Under current rule, numerous state parks are listed in the table that establishes deer seasons because the department was required to establish hunting seasons in state parks by administrative rule. Under 2011 ACT 168, hunting is allowed at state parks except where, or at times when, the Natural Resources Board has prohibited the activity in order to protect public safety or a unique plant or animal community. Because the old presumption that state parks are closed unless opened by rule has been replaced by a presumption that state parks are open unless board action has been taken to close them, most state park names have been removed from the table. Those parks will be open to deer hunting under normal statewide regulations at times when hunting has not been prohibited for safety related purposes by natural resources board order. A number of parks, which had deer hunting seasons or regulations which are not the same as the ones that apply statewide are still found in the season table in order to preserve those unique seasons or regulations. All state park deer management unit number designations have been repealed and state parks are simply referred to by their name. Current rules require that deer hunters in state parks in the CWD management zone obtain a free access permit to a park. The number of access permits is not restricted. This rule repeals that requirement because it is no longer needed considering that access to other parks will not be monitored to this extent. Finally, the deer hunt at the Loew Lake Unit of the Kettle Moraine State Forest, which had been a limited entry/draw hunt, will now be open to participation by any licensed hunter. However, this season will continue to be muzzleloader only. These changes are made for consistency with other changes made at state parks which previously had limited entry hunts.
These rules establish three additional season framework options which the department could implement upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the county deer management advisory councils in a management zone. Those options include an antlerless deer only season framework for all archery or firearm seasons. The second option is restrictions on the harvest of bucks during a holiday season to only those with four antler points on a side or an antler spread that is wider than the spread of the deer's ears in an alert position. The third is that the harvest of bucks during the traditional nine-day firearm season, and other deer seasons which are open during that period, could be limited to the first two days of the season.
The trustee's report generally recommends a more passive approach than current department policy to the management of chronic wasting disease. This approach is reflected by the establishment of deer seasons in CWD affected areas that are similar to other areas of the state. Management of CWD in the state's deer herd is still important under these rules. These rules retain the firearm deer season occurring over the Christmas holiday, although it will now end on January 1. These rules modify the current CWD zone management system by designating it as the CWD-affected area using county boundaries to describe the zone instead of the previous DMU configuration based on roads and natural features such as rivers. A process for efficiently adding new counties as CWD-affected areas when the disease is discovered in new areas is created. The department currently establishes numeric population goals for deer units that are in a CWD zone. Those goals are modified by these rules so that they are consistent with the manner in which objectives for other units are expressed.
This rulemaking establishes a deer management assistance program that will allow landowners and hunters to work together with the department to manage deer on a site-specific basis. The program will actively involve members of the public in the collection, analysis, and reporting of deer harvest information and improve management of the deer herd at the local level. The rule establishes enrollment fees for participation in the program and statute has established that revenue will be credited back to implementation of the program. This proposal establishes a separate half-price fee of $6.00 for antlerless deer hunting permits obtained through participation in the program. The lower fee is intended to be an incentive for participation. These rules allow the sales of antlerless deer hunting permits to a landowner or primary contact who is enrolled in the deer management assistance program or their authorized representative. The permits could then be transferred, for no more than the actual cost, to hunters who would be able to use the tags on the enrolled property. The program is a central feature of the report which recommended that the department establish: a) applicability to private and publicly accessible lands, b) initial areas eligible to participate, c) administration of DMAP, d) funding, e) personnel and training, f) minimum property size to participate, g) fees, h) participation requirements, i) data collection requirements, j) registration of deer harvested on DMAP properties, k) data analysis and reporting, and l) assessment of DMAP effectiveness.
Chapter NR 13 is intended to regulate off-reservation treaty rights of treaty rights participants recognized by Lac Courte Oreilles Band v. Voigt, 700 F. 2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983). Modifications to Ch. NR 13 update a cross reference with Ch. NR 10. Other out-of-date cross-references exist in this chapter but are not revised here as that might be more appropriate as a stand-alone, more thorough review. The report did not recommend changes to this chapter of administrative code.
A significant portion of this board order is dedicated to updating administrative code so that it is consistent with 2013 ACT 61 which establishes 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 related to the use of crossbows, such as the allowable uses of carcass tags, are also written as directed by the ACT. The department has limited discretion in rulemaking for the 2014 and 2015 seasons. Beginning in 2016, the department will have much greater statutory authority and more decision making ability. This board order does make numerous remedial revisions to reflect the new status of crossbows as generally allowed for hunting. Throughout the rule, references to “archery" and “crossbow" are intended to reflect statutory language which creates an “archer hunting" license and a “crossbow hunting" license.
Additional remedial revisions reflect that statutes now allow the possession of loaded, uncased handguns by people who are licensed to possess a concealed handgun, including in department closed areas and game refuges where possession of other weapons is restricted.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis
The department estimates that the economic impact of these rules will be none or minimal and, pursuant to 2011 Executive Order 50, facilitated a 14 day period for comment on a draft economic impact analysis. The comment period began on October 7 and ended on October 21, 2013. Although s. Ch. 227.14 Stats., does not require an economic impact analysis for emergency rules, an analysis was prepared for companion emergency rules as well as for this board order.
