STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
Board Order WM 05-14 (E) modifying Ch.'s NR 10 Game and Hunting, 11 Closed Areas, 12 Wildlife Damage and Nuisance Control, 15 Game Refuges, and 45 Use of Department Properties.
| |||
Subject
| |||
Establishing a season for hunting deer with crossbows-only and remedial revisions.
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
None
| ||
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 Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
| ||
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X
No
| |||
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| |||
The department is directed, in the non-statutory provisions of 2013 ACT 61, to promulgate emergency rules that establish hunting seasons where the use of crossbows is allowed.
| |||
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)
| |||
Because these are emergency rules the department is not required to offer a comment period on this economic analysis. The department will hold a comment period pursuant to Governor's Executive Order 50, Section IV, when permanent rules are promulgated. Fiscal impacts on the department are also summarized in this analysis.
Economic Impact
The department is directed by 2013 ACT 61 to promulgate emergency rules establishing deer hunting seasons in 2014 and 2015 where the use of crossbows is allowed. Under the Act, the crossbow season must be identical to the archery season. Other substantiative provisions of this rule, such as the allowable uses of carcass tags, are also written as directed by the ACT. For this emergency rule, the department has limited discretion in drafting and any potential economic impacts would be a result of the ACT and not these rules.
Fiscal Impact
The department anticipates no fiscal impact resulting from these rules. Substantiative provisions of this rule are written as directs by the ACT. For this emergency rule, the department has limited discretion in drafting and any potential economic impacts would be a result of the ACT and not these rules. The department has invested significant resources to update automated license systems in preparation of the 2014 crossbow season.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
The department is required to implement these rules.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
These emergency rules will only be in place for the 2014 and 2015 deer hunting seasons and long range implications are not anticipated.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
In Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota, a doctor must certify that a person is unable to hunt by archery methods because of a physical disability before the use of a crossbow is authorized for deer during the archery deer seasons. An exception in Illinois is that anyone may use a crossbow for deer hunting during the later portion of the archery deer season beginning on the second Monday following the Thanksgiving holiday.
In Michigan, anyone who is 10 years old or older may use a crossbow throughout the archery deer season in the Lower Peninsula and during the early archery deer season in the Upper Peninsula.
| |||
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
| |||
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-267-2452.
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
Board Order WM 08-14 (E) modifying Ch. NR 10 Game and Hunting.
| |||
Subject
| |||
Issuance of antlerless permits through the Deer Management Assistance Program and participation in County Deer Management Advisory Committees, Ch. NR 10 Wis. Admin. Code.
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
None
| ||
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 Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
| ||
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| |||
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| |||
This emergency rule will facilitate the issuance of antlerless deer permits through the Deer Management Assistance Program. This order will also allow additional representation on County Deer Management Advisory Committees, committees which are established for the purpose of seeking comment from members of the public on the status of the deer herd at the county level.
| |||
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)
| |||
Because these are emergency rules the department is not required to offer a comment period on this economic analysis. The department will hold a comment period pursuant to Governor's Executive Order 50, Section IV, when permanent rules are promulgated. Fiscal impacts on the department are also summarized in this analysis.
Economic Impact
Because the hunting season frameworks and regulations proposed in this rule will be comparable to those in place under current rules, no economic impacts are anticipated. These rules are applicable to individual hunters and people who are interested in white-tailed deer management and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule.
Fiscal Impact
The department anticipates no fiscal impact resulting from these rules. Additional automated licensing system programming will not be required to implement the proposals.
