Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Effect on Small Businesses

We expect considerable interest in the proposed rule revisions. Interested parties may include the nursery, landscape, forestry, seed and agriculture industries, fish farmers, bait dealers, commercial fishers and wholesale fish dealers, aquarium and ornamental fish dealers, game farms, anglers, landowners, gardeners, county and municipal governments, Native American Indian tribes, lake districts, state agencies, and environmental and conservation organizations.

The Wisconsin Invasive Species Council reviewed and assessed a list of species for inclusion in the proposed rule revision and actively engaged their contacts in the process. The Council includes representatives the Departments of Natural Resources; Administration; Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection; Tourism; Transportation and seven other Council members that are drawn from agriculture; nursery industry; NGOs (TNC); UW; and forestry.

As part of the information gathering and outreach process, Invasive Species Outreach Specialist Chrystal Schreck sent a letter to 600 retailers and growers and approximately 1100 licensed growers and dealers from the November 2, 2012 DATCP list of license holders updating them on the process in December, 2012. A series of informal public information sessions about the proposed changes to the rule were held from February 25 — March 15 in Madison, Milwaukee, Spooner, Rhinelander, and La Crosse to inform interested parties that the revisions were under development and to solicit informal comments on the potential impact of the rule. Approximately 41 people attended, and 52 public comments have been received during the informal discussion period.

For small businesses growing woody plants, a number of years have been invested into the infrastructure to grow particular species. To minimize economic impact of listing new species that are invasive in Wisconsin a phase out period of 5 years for trees and shrubs, and 3 years for all other plants once listed as Restricted would both reduce the economic impact and provide a defined period for achieving compliance without using permits for commercial activities. The compliance period would begin once the rule is in effect. Prohibited species would be immediately subject to regulation.

Through staff work with pet stores and other small businesses that had not previously been regulated by the DNR we learned that personal communication, clear and concise guides to regulated species, and education were important. Ensuring personal contact and taking an “education first" approach is consistent with DNR's policy of stepped enforcement and will be maintained for all taxa groups regulated under the invasive species rule.

Enforcement and administration for the invasive species rule and permits are already in place. Some changes due to the increased number of species requiring review and training for identification are anticipated but cost are expected to be absorbed within existing DNR budgets and by DATCP staff who enforce provisions of the rule at licensed nurseries. Staff from both agencies have met and developed guidelines to continue a partnership of joint and cooperative enforcement. Management costs may rise with the addition of new species to the list but as the options for cost-sharing for control have not been funded in the past, it is unlikely that there will be any discernible operational impact. The policy of stepped enforcement is compatible with the changes proposed to the rule as "education first" is the priority for compliance.

Effect on local governmental units

Pursuant to s. 227.137 Wis. Stats., the department solicited comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule, and coordinated with local governments that requested in the preparation of an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). The Village of Cecil requested the department coordinate with them in preparation of the EIA. Department staff have been in consultation with the Village President.

Summary of expected economic and fiscal impacts

The economic cost of listing a species is highly dependent on the impact it is having now, how wide spread it already is, how it is currently being used in trade, and the availability of species that can be substituted for the proposed species. The assumption of a significant impact is a conservative estimate that does not generally take into account the availability of substitute non-invasive species or the value of preventing the introductions of invasive species. The impact of removing newly regulated organisms from trade has a potentially high short term impact. It is anticipated that businesses will substitute alternative, non-invasive species over time. The high estimate also reflects the diversity of species under assessment, as well as the fact that a number of these species may be used by various sectors of society. During the species assessment process, the economic costs and benefits were discussed for each species considered for inclusion in the rule revisions. Certain species may have larger potential economic impacts than others and will be highlighted in the discussion that follows.