This proposal modifies rules that establish the department's habitat and deer harvest management strategies. Examples of the new management efforts include: increased emphasis of habitat management on private land through the deer management assistance program, eliminating the requirement to use a specific method of measuring and estimating deer populations even though that model may still be used and considered, and new ways to describe desired deer population levels. These rules will result in moderate revisions to regulations that apply to individual deer hunters. Examples of the types of changes proposed include adjustments to deer management unit boundaries, simplified harvest registration procedures, different deer hunting regulations on private versus public access lands, and different uses and changes in the availability of antlerless deer harvest permits.
Deer population, harvest, and habitat management affect many entities in this state. A broad description of affected industries includes agriculture, forestry, tourism, and retail. Governments may be impacted by these rules because many do have programs to manage nuisance deer locally. Many non-profit groups are focused on natural resource conservation, wildlife resources, or deer in particular, and may be affected by these rules.
The department anticipates there will be no or a minimal effect on the financial health of industries, governments, and groups. The department anticipates there will be no economic effects of these regulations for individual hunters and landowners.
Affected entities are likely to base their evaluations of economic impact on their opinions of whether or not the rules will result in deer population changes. For instance, agriculture and forest-products interests may benefit from low deer populations and resulting low levels of crop and tree damage. The tourism and retail industries may benefit from high deer populations that result in greater enthusiasm and participation in deer hunting. This rule package will be designed to balance competing interests with a different approach than current rules.
It is important to note that the department is statutorily prohibited from managing deer populations with regulations that require a hunter to first harvest an antlerless deer before harvesting a buck. The department also lacks rulemaking authority for certain deer hunting season frameworks. These changes to the department's regulatory authority result from previously enacted statutes and they were not considered as part of an economic analysis prepared for these rules. While deer may have significant positive or negative impacts to different entities, removal of these harvest regulations likely moderates the economic impact of this rule package.
The department anticipates that there will be no or very few implementation and compliance costs for the affected entities. These rules will not establish reporting or compliance requirements or other regulations for small business. A possible outcome of these rules is the elimination of deer registration stations at local businesses throughout the state. The department has summarized the value of registration fees paid by the department to businesses, and related impacts of this voluntary program, in the economic impact analysis.
This is not a complete estimate of economic impacts but, rather, a summary which indicates that these rules will have no or minimal economic effects. The final economic analysis for these rules includes a description of the specific impacts of deer and deer hunting in this state based on surveys and research done by the department and other state and federal agencies. However, even though significant research exists, the impact of wild deer on the environment and to people under various conditions cannot be anticipated with exact precision. The final analysis includes significant narrative descriptions of anticipated economic impacts.
Anticipated Private Sector Costs
These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no costs are associated with compliance to these rules.
Effects on Small Business
These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under 227.114(6) or 227.14(2g).
Environmental Impact
The rulemaking process for Board Order WM-11-13 constitutes an equivalent analysis action, under the current s. NR 150.20 (2) (b), Wis. Adm. Code, and additional environmental analysis is not required.
Economic Impact on Small Business
Pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at SmallBusiness@ dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959.
Contact Information
Scott Loomans, (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
Ch. NR 1 Natural Resources Board Policies, NR 8 License and Permit Procedures, NR 10 Game and Hunting, NR 11 Closed Areas, NR 15 Game Refuges, NR 12 Wildlife Damage and Nuisance Control, NR 13 Chippewa Treaty Rights Participants, NR 19 Miscellaneous Fur, Fish, Game and Outdoor Recreation, and NR 45 Use of Department Properties.
3. Subject
Deer management, hunting, and implementation of the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee's Report, Board Orders WM-11-13 and WM-24-13 (E).
4. Fund Sources Affected
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR   FED   PRO   PRS   X SEG   SEG-S
20.370 (Lv), (Hs), (Hx) and (Fq).
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
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
There was dissatisfaction with various aspects of white-tailed deer management and hunting in Wisconsin following the 2009 season. Gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker made a promise to appoint a “Deer Trustee" to review programs. In October of 2011 Dr. James C. Kroll entered into a contract with the State of Wisconsin to conduct an independent, objective and scientifically-based review of Wisconsin's deer management practices. The White-tailed Deer Trustee's report was released to the public in July, 2012.
The objective of the process that resulted in these rules is to integrate the work of the Deer Trustees and the publicly driven action teams into the policies and procedures to enhance deer research, management and hunting in Wisconsin.
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 department solicited comments on the fiscal and economic impacts of these rules during a specific comment period from October 7 through October 21, 2013, at 35 administrative rules hearings held between October 22 and October 31, through written comments on the rule and a survey which was available to the public on the department's website from October 14 through November 8.
Deer population, harvest, and habitat management affect many entities in this state. A broad description of affected industries includes agriculture, forestry, tourism, and retail. Governments may be impacted by these rules because many have programs to manage nuisance deer locally. Many non-profit groups are focused on natural resource conservation, wildlife resources, or deer in particular, and may be affected by these rules.
Affected entities are likely to base their evaluations of economic impact on their opinions of whether-or-not the rules will result in deer population increases, stabilization, or decreases. For instance, agriculture and forest-products interests may benefit from low deer populations and resulting low levels of crop and tree damage. The tourism and retail industries may benefit from high deer populations that result in greater enthusiasm and participation in deer hunting. This rule package is designed to balance competing interests with a different approach than current rules.
