The department proposes to add CCHD by emergency and permanent rules as one of the conditions for which newborns should be tested. To date, 35 states have added CCHD screening upon consideration of the federal Department of Health and Human Services' Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children addition of CCHD to its Recommended Uniform Screening Panel Core Conditions.
Organic Acidemias
The WSLH tests the blood samples of newborns for the conditions specified by the department in s.
DHS 115.04. The WSLH also tests for OA including propionic acidemia, methylmalonic acidemia, and related organic acidemias. Though these conditions met the criteria under s.
DHS 115.06 for being added to the list of congenital and metabolic disorders for which WSLH must test blood samples, the disorders were inadvertently omitted from subsequent revisions of s.
DHS 115.04. The department proposes to promulgate emergency and permanent rules to include OA in the list of conditions for which WSLH must test to correct the oversight.
OA is a group of inherited disorders that lead to an abnormal buildup of particular acids known as organic acids in the body. In most cases, the features of propionic acidemia become apparent within a few days after birth. The initial symptoms include poor feeding, vomiting, loss of appetite, weak muscle tone (hypotonia), and lack of energy (lethargy). These symptoms sometimes progress to more serious medical problems, including heart abnormalities, seizures, coma, and possibly death. Propionic acidemia affects about 1 in 100,000 people in the United States. The effects of methylmalonic acidemia, which usually appear in early infancy, vary from mild to life-threatening. Affected infants can experience vomiting, dehydration, weak muscle tone (hypotonia), developmental delay, excessive tiredness (lethargy), an enlarged liver (hepatomegaly), and failure to gain weight and grow at the expected rate (failure to thrive). Long-term complications can include feeding problems, intellectual disability, chronic kidney disease, and inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis). Without treatment, this disorder can lead to coma and death in some cases. This condition occurs in an estimated 1 in 50,000 to 100,000 people.
Reporting
Section
253.13 (4) (b), Stats., as created by
2013 Wisconsin Act 135 provides that the department may require reporting in connection with any required infant tests for use in statistical data compilation and for evaluation of infant screening programs. The department may create rules for such reporting.
Alternatives
Section
253.13 (1), Stats., requires that every infant born in each hospital or maternity home, prior to its discharge, be tested for congenital and metabolic disorders, as specified in rules promulgated by the department. Therefore, there are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed rulemaking.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
(1)
Tests; requirements. The attending physician or nurse licensed under s.
441.15 shall cause every infant born in each hospital or maternity home, prior to its discharge therefrom, to be subjected to tests for congenital and metabolic disorders, as specified in rules promulgated by the department. If the infant is born elsewhere than in a hospital or maternity home, the attending physician, nurse licensed under s.
441.15, or birth attendant who attended the birth shall cause the infant, within one week of birth, to be subjected to these tests.
(4) (b) The department may require reporting in connection with the tests performed under this section for use in statistical data compilation and for evaluation of infant screening programs.
Section 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., reads: Rule-making authority is expressly conferred on an agency 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.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates that it will take approximately 160 hours to develop the proposed rules. This includes the time required for research and analysis, coordinating the advisory committee meetings, rule drafting, preparing any related documents, holding a public hearing, and communicating with affected persons and groups.
6. List with description of all entities that may be affected by the proposed rule
Newborns and their families, hospitals, clinics and laboratories on behalf of hospitals, nurse-midwives, midwives, other birth attendants, other birth facilities, physicians, nurses, insurers, the WSLH, the DHS Newborn Screening Umbrella Committee, and the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Newborn Screening.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation That is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
There appears to be no existing or proposed federal regulations that address the activities to be regulated by the emergency rules.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule
The department does not anticipate additional fees to cover the costs of testing for CCHD or acidemias. Thus, the proposed rules are anticipated to have little or no economic impact if promulgated.
Contact Person
Susan Uttech, Department of Health Services, Bureau Director, Community Health Promotion,
susan.uttech@wi.gov 608-267-3561.