Summary of expected benefits of revisions to the rule

Updating the regulated list of invasive species under ch. NR 40 to include species that if removed from trade, or subject to reasonable precautions to prevent their spread can be contained, slowed, or prevented from establishing in Wisconsin reduces the ecological and economic harm caused by these invasive species in the future. Listing species under the invasive species rule encourages action across jurisdictions and can focus control and containment efforts, improving their effectiveness. Invasive species are species that are non-native to Wisconsin and cause or have the potential to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. By regulating these species that have been identified as causing or potentially causing harm and that have the potential to be controlled through regulation the intent is to create the largest possible benefit to both the economy and the department's mission to protect and manage the resources of the state. These rule revisions provide valuable economic benefits by reducing future control and management costs for regulated invasive species.

The alternative considered in the detailed Economic Impact Analysis report is not listing additional invasive species for regulation. Past efforts to quantify where the economic impact from controlling invasive species falls have identified that individual landowners generally bear the highest cost to mitigate the damage these species cause while the economic benefits of continued use of a species are limited to a much smaller contingent. The distributed impact of not listing species that are invasive species is likely to be greater.

Long range projections

The long range economic impacts include control costs, costs to comply with both the list of regulated species and with the required reasonable precautions, and increased enforcement burdens. The control costs for prohibited species where control is required when feasible will increase somewhat with the increased number of species listed as some of these species are likely to be introduced to Wisconsin and spread. However, it is anticipated that with a changing climate, continually increasing trade and exchange of materials, and the dispersal from populations already established, that the cost to control invasive species in Wisconsin will increase independent of the proposed regulation, and that regulation will reduce the number of these species being introduced.

The increased number of regulated species will reduce or eliminate those particular species in trade without restricting commerce overall since substitution of non-regulated species is likely. The long range implications for businesses are generally low as the initial cost to remove a species from sale and develop sources and propagation methods for substitute species will occur over a 1-7 year period and not reoccur. Costs to comply with reasonable precautions will be ongoing and are likely to decrease with time as new methods and tools increase the efficiency of these actions. The required reasonable precautions will continue to have benefits by reducing the likelihood that multiple species will spread through known pathways such as mowing equipment, forestry activities, boating, and nursery sales. The benefits of preventing the spread of invasive species will continue as long as the requirement to employ reasonable precautions remains in place.

The increased enforcement burden will require that both Department of Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection staff will spend more time reviewing and learning the listed species and working with regulated parties. It is anticipated that these increased costs will be absorbed by the existing staff and program.

The Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail], or by calling [phone].

Environmental Analysis

The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on comments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.

Fiscal Estimate Summary

The economic cost of listing a species is highly dependent on the impact it is having now, how wide spread it already is, how it is currently being used in trade, and the availability of species that can be substituted for the proposed species. The assumption of a significant impact is a conservative estimate that does not generally take into account the availability of substitute non-invasive species or the value of preventing the introductions of invasive species. The impact of removing newly regulated organisms from trade has a potentially high short term impact. It is anticipated that businesses will substitute alternative, non-invasive species over time. The high estimate also reflects the diversity of species under assessment, as well as the fact that a number of these species may be used by various sectors of society. During the species assessment process, the economic costs and benefits were discussed for each species considered for inclusion in the rule revisions.

To determine implementation and compliance costs expected to be incurred, DNR Invasive Species Team staff and Wisconsin Invasive Species Council members compiled a list of individuals and organizations who might be economically impacted by the proposed rule revisions or were affected by invasive species. Types of positive and negative effects from both regulating and not regulating were identified along with a method on how they might be quantified. Given the unknowns and the complexity of assessing the impacts, a relative impact of low-moderate-high (L/M/H) was determined. The economic cost of listing a species is highly dependent on its commercial uses, distribution, response to control tools currently available, level of impact, management needs, etc.

Agency Contact Person

Dreux Watermolen, Section Chief, Social Science Services Section, 101 S. Webster St., P.O. Box 7921 SS/7, Madison, WI 53707-7921. [phone], [e-mail].