It is important to note that the department is statutorily prohibited from utilizing management tools or regulations that had previously been implemented at times when deer populations were 20% or more above established overwinter population goals and not likely to be reduced to goal under standard season frameworks and regulations. Notably, this includes regulations that require a hunter to first harvest an antlerless deer before harvesting a buck. The department also lacks rulemaking authority for certain deer hunting early season frameworks except when a finding of emergency is made under s. 227.24 Stats. These changes to the department's regulatory authority are a result of 2011 ACT 50 and they are not considered as part of an economic analysis prepared for these rules. While deer may have significant positive or negative impacts to different entities, removal of these harvest regulations likely changes the department's ability to manage deer populations in farmland regions. A result is that any economic impact of rule changes the department currently has statutory authority to establish is minimized, especially in farmland regions.
Prior to drafting rule language the department anticipated, in its scope statements for permanent and emergency rules, that the proposal could have a moderate level of economic impact, as described in 2011 Executive Order 50. Upon completion of the public involvement and rule drafting process, the department has revised its estimate and anticipates that these rules will have no or a minimal economic impact locally or statewide.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
During a comment period beginning in September the department solicited comments from local governments using an email distribution list and through posting on a website.
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)
- Economic Impacts -
The department anticipates that there will be no implementation and compliance costs for the affected entities. These rules will not establish reporting or compliance requirements or other regulations for small business.
The state's economy as a whole will continue to benefit from the presence of a well managed deer herd. The management tools established in these rules will ensure that continued opportunities for good hunting and wildlife-based recreation are available well into the future. Like previous rules, a significant purpose for establishing deer population management objectives, managing antlerless deer harvest levels, and focusing hunting activities through programs such as the Deer Management Assistance Program, landowner permits in CWD zones, and the Agricultural Damage Abatement and Assistance program is to maintain a deer herd that is in balance with the needs of industries such as agriculture, forestry, and others as well as with the desires of hunters. In certain urban and agricultural regions the department estimates that deer herds are already increasing under current rules. While increasing deer herds may have negative impacts on industries such as agriculture, the impacts are currently occurring and are in part a result of a lack of hunting access in certain areas and less authority under statutes to implement certain harvest regulations. Increasing deer herds in certain areas following implementation of these rules cannot necessarily be attributed to these rules and is a primary reason for a finding of no or a minimal economic impact.
Health concerns for Wisconsin deer include diseases such as bovine tuberculosis, hemorrhagic disease, and chronic wasting disease (CWD). Of particular interest in Wisconsin is that CWD was first detected in the state on February 28, 2002. The department's goal has been to minimize the negative impact of CWD on deer and elk populations and the state's economy, hunters, landowners and others. The available evidence indicates that CWD has the potential for significant, negative impacts on the future of deer hunting and the related economic benefits of white-tailed deer in Wisconsin. The proposals contained in these rules are not likely to result in a reduction in the rate of infection in deer or geographic location of infected animals. However, the department continues to have the ability to implement strategies recommended in its CWD management plan which could result in reduced deer numbers in affected areas and could help control disease spread. Those include an additional firearm hunting opportunity following the traditional 9-day firearm season, the option to issue landowner permits allowing deer harvest by landowners and their agents following the end of regular seasons, and the option to adopt population objectives and antlerless permit levels that could decrease the density of the deer herd. Under the proposal, the department will continue to provide a free antlerless deer permit which can be used in a CWD-affected county designated by the department. While additional harvest permits will need to be purchased for a fee, part of that fee is earmarked for CWD testing of hunter harvested deer. Continuing to provide low cost CWD testing for hunters may be an important feature to keep hunters interested in harvesting and utilizing their deer. Considering these factors, the department estimates that these rules are unlikely to have a significant impact on the management of CWD. Deer herd monitoring indicates that the prevalence and distribution of the disease has been increasing under current rules - the proposed rules are not likely to have an impact on this trend.
Conflict has occurred between farmers (traditional crop farmers, Christmas tree farmers, orchard growers, cranberry growers, and many other agriculturalists) who are trying to protect their crops and a public who wants abundant deer for viewing and hunting. With the population above state management objectives in certain areas under current rules, deer will likely continue to create agricultural problems. Deer damage complaints outnumber the other three program eligible species combined. Corn, soybeans, sweet corn and hay account for the majority of acreage damaged by deer. The creation of a Deer Management Assistance Program provides another opportunity for management of deer in specific areas which may assist in reducing agricultural damage. Overall, however, the department does not anticipate significant impacts to agriculture specifically from these rule proposals. Additional analysis of the Agricultural Damage and Nuisance Abatement program is found below under the section on fiscal impacts to the department.
White-tailed deer range throughout the state, adapting to every habitat type in Wisconsin. Their ability to live in close proximity to people has allowed deer to flourish in environments with significant human development, thus the agriculture damage they cause is no longer restricted to traditional rural areas. Additionally, damage is not restricted to agricultural products. Again, the department does not anticipate significant impacts from these proposals. Where hunting access is available in proximity to urban areas, the Deer Management Assistance Program may provide additional opportunities for hunters to act as deer managers.
