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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
| ||||
X Original
⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
| ||||
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| ||||
Chapter NR 1, contracting with cooperating foresters and private contractors for regenerations services, s. NR 1.27.
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Contracting with cooperating foresters or private contractors for forest regeneration services on harvested lands owned and managed by the Department of Natural Resource.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED
⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
20.370 (1) (cy)
| |||
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
X 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)
| ||||
X State's Economy
⍽ 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
| ||||
2005 Assembly Bill 254 and the resulting 2005 Act 166 promulgated the process to provide an inventory of all forested Department of Natural Resource lands, identify the forest resources available for management, develop annual allowable harvest levels, and undertake such management within 90% and 110% of those levels. Act 166 further provided a mechanism, through the use of Cooperating Foresters, to assist the department in establishing timber sales. What was not provided was an additional funding source to implement pre and post harvest regeneration treatments in the areas harvested. These funds are needed to ensure the forest continues to be sustainably managed and to assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits within state and certification guidelines. To date, Department owned lands have seen a 190% increase in timber sale activity since 2005 from approximately 9700 acres to approximately 25,000 acres per year. With an increase in timber sale activities, regeneration needs closely follow the acres harvested.
In the absence of the new rule the Department would rely on gifts, grants, and limited existing regeneration funds to implement regeneration activities on state owned lands. These funding sources fall short of regeneration needs and the ability to achieve future desired conditions on state lands will continue to be hampered. In addition, land managers may be apprehensive to harvest in more complex ecosystems where a quick response of regeneration is required. The new rule will provide assurance that funding will be available to implement forest regeneration activities after harvesting has occurred.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
Entities that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments include: cooperating foresters and private contractors that perform regeneration services. The department utilized a e-mail distribution list that includes registered cooperating foresters, members of Wisconsin Consulting Foresters (WCF), and small businesses that perform regeneration services.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
No local units of government are affected by this rule and as such none were involved in the development of the EIA
| ||||
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)
| ||||
The rule will provide a positive economic impact on short and long term business opportunities for contractors that perform and provide regeneration services and equipment. It is estimated that annual state spending under the rule will be between $300,000.00 and $600,000.00. This will support between 6,000 and 12,000 contractor-hours spread across the entire state, but concentrated in rural areas. The forests will continue to be sustainably managed and assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits, including long-term support of Wisconsin forest products industry.
Minimal implementation or compliance costs are expected to be incurred. Any oversight or administration of this rule will be performed by existing staff.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The new rule will provide assurance that funding will be available to implement forest regeneration activities after harvesting has occurred. In the absence of the new rule the Department would rely on gifts, grants, and limited existing regeneration funds to implement regeneration activities on state owned lands. Implementing the rule will allow the Department to meet land management objectives identified in property master plans and provide assurances that harvested lands will be regenerated and those harvested lands will be managed accordingly.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
Wisconsin's state forests will continue to be sustainably managed and to assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits within state guidelines.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
The Federal Government provides a similar mechanism on federal lands. The USDA Forest Service utilizes the Knutson-Vandenberg) – Brush Disposal (KV-BD) accounts, which are deductions from timber sales to fund forest regeneration and reduce fire hazard. The USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs utilizes Forest Management Deductions (FMD) under 25. CFR § 163.25 for a similar purpose and method.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
A search of rules in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota revealed that these states do not have similar rules
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Tim Beyer
|
(920) 892-8756 x3047
|
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)
|
The rule will provide a positive economic impact on short and long term business opportunities for contractors that perform and provide regeneration services and equipment. It is estimated that annual state spending under the rule will be between $300,000.00 and $600,000.00. This will support between 6,000 and 12,000 contractor-hours spread across the entire state, but concentrated in rural areas. The forests will continue to be sustainably managed and assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits, including long-term support of Wisconsin forest products industry.
There are no new compliance, reporting, or bookkeeping requirements with the proposed rule.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
This rule is not expected to have any adverse impact on small 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:
There will be no impact on small businesses.
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
This rule provided a positive economic impact on small businesses the perform regeneration services. Minimal implementation or compliance costs are expected to be borne by small businesses. It simply provides a funding mechanism to fund regeneration work on state managed lands.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
There are no enforcement provisions specific to this rule other that enforcement of performance measures outlined in State of Wisconsin Professional Services contracts (specific performance criteria, state labor laws, etc.).