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
⍽ Original   X Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter NR 40, Invasive Species Identification, Classification and Control
3. Subject
Revisions to classify additional invasive species into existing categories established in NR 40, address accomomodations to facilitate compliance with NR 40, clarify language, and improve organization of the rule.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect X Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs X 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		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
Revisions of NR 40 will classify additional invasive species into existing categories established in ch. NR 40, Wis. Admin. Code, making them subject to existing administrative rules and statutes that regulate the introduction, possession, transfer, and transport of invasive species in order to prevent them from becoming established in Wisconsin or to prevent already-established invasive species from spreading with in the state. When ch. NR 40 became effective Sept. 1, 2009, a number of invasive species were not included pending additional assessment. During the public input and drafting processes for the 2009 rule, it was recognized that many additional species may need to be evaluated and, if appropriate, categorized and listed under this rule. Most of these species are used by some sector of society and we need to get input from the affected stakeholders. The requested current rule change will add species of terrestrial plants, aquatic plants, vertebrates, and both terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates to the invasive species rule. Other proposed revisions will facilitate compliance with NR 40, clarify language, and improve organization of the rule.
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.
Affected parties may include the nursery, landscape, forestry, seed and agriculture industries, fish farmers, bait dealers, commercial fishers and wholesale fish dealers, aquarium and ornamental fish dealers, game farms, anglers, landowners, gardeners, county and municipal governments, Native American Indian tribes, lake districts, state agencies, and environmental and conservation organizations. The Wisconsin Invasive Species Council reviewed and assessed a list of species for inclusion in the proposed rule revision and actively engaged their contacts in the process. The Council includes representatives the Departments of Natural Resources; Administration; Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection; Commerce; Tourism; Transportation and seven other Council members that are drawn from agriculture; nursery industry; NGOs (TNC); UW; and forestry. As part of the information gathering and outreach process, a letter was sent to 600 retailers and growers and approximately 1,100 licensed growers and dealers from the November 2, 2012 DATCP list of license holders updating them on the process in December 2012. A series of informal public information sessions about the proposed changes to the rule were held from February 25 - March 15 in Madison, Milwaukee, Spooner, Rhinelander, and La Crosse to inform interested parties that the revisions were under development and to solicit informal comments on the potential impact of the rule. Approximately 41 people attended and 52 public comments were received during the informal discussion period. Between October 28 and December 31, 2013, the department solicited comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule revision. The preliminary Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis were updated based on the economic comments received. Prompted by public comments received on the economic impacts of the proposed rule changes, it was determined that the plant bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta) does not meet the definition of prohibited under NR 40 because eradication and containment is not feasible. This plant was removed from the proposed list of prohibited species included in the initial board order.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Pursuant to s. 227.137 Wis. Stats., the department solicited comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule, and coordinated with local governments that requested in the preparation of an Economic Imapct Analysis (EIA). The Village of Cecil requested the department coordinate with them in preparation of the EIA. Department staff have been in consultation with the Village President.
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 economic cost of listing a species is highly dependent on the impact it is having now, how wide spread it already is, how it is currently being used in trade, and the availability of species that can be substituted for the proposed species. The assumption of a significant impact is a conservative estimate that does not generally take into account the availability of substitute non-invasive species or the value of preventing the introductions of invasive species. The impact of removing newly regulated organisms from trade has a potentially high short term impact. It is anticipated that businesses will substitute alternative, non-invasive species over time. The high estimate also reflects the diversity of species under assessment, as well as the fact that a number of these species may be used by various sectors of society. During the species assessment process, the economic costs and benefits were discussed for each species considered for inclusion in the rule revisions. Certain species may have larger potential economic impacts than others and will be highlighted in the discussion that follows.