Forest landowners may be economically impacted by white-tailed deer, depending upon their goals and objectives for the land. Economic impacts of deer on forest vegetation focus primarily on the foraging of plants, although antler rubbing on high value forest crops such as Christmas trees can have significant economic impacts as well. There is evidence found in research documenting site specific examples of deer impacts on forest vegetation. The effects of deer on desirable forest vegetation for a specific site can be detrimental and can create economic losses. However, a cumulative approach to assessing the impact of deer on forest landowners and desirable vegetation has not been done. Research to increase our understanding of forest habitat and white-tailed deer, in response to a recommendation of the Deer Trustee's report, is ongoing. The department's estimate that these rules will have no or a minimal effect on the forest products industry is based on estimates that these rules will not result in significant increases of deer population density. These rules maintain existing methods of controlling deer populations including a flexible system for the issuance of antlerless deer harvest permits and a Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims Program for which certain forest products producers are eligible. Additionally, owners of industrial forest may benefit from the services that will be available through the Deer Management Assistance Program.
Vehicle deer collisions are a factor in determining how many deer the public will accept and are a cause of millions of dollars of property damage and personal injury in this state. The total number of deer salvaged after traffic accidents or removed from roadways by contractors was 26,114 in 2011. The actual number of collisions is estimated to be greater. Significant increases in deer numbers may be expected to result in higher numbers of vehicle deer collisions, particularly considering that traffic volume is not likely to decline. A goal of these rule proposals, however, is to continue managing deer herds to be in balance with ecological and social tolerances. The department's estimate that these rules will have none or a minimal effect on the economy as a result of vehicle deer collisions is based on estimates that these rules will not result in a significant increase or decrease in deer population density.
Deer impacts on the ecological composition and function of Wisconsin's ecosystems may be occurring and may have resulting impacts on tourism, gathering wild plants, species other than deer which have economic significance, and other effects. Land use by agriculture, development, silviculture, cessation of fire, and invasive species may be having more wide-sweeping impacts compared to deer.
An outcome of these rules would be the elimination of 626 deer registration stations, most at local businesses such as convenience and sporting goods stores throughout the state. It was noted during the public review periods that taverns also commonly volunteer as registration stations. These rules will relieve businesses of implementation costs they may have voluntarily incurred as registration stations. While these rules will not have any implementation or compliance costs for former registration stations, there may be an economic impact to the businesses whose customers may not come to stores to register deer and spend money on other transactions which are incidental to registering deer. Representatives of tavern owners indicated that this is a concern that they had.
Department payments and distribution of materials to registration stations totalled approximately $182,000 in 2012, a value of approximately $290 on average to an individual registration station. Many stations employ extra help to register deer meaning that direct payments for services may cover costs to register deer but may not have a direct financial benefit. The value of incidental purchases made by deer hunters are likely the primary reason stations volunteer to register deer. Even without registration stations, the economic benefits of deer hunting for convenience stores and other businesses will continue to be significant. This can be seen by the heavy traffic at convenience stores as early as 4:30 a.m., before the season has opened, and the need some stores have to employ extra staff. A likely benefit to convenience stores in general is that spending activity may be distributed more equally between stores, as certain ones will not have the unique selling point of being a registration station. It may be true of taverns as well that customer visits will be distributed more evenly among area businesses. However, the department agrees that individual taverns which had previously been department registration cooperators will see a reduction in business resulting from sales incidental to deer registration. The department is considering ways to help registration stations take advantage of traditions hunters have adopted by stopping at particular businesses to register deer. The department suggests that businesses could continue to assist hunters by advertising that they can register deer electronically using a computer at their location. The department anticipates a continuing need for some in-person registration to collect biological data. Finally, the department plans to phase-in electronic registration which will provide some time for many businesses to plan for the transition. Department staff have heard both positive and negative comments from registration stations about an electronic registration system. At this time, we anticipate the impacts will be minimal under the criteria established in 2011 Executive Order 50.
- Fiscal Impacts on the Department -
Mandatory, in-person registration for deer began in Wisconsin in 1953. A subset of the 626 stations (~110) collect age- and sex-structure data from 20-30,000 deer annually during the traditional 9-day gun season. In-person registration provides accurate counts of annual harvest, recruitment, adult buck mortality rates and sex ratios, deer health assessments, buck antler characteristics, and allows for the collection of biological samples that are used to determine the age structure of the population and for CWD monitoring.
Eliminating or reducing in-person registration of deer will result in savings of approximately $180,000 in supplies and services for maintaining registration stations each year for the department. The department's expenditure authority will not change, allowing a shift of financial resources and staff time to other purposes such as implementation of the Deer Trustee Report recommendation to establish a Deer Management Assistance Program. Based upon a budget analysis for FY13 (through 6/11/13) on all expenditures department wide for the activity codes WMAP (Registration of Deer, Bear, and Turkey) and WMUB (Deer Registration/CWD Sampling), in-person registration costs totaled $674,042.30. Electronic registration costs may be half the amount of in-person during the initial year, and less than $50,000 in future years. This total includes the following expenditures (estimates of potential savings do not include CWD zone expenditures because the department will continue to place an emphasis on contacting hunters and collecting samples in CWD areas):
  Permanent labor & fringe - ($125,158)
  Permanent labor allocables - ($21,353)
  LTE labor & fringe - ($22,767)
  LTE labor allocables - ($327)
  Total supplies & services - mileage, station materials, station payments, aging materials, and stipends ($182,056)
  CWD registration and sampling expense – ($322,381)
  CWD permanent labor & fringe*
  CWD LTE labor & fringe*
  Total supplies & services* - CWD carcass tags, bonus buck tags, rent, mileage, electric bills, cell phone bills, CWD samples, and stipends
The department evaluated the following benefits and drawbacks to eliminating in person registration of deer. The benefit of increased convenience to deer hunters was seen as a significant improvement.