Natural Resources, Division of Forestry
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
1—
(DNR # FR-07-14)
This statement of Scope was approved by the governor on May 23, 2014.
Rule No.
Relating to
Gypsy moth suppression program.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
The rules will be proposed as permanent rules.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The Wisconsin gypsy moth suppression program was developed to serve communities, individuals, state lands, and other public lands to prevent losses from gypsy moth defoliation at a time when the private sector was not able to meet that need and federal cost sharing was available for state suppression programs. In the 14 years since the start of the state suppression program, private aerial spraying has become more available in Wisconsin, the threat from gypsy moth outbreaks has been reduced, and the federal cost share program has become less dependable. Given this situation, it seems an appropriate time for the state to step back and allow the private sector full opportunity to serve the need for preventing defoliation from this manageable pest. We propose to close the state suppression program to all applicants except state lands, which does not require rule authority to implement. By keeping the rule in place of fully repealing it, we achieve two benefits: access to federal cost sharing for state lands, if available, and access to the federally supplied gypsy moth specific pesticide, Gypcheck. Additional changes to the rule may be pursued which are reasonably related to those discussed here.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
The department currently offers participation to communities, individuals and public lands in a state organized and contracted aerial spray program to suppress defoliation from gypsy moth through the public cost share portion of the state suppression program. Landowners and communities must apply through their county which serves as the local coordinator, defining the spray blocks, ensuring they are eligible, collecting the funds for treatment and redistributing the reimbursement. Participants pay the entire cost of the treatment up front and the state applies to the USDA Forest Service for cost sharing. Cost share that is received is entirely passed onto participants in the program as reimbursement. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer protection holds the contract for treatment of all gypsy moth eradication, Slow The Spread, and suppression blocks.
The proposed rule change would limit participation in the state suppression program to state lands, which does not require rule authority to implement. Local governments and individuals will be provided guidance in contracting for appropriate treatment from aborists or aerial spray contractors. The public cost share portion of the state suppression program for treatments would no longer be available as that is provided by the federal government only to through public cost share portions of state suppression programs, which we would be de-activating under this rule proposal.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
26.30 (6m), Stats., states that if the department establishes a cost-shared suppression program for gypsy moth, and that program includes the awarding of federal cost sharing funds to counties, the department shall promulgate rules to implement the program. This statute contemplates that the cost-share suppression program include, but not be limited to, the awarding of federal cost sharing funds to counties. This broad grant of rulemaking authority is sufficient to provide the basis for the proposed de-activation rule language
…." The federal cost-share fund grant language allows states to utilize the federal gypsy moth funds without establishing a cost-share program for private individuals or counties, and so the de-activation of public access to the state organized spray program under the new proposed authority in rule will not prevent the department from using these funds, since the Department, under s.
26.30 (2), Stats., is “vested with authority and jurisdiction in all matters relating to the prevention, detection and control of forest pests on the forest lands of the state, and to do all things necessary in the exercise of such authority and jurisdiction
…."
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
200 hours
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
• Counties, local governments and individuals that would have participated in the state gypsy moth suppression program.
• Arborists and private aerial applicators that will provide suppression treatments in the absence of a state program.
• Department Forest Health team staff will be able to redirect time from gypsy moth to other invasive pests and diseases of increasing concern such as emerald ash borer.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
The USDA Forest Service under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (appendix A) as amended (P.L.
95-313) and the 1990 Farm Bill offers a cost sharing program to states for the suppression of gypsy moth outbreaks. The federal government makes cost sharing available to state run suppression programs but does not require one to be offered. The federal cost sharing program also does not specify what lands may participate in a state program. Neither Illinois nor Michigan offer a state suppression program for gypsy moth. New Jersey has a state gypsy moth suppression program that only services state lands.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The proposed rule change will result in individuals and communities hiring arborists and private aerial spray applicators to prevent defoliation of their trees by gypsy moth instead of paying the state program to do the treatment. These business will benefit from the closure of the state suppression program in the years gypsy moth threaten to cause local defoliation. Communities and individuals that make their own contracts for treatment may be able to get a lower price for treatment than the state contract depending on their location relative to the contracter, the number of acres and any tailoring they require. However, if they are distant from the contracter, have few acres and/or have unusual requirements the price per acre could be more than the state contract. Communities and individuals will take on the workload associated with the contract which had previously been handled by the state.