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Updating the regulated list of invasive species under NR 40 to include species that if removed from trade, or subject to reasonable precautions to prevent their spread can be contained, slowed, or prevented from establishing in Wisconsin reduces the ecological and economic harm caused by these invasive species in the future. The Wisconsin Invasive Species Council and the DNR's Strategic Plan for Invasive species estimated financial impacts of invasive species and illustrated the fiscal significance of updating the list. Listing species under the invasive species rule encourages action across jurisdictions and can focus control and containment efforts, improving their effectiveness. Invasive species are species that are non-native to Wisconsin and cause or have the potential to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. By regulating these species that have been identified as both causing or potentially causing harm and that have the potential to be controlled through regulation, the intent is to create the largest possible benefit to both the economy and the Department's mission to protect and manage the resources of the state. These rule revisions provide valuable economic benefits by reducing future control and management costs for regulated invasive species. The alternative considered in the detailed Economic Impact Analysis report is not listing additional invasive species for regulation. Past efforts to quantify where the economic impact from controlling invasive species falls have identified that individual landowners generally bear the highest cost to mitigate the damage these species cause while the economic benefits of continued use of a species are limited to a much smaller contingent. Other adversely affected entities include land managers (NGOs, State and local government, utilities, and the forest business). The distributed impact of not listing species that are invasive species is likely to be greater.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range economic impacts include control costs, costs to comply with both the list of regulated species and with the required reasonable precautions, and increased enforcement burdens. The control costs for prohibited species where control is required when feasible will increase somewhat with the increased number of species listed as some of these species are likely to be introduced to Wisconsin and spread. However, it is anticipated that with a changing climate, continually increasing trade and exchange of materials, and the dispersal from populations already established, that the cost to control invasive species in Wisconsin will increase independent of the proposed regulation, and that regulation will reduce the number of these species being introduced. The increased number of regulated species will reduce or eliminate those particular species in trade without restricting commerce overall since substitution of non-regulated species is likely. The long range implications for businesses are generally low as the initial cost to remove a species from sale and develop sources and propagation methods for substitute species will occur over a 1-7 year period and not reoccur. Costs to comply with reasonable precautions will be ongoing and are likely to decrease with time as new methods and tools increase the efficiency of these actions. The required reasonable precautions will continue to have benefits by reducing the likelihood that multiple species will spread through known pathways such as mowing equipment, forestry activities, boating, and nursery sales. The benefits of preventing the spread of invasive species will continue as long as the requirement to employ reasonable precautions remains in place. The increased enforcement burden will require that both Department of Natural Resources and Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection staff will spend more time reviewing and learning the listed species and working with regulated parties. It is anticipated that these increased costs will be absorbed by the existing staff and programs.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
There are no known proposed federal regulations that would provide the ability for the state to act when newly establishing invasive species are discovered. Existing regulations address a narrow subset of noxious weeds under the Federal Noxious Weed Act (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq; 88 Stat, 2148) or animals under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), primarily species that are already too widespread for a more cost-effective prevention approach.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
* Illinois: The Department of Agriculture maintains a statutory list under Illinois Noxious Weed Law of about 9 species (http://www.agr.state.il.us/Laws/Regs/8iac220.pdf) and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources links to a more comprehensive list of 102 invasive species and a shorter list of plants, animals, insects and diseases (http://www.invasive.org/illinois/SpeciesofConcern.html). * Iowa: Regulates several species of aquatic invasive plants - 6, aquatic invasive invertebrates, and invasive fish - 7. (http://www.iowadnr.gov/idnr/Fishing/AboutFishinginIowa/FightingInvasiveSpecies/AquaticInvasiveInvertabrates.aspx) * Michigan: Regulates a number of invasive aquatic plants - 18, fish - 12 plus all snakeheads, and other animals - 11 through Act 451 and requires prevention actions especially for aquatic invasive species (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(brw3y4554cagkv4554a24a45))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-451-1994-iii-2-1-wildlife-conservation-413.pdf) * Minnesota: Regulates both aquatic and terrestrial invasive species in a process similar to Wisconsin with prohibited, restricted, and non-regulated categories as well as prevention requirements including regulating the transport of water. The species regulated as prohibited include aquatic plants - 14 plus all federally listed species except Ipomoea aquatica, fish - 14, aquatic invertebrates - 5, mammals - 4. The species regulated as restricted include aquatic plants - 6, birds - 3, fish - 5, and aquatic invertebrates - 3. In addition all crayfish are regulated.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Dreux Watermolen, Section Chief, Social Science Services				[phone]