Pros:
  Significant reduction in staff time and costs
  Increase in customer convenience
  Immediate collection and tabulation of harvest data
Cons:
  Alternative methods (potentially less accurate) of collecting age data would have to be considered
  CWD samples would become difficult to collect
  Economic impact to registration stations (loss of revenue from payments and business)
  The face-to-face interaction between DNR staff and hunters and the social aspect of hunting would be lost
  Potential enforcement issues
  Potential loss in public trust of population estimates
The department currently administers an Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims Program which reimburses participating farmers for damage caused by certain wildlife species, including deer. These rules do not impact the organization of the program or rules for participation. The program is currently funded in part from the sales of bonus anterless deer permits. It is likely that bonus antlerless deer permit sales will increase under this proposal, resulting in an increase in available funding to reimburse farmers for damage and for the costs of abatement measures. Under the proposal, the department will charge a fee of $12.00 for anterless permits issued in a CWD management zone which are free under current rule. While $5.00 of the cost of those permits is now statutorily earmarked for CWD management, the remaining $7.00 is earmarked for the damage program. Another possible opportunity for increased funding exists in units which are designated herd control under current rules, antlerless deer permits are free except for a $2.00 issuance fee. Under the proposal, one free antlerless deer permit for farmland units would still be included with the purchase of a deer hunting license, but additional permits would cost $12.00 and the revenue is earmarked for the damage and abatement program. Charging a fee for additional antlerless permits may result in hunters obtaining fewer antlerless permits and harvesting fewer deer overall, potentially offsetting economic benefits to farmers of increased damage program funding. However, decreased antlerless harvest is not an assured outcome. Hunters may be more motivated to utilize permits they have spent money on versus free permits. When statutes were changed to allow the sales of additional turkey hunting permits for $10.00 each to residents, versus issuing them for free, demand for extra turkey hunting permits remained very high. Under these proposed rules, the department anticipates continuing to generate enough revenue to reimburse farmers for the full amount of damage allowed under the program. The department anticipates that it will not need to prorate the amount paid for claims at current or a slightly increased level of agricultural damage claims.
In the past, changes in the issuance of hunting licenses and permits have resulted in fiscal impacts from the expenses of revising automated license system programming. However, the department's current contract already contains many options for the issuance of $12.00 bonus permits and free permits with the issuance of archery and firearm deer licenses. Implementation of these rules will require name changes and updates to descriptions of the allowable use of tags, but may not require extensive or expensive programming to create new license types. Additionally, these rule revisions may occur concurrently or will be phased in with a new contract for administration of an automated licensing system and can be included in the initial construction of a new system without additional expense.
These proposed rules will establish that bonus deer hunting permits are valid either on lands which are open to public hunting or on private lands not open to public hunting, but not both. This will be more restrictive than current rules on where bonus permits may be used. A result of this restriction is that many hunters will need to purchase more permits in order to be able to hunt antlerless deer where in locations they have previously hunted than under current rules. While this could result in an increase in the number of bonus permits sold, it is also likely that hunters will limit the locations of their hunting activity to one type of land only. The impact of this proposal on bonus permit sales is undetermined at this time but is not likely to be significant or significantly impact the wildlife damage abatement and claims program or funding for CWD testing which are partially funded with this revenue.
The fiscal impact to the department of these proposed rules is expected to be an effect that can be absorbed under the department's current budget. These rules will result in savings of staff time with reduced duties to set up registration stations, keep them supplied through the season, collect registration stubs, and enter data. These savings in staff time will be offset by new emphasis on consulting with owners of private and public land through the newly established Deer Management Assistance Program. The level of offset will be a result of the level of landowner and manager interest and will vary as the program becomes established and cannot be anticipated at this time. The department's Bureau of Law Enforcement has established a flexible system of conservation and environmental law enforcement and already places a significant emphasis on the most popular activities like deer hunting. Deer hunting and deer herd management has historically been a significant source of segregated funds for department management, licensing, and enforcement activities and will continue to be a significant expenditure under these proposed rules.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
These proposed rules establish an additional method of managing deer harvest, particularly at the local level, through the deer management assistance program. This management authority may be important considering that the department is prevented from using previously successful, but less popular, deer management regulations under s. 29.016 Stats. The department is proposing season frameworks in these rules that are more likely to be accepted by hunters but which will still result in deer hunting opportunities and provide deer herd management opportunities.
Not implementing these rules will result in maintaining the current deer season frameworks. Maintaining the current deer season framework will not address dissatisfaction that some members of the public have expressed to the department, legislators, and governor. The establishment of a Deer Management Assistance Program is statutorily required.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
White-tailed deer will still be a prominent feature of Wisconsin's landscape whose presence generates economic activity from the related expenditures of hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts. Deer have historically impacted small and large businesses, and will continue to do so. However, the negative economic impacts of deer abundance on agriculture, forestry, and other industries is not expected to increase as a result of these rules.