9. Anticipated Number, Month, and Locations of Public Hearings
The Department anticipates holding five public hearings in the month of December, 2014. Hearing cities will be: Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Wausau, and Eau Claire.
The Department will hold these hearings in these locations to ensure potentially affected communities and individuals will have an opportunity to have their questions answered and provide input.
Contact Person
Andrea Diss-Torrance
PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707
608-264-9247
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
1—
(DNR # WM-08-14 (E))
This statement of Scope was approved by the governor on June 4, 2014.
Rule No.
Relating to
Issuance of antlerless permits through the Deer Management Assistance Program and implementation of the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee's Report.
Rule Type
Emergency.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
The department is not required to make a finding of emergency before promulgating these rules. The department is directed to promulgate these rules in s.
29.040, Stats., established by
2013 Act 20 and is exempted from making a finding of emergency under non-statutory provisions in
Section 9132 of the act.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
This emergency rule order will facilitate the issuance of antlerless deer permits through the Deer Management Assistance Program.
Additionally, the department will use this rule-making process to make non-controversial corrections or rule updates that may be identified during the process of fully implementing the larger package of emergency rules that result from the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee's Report.
3. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Under current rules and statutes, with limited exceptions, deer hunting permits can only be used by the individual to whom the permit is issued. During the winter and spring of 2014 the department has been working with stakeholders to develop the Deer Management Assistance Program which was a recommendation of the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee's Report. During program development, the department has identified a need for more flexibility in the way that permits are issued and used in order to implement the program efficiently and to best serve customers.
These rules could allow issuance of antlerless deer hunting permits to a primary person who is enrolled in the Deer Management Assistance Program or their designee. The permits could then be transferred, for no more than face value cost, to hunters who would be able to use the tags on the enrolled property. These rules would not change existing requirements that the tags can only be used during the normal deer hunting seasons and in ways that are consistent with all other deer hunting regulations.
The Deer Management Assistance Program is designed to provide habitat and herd management assistance to landowners interested in managing their property for wildlife. The program is identified and defined under Wis. Stat. s.
29.020 and Wis. Admin. Code s.
NR 10.70. Objectives of the program are to; promote sound land stewardship practices, provide outreach and educational information to landowners about wildlife habitat management practices, provide a means for site-specific deer management, and to improve relationships.
The program objective to provide site-specific deer management alternatives will benefit property managers in obvious ways by allowing them to work with the department to establish very specific harvest levels based on localized information.
Site specific deer management will benefit all hunters and people impacted by deer at the much larger management unit level as well. An example is that, in some situations, deer numbers that prevent forest regeneration or result in agricultural damage could be managed at a local, property specific level. This would eliminate a need to compromise with unit-wide antlerless deer permit levels that address pockets of over-abundance only minimally and which might also be perceived as allowing too much harvest of antlerless deer in other areas of the unit or county.
Maintaining the primary program enrollee's control over the use of permits by allowing the enrollee to distribute them may be an important feature to make participation attractive to property managers or owners. Allowing permit transfers creates efficiency for the department because we would not need to establish rules or automated license system processes to assure that permits are distributed in a manner preferred by the primary program enrollee. Only one contact with the department is all that would be needed to issue all antlerless permits for a property. If an antlerless tag is not filled by one person when they hunt, it might be possible under these rules for the tag to be used by another hunter on another day, increasing the perceived value of the permits and success rates for their use. Finally, it is possible that a landowner could be the primary program enrollee and not a hunter - but someone who would be interested in distributing the permits to family, friends, and others. Simplicity, value, and good success rates in the use of these antlerless deer permits will make an important contribution to the objective of site-specific deer management.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