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)

[Detailed EIA report attached]

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

Wisconsin Invasive Species Council, Wisconsin Nursery Industry member survey of the economic impact of potentially invasive species in Wisconsin, five informal public meetings to discuss recommended changes to the rule, Department Invasive Species Team staff, WDNR's Economist, and planned: collect public comments during the EIA comment period. Department staff met with the Small Business Environmental Council in January 2014 to discuss the proposed impacts to small businesses.

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

X 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 ⍽ Other, describe:

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

For small businesses growing woody plants, a number of years have been invested into the infrastructure to grow particular species. To minimize economic impact of listing new species that are invasive in Wisconsin a phase out period of 5 years for trees and shrubs, and 3 years for all other plants once listed as Restricted would both reduce the economic impact and provide a defined period for achieving compliance without using permits for commercial activities. The compliance period would begin once the rule is in effect. Prohibited species would be immediately subject to regulation. Through staff work with pet stores and other small businesses that had not previously been regulated by the DNR we learned that personal communication, clear and concise guides to regulated species, and education were important. Ensuring personal contact and taking an “education first" approach is consistent with DNR's policy of stepped enforcement and will be maintained for all taxa groups regulated under the invasive species rule.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

Enforcement and administration for the invasive species rule and permits are already in place. Some changes due to the increased number of species requiring review and training for identification are anticipated but cost are expected to be absorbed within existing DNR budgets and by DATCP staff who enforce provisions of the rule at licensed nurseries. Staff from both agencies have met and developed guidelines to continue a partnership of joint and cooperative enforcement. Management costs may rise with the addition of new species to the list but as the options for cost-sharing for control have not been funded in the past, it is unlikely that there will be any discernible operational impact. The policy of stepped enforcement is compatible with the changes proposed to the rule as “education first" is the priority for compliance.

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

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services —
Medical Examining Board

rulemaking_notices CR 14-033 CR 14-033

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Medical Examining Board in ss. 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2) (a), and 448.13, Wis. Stats., and interpreting s. 448.13, Wis. Stats., the Medical Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend section Med 13.06, relating to continuing education audits.

Hearing Information

Date:   Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Time:   9:30 a.m.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  (enter at 55 North Dickinson Street)
  Madison, Wisconsin

Appearances at the Hearing

Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions, and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submission

Comments may be submitted to Shawn Leatherwood, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, WI 53708-8935, or by email to [e-mail]. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on May 21, 2014, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.

Copies of Rule

Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Shawn Leatherwood, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, by email at [e-mail] or on our website at http://dsps.wi.gov/Default.aspx?Page=44e541e8-abdd- 49da-8fde-046713617e9e.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Safety and Professional Services

Statutes interpreted

Section 448.13 (1m), Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 15.08 (5) (b), 227.11 (2) (a), and 448.13, Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Pursuant to ss. 15.08 (5) (b) and 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Medical Examining Board, (Board), is generally empowered by the legislature to promulgate rules that will provide guidance within the profession and rules that interpret the statutes it enforces or administers. The Board administers s. 448.13, Stats., which sets forth the Board's authority to conduct random audits of continuing education compliance. The proposed rule seeks to require the performance of audits every two years in accordance with s. 448.13 (1m), Stats. Therefore, the Board is both generally and specifically empowered to promulgate the proposed rule.

Related statute or rule

None.

Plain language analysis

The Medical Examining Board reviewed its administrative rules and determined that there was no mechanism to require regular audits of licensee's compliance with continuing education requirement specified s. Med 13.02 (1). The Board sought to rectify the matter by requiring a random audit of licensee's continuing education compliance every two years. Auditing licensee's compliance with the continuing education requirement will act as a deterrent to non-compliance and ensure licensees are maintaining their skills in keeping with the highest standards within the profession.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation

None.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Illinois: Licensees in Illinois have a 36 month renewal cycle in which they must complete 150 hours of continuing medical education. Applicants are required to certify on their renewal application that they have complied with the continuing education requirement. It is the responsibility of each renewal applicant to retain or otherwise produce additional evidence of compliance in case of a random audit. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68 §1285.110 d).