15. 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 and the federal government is not involved in any large scale way with deer herd management in Wisconsin.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
All of Wisconsin's surrounding states use hunting seasons to provide hunting opportunities and allow or encourage antlerless deer harvest and other strategies to manage white-tailed deer herds. All of the surrounding states utilize a range of hunting seasons and allow the use of archery equipment, firearms and muzzleloading firearms at certain times. The seasons proposed in this rule order do not vary in any significant way from the hunting opportunities that are available in other states.
Illinois
The Illinois archery season runs from October 1, 2013 - January 19, 2014 except that it is closed during the firearm deer season in those portions of the state that hold a firearm deer season. Illinois has two periods for firearm deer hunting, a muzzleloader season, and special CWD and antlerless-only seasons. The first firearm season in 2013 is November 22 - 24 and the second season is December 5 - 8. The muzzleloader season is Dec. 13 - 15. The special CWD and antlerless-only seasons occur on December 26 - 29 and January 17 - 19, 2014. A youth firearm deer hunt is open on October 12 - 14. All firearm hunting permits are distributed first through a tiered drawing system where residents have a higher chance of being selected for a permit than non-residents, then through a random daily drawing, and finally they are offered over-the-counter on a first-come first-served basis until the unit's quota is reached. Hunters who are eligible to purchase a hunting permit receive an either-sex permit and one bonus antlerless-only permit. There is no limit on the number of resident archery licenses that will be issued, and each resident archery license includes an antlerless-only and an either sex permit. Non-resident archery licenses also include an either sex permit and an antlerless-only permit, but are allocated through a lottery system.
Iowa
In Iowa, there are two archery seasons, two muzzleloader season, and two shotgun seasons. There is also an antlerless-only season, a youth hunt for residents, and a holiday season for non-residents. The archery season runs from October 1 – December 6 and December 23 – January 10, 2014. The muzzleloader seasons run from October 12 – 20 (residents only) and December 23 – January 10, 2014. The shotgun seasons run from December 7 – 11 and December 14 – 22. The antlerless-only season runs from January 11 – 19, 2014, the youth hunt runs from September 21 – October 6, and the holiday season runs from December 24 – January 2, 2014. When a hunter purchases an `Any Deer License', they are entitled to harvesting either a buck or an antlerless deer statewide. Hunters also have the option to purchase an `Antlerless-only License' which is valid for a specific zone in the state. The number of antlerless licenses available in any particular zone is determined by a quota system, and hunters are able to purchase these licenses on a first-come first-served basis until the quota is reached.
Michigan
Michigan has one firearm season, two archery seasons, and one muzzleloader season, as well as two antlerless-only seasons and a youth hunt. The firearm season runs November 15 – 30. The archery seasons run October 1 – November 14 and December 1 – January 1, 2014. Michigan's muzzleloader-only season season is split into three zones with each zone's season occurring in December and lasting for either 10 or 17 days. The antlerless-only seasons run from September 21-22 and December 23 – January 1, 2014 and the youth hunt occurs on Sept 21-22. Hunters interested in harvesting an antlerless deer must purchase an antlerless license that is valid within a specific DMU for use on either public land or private land. In some DMUs, these licenses may only be purchased over the counter, whereas in other DMU's there is an application process and drawing.
Minnesota
Minnesota has one archery season, one firearm season that is divided into four separate zones, and one muzzleloader season. There is also a special archery season on Camp Ripley (a military base) and a youth season. The archery season runs from September 14 – December 31. The firearm season runs November 9 - 17, November 9 - 24, or November 23 - December 1 depending on the zone. The muzzleloader season runs November 30 - December 15. The special archery hunt on Camp Ripley occurs on October 26 - 27 and November 2 - 3. The youth hunt runs from October 17 - 20. Antlerless permits are distributed through a license lottery in “lottery" areas of the state. In “Hunter Choice", “Managed", or “Intensive" areas licenses are either-sex. Bonus permits for antlerless deer are available over the counter for use in managed and intensive areas.
17. Contact Name
18. Contact Phone Number
Scott Loomans
(608) 267-2452
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)
Wisconsin's deer hunting opportunities are enthusiastically enjoyed by more than 600,000 participants each year, resulting in significant economic and fiscal benefits for small business. Additionally, high deer populations impact the agriculture, forestry, and other industries in ways that may not be positive. The department anticipates that this will continue to be true after implementation of these rules. The department will continue to manage the deer herd with a goal to obtain a balance between the positive and negative impacts of white-tailed deer. Some management strategies which may have been viewed as aggressive are no longer available to the department. New management strategies proposed in this rule will be viewed by some as a more cooperative effort to manage deer herds. Improved cooperation between hunters, landowners, other stakeholders, and the department will have a beneficial impact for everyone who is affected by white-tailed deer, although the specific economic impact cannot be measured. Over all, the department anticipates none or a minimal impact on small businesses.
A minimal impact to certain small businesses could be a loss of incidental sales at taverns, convenience stores, or sporting good shops who currently volunteer to register deer for the department. A corresponding increase in sales for other area stores as that type of shopping effort is dispersed among stores that do not register deer, will negate overall impact to small businesses.