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes X No
|
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
| ||||
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
| ||||
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| ||||
Section Phar 7.01 (1) (e)
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Prescription drug delivery.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR FED X PRO PRS
SEG SEG-S
| ||||
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
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽ 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
| ||||
The current rule does not provide enough flexibility for patients to have their prescription medication delivered to a location of their choice due to the limitation of delivery only to the patient's residence.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
This rule was posted for 14 days for economic comments and none were received.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
None. This rule does not affect local governmental units.
| ||||
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)
| ||||
This rule will not have an economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole. Delivery of prescriptions is already allowed by rule. The location of the delivery will not have an impact.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The benefit of implementing the proposed rule would allow patients to have their prescriptions delivered to a location of their choice. In addition, pharmacies would no longer have to request the Pharmacy Examining Board to grant a delivery variance. The Pharmacy Examining Board has determined that permitting the delivery to a location of a patient's choice would be beneficial to patients and to pharmacies without negatively impacting public safety. When prescriptions are delivered, the prescription will be accompanied by appropriate directions and an indication that consultation is available by contacting the pharmacist.
The alternative to the proposed change is for the rule to remain as it currently is which would limit the delivery to a patient's residence only unless a variance is granted by the Pharmacy Examining Board.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The long range implication is patients will be better served by having their prescriptions delivered to more locations than just their place of residence and pharmacies will no longer have to request and wait for the next Board meeting in order to receive delivery variances.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
None.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Our four neighboring states do not indicate a limitation on delivery to only the patient's residence. In all four states, the consultation requirement is met by providing printed information, including directions on contacting the pharmacist by phone if a consultation is desired.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|
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: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
| ||||
X Original
⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
| ||||
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| ||||
Section A-E 2.02, Wis. Admin. Code
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Electronic seals and signatures.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED X PRO
⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
| ||||
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
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽ 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
| ||||
The proposed rule would allow architects, landscape architects, professional engineers, designers and land surveyors to use electronic seals or signatures on all plans, drawings, documents, specifications and reports. Currently, all seals and stamps on drawings and specifications to be filed as public documents are required to be original. However, there is a provision that allows for electronic signatures in Wis. Admin Code A-E 2.02 (7) (b) 2.; but the provision is outdated. The proposed rule draft would allow broader use of electronic signatures to be filed as public documents and update the corresponding citation to subch. II, ch. 137, Stats.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
This proposed rule was posted on the Department of Safety and Professional Services website and on the Wisconsin government website for 14 business days to solicit comments from the public. No businesses, business sectors, associations representing business local governmental units or individuals contacted the department about the proposed rule.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
No local governmental units participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
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)
| ||||
The proposed rule will not impact business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
Electronic seals and signatures will allow greater flexibility in filing plans, specifications, plats, and reports and other documents. The benefit will go towards architects, landscape architects, professional engineers, designers and land surveyors who will be able to choose between electronic seals and signatures or stamped seals and hand written signatures.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
Long range implications of the proposed rule will result in greater efficiency in maintaining records and keeping the affected professions up to date with current advancements in technology.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
There are no comparable federal rules.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Illinois: Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors must have a reproducible seal or facsimile, which may be computer generated. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68 ss. 1150, 1380.295 and 1270.58 Illinois code expressly prohibits the use of signatures generated by computers. Illinois requires original seals only.
Iowa: Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors must use a certification block on original documents. The certification block requires a seal and a signature. A legible rubber stamp or facsimile of a seal may be used. 193C IAC 6.1 (3) (542B) Computer generated seals may be used on final documents. Iowa Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyor licensees may affix a handwritten or secure electronic signature to the certification block as long as the signature is protected by a procedure that is, “adequate to (1) verify the signature is that of a specific person and (2) detect any changes that may be made or attempted after the signature of the specific person is affixed." 193C IAC 6.9 (542B)
Michigan: Architects, professional engineers, and professional land surveyors may use an embossed seal or a rubber stamp and an original signature only. MICH. ADMIN. Code r.339.15301, 339.16024, 339.17301
Minnesota: Licensed architects, professional engineers, land surveyors, professional landscape architects, professional geologist, or professional soil scientists may use a seal on all plans, specifications, plats, and reports and other documents. Minn. R. 1800.4300 (2012) Furthermore, a signature is required for all plans, specifications, plats reports or other documents. The signature may be stamped, handwritten, or electronically created as long as it creates an accurate representation of the licensee's actual signature. Minn. Stats. Ann. § 326.12
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Shawn Leatherwood
|
608-261-4438
|