Iowa: Licensees are required to maintain documentation evidencing completion of continuing education for five years after the date of continuing education and training. Conducting an audit is not compulsory but if an audit is conducted the licensee must respond within 30 days of a request made by the board. Iowa Admin. Code r. 653-11.4 (7).

Michigan: Licensees must complete 150 hours of continuing education in 3 years. Licensees certify at the time of renewal that they have completed the required continuing education and must retain evidence of his or her compliance for a period of 4 years from the date of application. Mich. Admin. Code r. 388.2381.

Minnesota: Minnesota has a 3 year cycle in which to complete 75 hours of continuing education. Licensees provide a signed statement to the board indicating compliance. Licensees that fail to comply are subject to discipline. Minn. R. 5605.0100.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Board reviewed its current administrative rules and observed that the rules did not require a standardized audit of licensee's compliance with continuing education requirement. The proposed rule seeks to address this concern. No other factual data or analytical methodologies were used. The Board ensures the accuracy, integrity, objectivity and consistency of data were used in preparing the proposed rule and related analysis.

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

These proposed rules do not have an economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at [e-mail], or by calling [phone].

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are attached.

Agency Contact Person

Shawn Leatherwood, Administrative Rules Coordinator, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone [phone]; email at [e-mail].

Text of Rule

Section 1. MED 13.06 is amended to read:

Med 13.06 The board shall conduct a random audit of licensees on a biennial basis for compliance with continuing education requirements stated in s. Med 13.02 (1). The board may require any physician to submit his or her evidence of compliance with the continuing education requirements to the board during the biennium for which 30 hours of credit are required for registration to audit compliance.

Section 2. Effective Date. The rules adopted in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, pursuant to s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

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
Med 13.06
3. Subject
Continuing education audits
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   X PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			20.165(1) (hg)
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		X Increase Costs X 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 Medical Examining Board reviewed its administrative rules concerning continuing education and determined that licensees were not being regularly audited for compliance with the continuing education requirement specified in s. Med 13.02 (1). The Board concluded that mandatory audits should take place every two years to ensure that licensees are acquiring the required 30 hours of continuing education. The proposed rule will amend s. Med 13.06 to reflect that change.
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 on the Department of Safety and Professional Service's website for 14 days in order to solicit comments from businesses, associations representing businesses, local governmental units and individuals that may be affected by the rule. No comments were received.
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)
This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on specific businesses, 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
The benefit of implementing the rule ensures that licensees will maintain their skill level and knowledge base by maintaining their required 30 hours of continuing education.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Implementing the proposed rule will act as a deterrent to non-compliance with the continuing education requirement.
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: Licensees in Illinois have a 36 month renewal cycle in which they must complete 150 hours of continuing medical education. Applicants are required to certify on their renewal application that they have complied with the continuing education requirement. It is the responsibility of each renewal applicant to retain or otherwise produce additional evidence of compliance in case of a random audit. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 68 §1285.110 d). Iowa: Licensees are required to maintain documentation evidencing completion of continuing education for five years after the date of continuing education and training. Conducting an audit is not compulsory but if an audit is conducted the licensee must respond within 30 days of a request made by the board. Iowa Admin. Code r. 653-11.4 (7). Michigan: Licensees must complete 150 hours in 3 years. Licensees certify at the time of renewal that they have completed the required continuing education and must retain evidence of his or her compliance for a period of 4 years from the date of application. Mich. Admin. Code r. 388.2381. Minnesota: Minnesota has a 3 year cycle in which to complete 75 hours of continuing education. Licensees provide a signed statement to the board indicating compliance. Licensees that fail to comply are subject to discipline. Minn. R. 5605.0100.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Shawn Leatherwood				608-261-4438

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