However, the department agrees that individual taverns which had previously been department registration cooperators will see a reduction in business resulting from sales incidental to deer registration. The department is considering ways to help registration stations take advantage of traditions hunters have adopted by stopping at particular businesses to register deer. The department suggests that businesses could continue to assist hunters by advertising that they can register deer electronically using a computer at their location. The department anticipates a continuing need for some in-person registration to collect biological data. Finally, the department plans to phase-in electronic registration which will provide some time for many businesses to plan for the transition. Department staff heard both positive and negative comments from registration stations about an electronic registration system. We anticipate the impacts will be minimal under the criteria established in 2011 Executive Order 50.
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
Deer Population Goals and Harvest Management Environmental Assessment, 1995.
Information related to registration of deer at private businesses such as convenience and sporting goods stores is from an analysis of department's own budget information for FY 2013.
Wisconsin's Chronic Wasting Disease Management Plan: 2010 - 2025
The 2011 Wisconsin Deer Hunting Summary records that firearm deer hunter numbers exceeded 600,000 for the first time in 1977 and have remained above that number since then. This information provides a basis for the estimate that deer hunting and related economic and fiscal benefits for small business will continue to exist after implementation of these rules.
USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services Wisconsin Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims Program - 2012 Summary Report.
Project Summary - Evaluating the interdependency between white-tailed deer and northern hardwood habitat; increasing our understanding of forest management and white-tailed deer health.
Reported Vehicle Killed Deer Removed from Wisconsin Roadways - FY 2011
DNR Spring Turkey Harvest Report - 2011. This document contains information on sales of leftover turkey permits.
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
Other, describe:
These rules are applicable to individual deer hunters and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses.
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under 227.114(6) or 227.14(2g). Note that the cooperation of small businesses with the department as deer and bear registration stations has been completely voluntary.
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
These rules do not establish any new enforcement provisions. The department has determined that existing enforcement efforts and penalties will continue to be effective at assuring a level of compliance with hunting regulations which results in a fair distribution of resources among hunters and other deer enthusiasts, safe hunting seasons, and effective deer herd management.
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
Yes X No
Safety and Professional Services
Professional Services, Chs. SPS 1—299
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Department of Safety and Professional Services in ss. 227.11 (2) (a) and 440.08 (3) (b), Wis. Stats., and interpreting ss. 227.11 (2) (a) and 440.08 (3) (b), Wis. Stats., the Department of Safety and Professional Services will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to create sections SPS 4.02 (5s) and 4.10, relating to credential renewal and reinstatement.
Hearing Information
Date:   Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Time:   1:00 p.m.
Location:
  1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121B
  (Enter at 55 North Dickinson St.)
  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. All submittals must be directed to Katie Paff, Program and Policy Analyst, at Kathleen.Paff@wisconsin.gov; or 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 Katie Paff, Program and Policy Analyst, 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 Kathleen.Paff@wisconsin.gov. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on January 13, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Katie Paff, Program and Policy Analyst, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, by email at Kathleen.Paff@wisconsin.gov 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
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section 227.11 (2) (a), Wis. Stats. Rule-making authority is expressly conferred as follows: (a) Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation. All of the following apply to the promulgation of a rule interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by an agency: 1. A statutory or nonstatutory provision containing a statement or declaration of legislative intent, purpose, findings, or policy does not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency's rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature. 2. A statutory provision describing the agency's general powers or duties does not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency's rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature. 3. A statutory provision containing a specific standard, requirement, or threshold does not confer on the agency the authority to promulgate, enforce, or administer a rule that contains a standard, requirement, or threshold that is more restrictive than the standard, requirement, or threshold contained in the statutory provision.
Section 440.08 (3) (b), Wis. Stats. The department or the interested examining board or affiliated credentialing board, as appropriate, may promulgate rules requiring the holder of a credential who fails to renew the credential within 5 years after its renewal date to complete requirements in order to restore the credential, in addition to the applicable requirements for renewal established under chs. 440 to 480, that the department, examining board or affiliated credentialing board determines are necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. The rules may not require the holder to complete educational requirements or pass examinations that are more extensive than the educational or examination requirements that must be completed in order to obtain an initial credential from the department, the examining board or the affiliated credentialing board.
Related statute or rule
The Department and attached rulemaking authorities have established in rule the requirements for credential reinstatement and expired credential renewal for some of the professions. The Department and attached rulemaking authorities are currently or will be promulgating rules to establish the requirements for the remaining professions
Plain language analysis
Current Department rules relating to application procedures need clarification with regards to the appropriate processes for renewing an expired credential and reinstating a surrendered credential, revoked credential, or suspended credential that has not been renewed within 5 years of the renewal date. The proposed rule explicitly states that the initial application process cannot be used for credential reinstatement or expired credential renewal. Credential holders must use the credential reinstatement process or the renewal after 5 years process, as applicable.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
None
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois: The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) does not have a codified definition of reinstatement or a renewal process for expired credentials that applies across professions. 20 ILCS Sec. 2105-125 gives the IDPFR the authority to restore any credential at any time after the suspension, revocation, placement on probationary status, or other disciplinary action taken by the Department with reference to any certificate upon recommendation of the appropriate board.