These rules would allow issuance of antlerless deer hunting permits to a primary person who is enrolled in the Deer Management Assistance Program or their designee. The permits could then be transferred, for no more than face value cost, to hunters who would be able to use the tags on the enrolled property. Allowing permit transfers creates efficiency for the department because we would not need to establish automated license system processes to assure that permits are distributed only to people designated by the primary program enrollee (there is also not time to implement such a system in 2014 and, since an alternative could not be implemented anyway, our proposed rule is not considered to be a cost savings). Only one contact with the department is all that would be needed to issue all antlerless permits for a property.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
Simplicity, value, and good success rates in the use of these antlerless deer permits will make an important contribution to the objective of site-specific deer management. Alternatives to this method of implementation are limited because of the importance of implementing the program in 2014. There is limited time for the development of needed technology to implement alternatives. Not implementing the rule is an alternative but this may not result in delivering the best customer service.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
These emergency rules will only be in place for the 2014 deer hunting season. Long range implications may be evaluated in an economic impact analysis of a permanent rule.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
Michigan is implementing a Deer Management Assistance Program which is comparable to the program being established in Wisconsin. All of Wisconsin's surrounding states use hunting seasons to provide hunting opportunities and to manage white-tailed deer herds and involve the public establishing management goals hunting opportunities. Wisconsin's efforts at public involvement are likely more extensive than those in our surrounding states. However, deer are a common wildlife species and provide significant hunting opportunities in all of our surrounding states.
| |||
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
| |||
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-267-2452.
|
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
| ||||
SPS 384, Plumbing Products
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Water Treatment Devices
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED
⍽ PRO
⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG
⍽ SEG-S
|
20.165 (2) (j)
| |||
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
X Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
X 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
| ||||
Under current rules, water treatment devices – including water softeners – may need two separate approvals before being used in Wisconsin. The first approval is typically from a third party, such as NSF International, and is based on an industry standard. The second approval is under SPS chapter 384, which addresses situations where a plumbing product must receive approval from the Department. Due to prolonged extreme weather conditions this past winter, spring, and summer, more private well owners than usual have chosen to upgrade their water supply systems this year. The Department has reason to believe that its secondary review is delaying some of these well owners from accessing plumbing products which would improve the safety of their drinking water. These products have been approved under industry standards and are available to consumers in other states but have not yet received approval from the Department.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that 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)
| ||||
No significant negative economic or fiscal impact is expected.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
Well owners who are waiting to upgrade their water supply systems until the Department's duplicative review is completed could stop waiting for this upgrade.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
Same as number 13.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
See comparison in the rule analysis that accompanies the proposed rule revisions.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
See comparison in the rule analysis that accompanies the proposed rule revisions.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Sam Rockweiler
|
608-266-0797
|
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
| ||||
MPSW 3, 5
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Social Worker Credentials
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED X PRO
⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
20.165(1)(g)
| |||
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 policy problem is to correct rules which place a burden on the applicants by going beyond statutory requirements. The legislature removed the 2 year requirement when it inserted the 3,000 hour requirement for supervised clinical social work. The current rule also requires the 1,000 hours of face-to-face client contact to include DSM diagnosis and treatment of individuals which is a requirement that is not in the statutes. Therefore, these two requirements put a higher burden on the applicants than the statutory requirements. In addition, current rules are not in conformity with 2013 Act 114 by requiring the exam may be taken prior to completion of the required degree only upon confirmation from the applicant's school that the applicant is in good standing and is within 6 months of graduation, thus limiting the ability of the applicant to decide when to take the test.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
The rule was posted for economic impact 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)
| ||||
There is no economic or fiscal impact.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The benefit to implementing the rule is to bring the current rules in conformity with the statutes and reduce the burden on the applicant.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The long range implication is the rule will conform to the statute.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
None
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Illinois and Minnesota do not require the clinical hours to be completed in a specific timeframe; Iowa requires 2 years of full time practice or 4,000 hours between a 2 and 6 year period; and Michigan requires at least 4,000 in not less than 2 years. Illinois and Michigan do not specifically require DSM treatment and diagnosis; Iowa requires at least one component of the diagnostic practice must include a working knowledge of DSM; and Minnesota requires both diagnosis and treatment. Our neighboring states do not require the completion of education prior to taking the exam.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|