sampling requirements for wastewater pollutants, discharged by industries to sanitary sewers, shown to be neither present nor expected to be present in the discharge. (see proposed NR 211.15 (4) (b))

2   Removed pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements for industries never discharging more than 100 gallons per day (gpd) of regulated industrial wastewater to the sanitary sewer. (NR 211.15 (4) (d))

3   Reduced pretreatment sampling and reporting requirements (from twice per year to once per year) for industries which discharge less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to. (NR 211.15 (4) (c))

4   Reduced pretreatment inspection requirements for municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs (from once per year to once per two years) when inspecting industries discharging less than .01 percent of the wastewater flow capacity of the municipal treatment plant they discharge to. (NR 211.235 (3) (c))

5   Required municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to repeat sampling at industries if a test result from the municipal sample exceeded a limit. (NR 211.15 (7))

6   Allowed municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to use a general discharge permit to regulate several similar industries rather than several individual discharge permits. (NR 211.235 (1) (b))

7   Required municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to include applicable Best Management Practices and slug control measures in industrial discharge permits. (NR 211.235 (1) (am )(intro))

8 Required municipal wastewater treatment plants with industrial pretreatment programs to revise their sewer use ordinance and industrial permits to include the above changes and submit them to DNR for approval. (NR 211.30 (7) (b))

The proposed rule may be reviewed at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/ww/pret or http:/adminrules.wisconsin.gov. To request this material in an alternative format, please call Robert Liska at [phone] with specific information on your request by September 15, 2012.

If you expect to be affected economically by this rule proposal please provide as much information as possible to the department contact below regarding any implementation or compliance costs you would expect to incur, quantifiable benefits of the proposed rule, or how the proposed rule would negatively affect your overall economic competitiveness, productivity, or jobs.

Please do NOT submit comments on the revision to the rule at this time. After receiving comments on the economic impact of the rule, the department will prepare an economic impact analysis (EIA) for the proposed rule. Once the EIA process is complete, the department will submit the rule package and EIA to the Legislative Council and hearings on the proposed rule will then be held, in accordance with ss. 227.15, 227.17 and 227.19, Wis. Stats.

Please indicate whether you are responding as a business, small business, business association, local governmental unit, or individual. A small business is defined as an independently owned and operated business that is not dominant in its field and which employs 25 or fewer full-time employees or which has gross annual sales of less than $5,000,000.

Comments are due and shall be postmarked or submitted electronically no later than September 21, 2012. Please provide your email address or phone number in order for the department to contact you if additional information is needed. Written comments on economic effects of the proposal may be submitted via U.S. mail or email to:

Robert Liska

Bureau of Water Quality, WT/3

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

[e-mail]

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. 1—

rulemaking_notices CR 13-010 CR 13-010

(DNR # ER-27-11)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to ss. 29.604 227.11, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on changes to s. NR 27.03 Wisconsin's Endangered/Threatened Species List on the date(s) and at the time(s) and location(s) listed below.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Time:   11:00 a.m.

Locations:   Old Library room 1128
  University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
  105 Garfield Avenue
  Eau Claire, WI 54702

  Instructional Services room 1034
  University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
  2420 Nicolet Drive
  Green Bay, WI 54311

  Lubar Hall room S250
  University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
  3202 North Maryland Avenue
  University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
  Milwaukee, WI 53201

Date:   Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Time:   4:00 p.m.

Location:   Northwoods Room
  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
  Science Operations Center
  2801 Progress Road
  Madison, WI 53716

Date:   Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Time:   4:00 p.m.

Location:   Marathon County Public Library
  Wausau room (3rd floor)
  300 North First Street
  Wausau, WI 54403

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Madeline Emde at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing

Availability of Rules and Submitting Comments

The proposed rule supporting documents may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. A copy of the proposed rules and supporting documents may also be obtained from Madeline Emde, Bureau of Endangered Resources, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or [e-mail].

Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail or email to Madeline Emde at the addresses noted above. Written comments, whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail, will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. Comments may be submitted until March 7, 2013.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Statutes interpreted

In promulgating this rule, s. 227.11(2)(a), Wis. Stats., has been interpreted as allowing the department the authority to create and amend rules. Section 29.604 (3)(b), Wis. Stats., has been interpreted as allowing the depart ment the authority to create and amend the list of Wisconsin's endangered and threatened species, NR 27.03, Wis. Admin. Code.

Statutory authority

The state statutes that authorize the promulgation of this rule include ss. 29.604 227.11, Wis. Stats.

Explanation of agency authority