Iowa: The Iowa Professional Licensing Bureau uses the term “reinstatement" to refer to the reinstatement of a suspended licenses and the issuance of a new license following the revocation or voluntary surrender of a license. If the order of revocation or suspension did not establish terms upon which reinstatement might occur, or if the license was voluntarily surrendered, an initial application for reinstatement may not be made until at least one year has elapsed from the date of the order or the date the board accepted the voluntary surrender IAC 193-7.38. The Iowa Professional Licensing Bureau does not have a codified renewal process for expired credentials that applies across professions.
Michigan: “Reinstatement" is defined as the granting of a license or registration, with or without limitations or conditions, to a person whose license or registration has been revoked. “Relicensure" or “reregistration" is defined as the granting of a registration or license to a person whose license or registration has lapsed for failure to renew within 60 days after the expiration date (Michigan Statutes 339.402).
Minnesota: Minnesota does not have a codified definition of reinstatement or a renewal process for expired credentials that applies across professions.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Department is codifying the appropriate processes for reinstating credentials and renewing expired credentials. Adjacent states' rules were also reviewed.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis
The rule was posted for public comment on the economic impact of the proposed rule, including how this proposed rule may affect businesses, local government units, and individuals, for a period of 14 days. No comments were received relating to the economic impact of the rule.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis are below.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis or Summary
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 Tom.Engels@wisconsin.gov, or by calling (608) 266-8608.
Agency Contact Person
Katie Paff, Program and Policy Analyst, Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-261-4472; email at Kathleen.Paff@wisconsin.gov.
Text of Rule
Section 1. SPS 4.02 (5s) is created to read:
SPS 4.02 (5s) “Reinstatement" means the process established in rule by the credentialing authority by which a credential holder who has unmet disciplinary requirements and failed to renew the credential within 5 years after the renewal date or whose credential has been surrendered or revoked, may apply to have the credential reinstated, with or without conditions. A credential may not be reinstated through the initial application process.
Section 2. SPS 4.10 is created to read:
SPS 4.10 Failure to renew within 5 years after the renewal date. A credential holder who has failed to renew a credential within 5 years after the renewal date holds an expired credential. A credential holder with an expired credential may not reapply for the credential using the initial application process. A credential holder renews an expired credential in accordance with the applicable requirements established in rule by the credentialing authority. This section does not apply to credential holders who have unmet disciplinary requirements or whose credentials have been surrendered or revoked.
Section 3. 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: (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 4
3. Subject
Credential renewal and reinstatement
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
Current Department rules relating to application procedures need clarification with regards to the appropriate processes for renewing an expired credential and reinstating a surrendered credential, revoked credential, or suspended credential that has not been renewed within 5 years of the renewal date.
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 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 government 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 businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local government units, or the state's economy as a whole.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The proposed rule provides greater clarity with regards to application procedures for credential holders. It explicitly states that the initial application process cannot be used for credential reinstatement or expired credential renewal. Credential holders must use the credential reinstatement process or the renewal after 5 years process, as applicable. The alternative to implementing the proposed rule is to continue with the current rules that are unclear for credential holders.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The long range implication of the proposed rule is greater clarity with regards to application procedures for credential holders
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
None
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) does not have a codified definition of reinstatement or a renewal process for expired credentials that applies across professions.
The Iowa Professional Licensing Bureau uses the term “reinstatement" to refer to the reinstatement of a suspended licenses and the issuance of a new license following the revocation or voluntary surrender of a license. If the order of revocation or suspension did not establish terms upon which reinstatement might occur, or if the license was voluntarily surrendered, an initial application for reinstatement may not be made until at least one year has elapsed from the date of the order or the date the board accepted the voluntary surrender IAC 193-7.38. The Iowa Professional Licensing Bureau does not have a codified renewal process for expired credentials that applies across professions.
In Michigan, “reinstatement" is defined as the granting of a license or registration, with or without limitations or conditions, to a person whose license or registration has been revoked. “Relicensure" or “reregistration" is defined as the granting of a registration or license to a person whose license or registration has lapsed for failure to renew within 60 days after the expiration date (Michigan Statutes 339.402).
Minnesota does not have a codified definition of reinstatement or a renewal process for expired credentials that applies across professions.
17. Contact Name
18. Contact Phone Number
Kathleen Paff
(608) 261-4472
This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.
Notice of Hearings
Safety and Professional Services —
Chiropractic Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Chiropractic Examining Board in ss. 15.08 (5) (b) and 227.11 (2) (a), Wis. Stats., and interpreting s. 446.02 (3)(b), Wis. Stats., the Chiropractic Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to repeal sections Chir 2.03 (2), 2.07 (3), and 2.11 (2) and (3), to amend sections Chir 2.025, 2.03 (1), 2.07 (1), and 3.03 (1) (e) and (f) and (2) (f) and (g), to repeal and recreate section Chir 3.03 (1) (f), and to create section Chir 2.12, relating to practical exams for chiropractors.
Hearing Information
Date:   Thursday, January 15, 2015
Time:   8:40 a.m.
Location:
  1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 121A
  (Enter at 55 North Dickinson St.)
  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 Shancethea.Leatherwood@wisconsin.gov. Comments must be received at or before the public hearing to be held on January 15, 2015, 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 Shancethea.Leatherwood@wisconsin.gov 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
Loading...
Loading...
Links to Admin. Code and Statutes in this Register are to current versions, which may not be the version that was referred to in the original published document.