Rule Type
Emergency.
Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
The welfare of state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal commercial fishers, recreational anglers, and associated businesses is threatened by a decline in the lake trout population in the Apostle Islands vicinity of Lake Superior. The emergency rule is necessary to implement harvest limits for the 2012-13 lake trout commercial harvest season.
Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The purpose of the emergency rule is to amend Lake Superior lake trout harvest limits as required by revisions to the State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement. The total allowable catch of lake trout in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior is divided among tribal commercial fisheries, state-licensed commercial fisheries, tribal subsistence fishers, and state sport anglers. The 10-year State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement specifies annual allowable lake trout harvests, defines refuges and special fishing areas, and establishes other terms and arrangements for state and tribal commercial fishing. The Agreement was last negotiated in 2005, and has been amended twice, most recently in November 2009. Lake trout harvest limits were amended in October 2012 among the Department of Natural Resources and the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa and those changes must be ordered through Administrative Code.
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 allowable lake trout harvests are reviewed by a state-tribal biological committee, using the latest available data and modeling results. Based on those results and recommendations from the biological committee, the Agreement is re-negotiated as needed to change the total annual harvest of lake trout by all fishers, and possibly to address other issues related to shared harvest of lake trout and other species by state and tribal fishers.
There has been a steady decline in lean lake trout abundance in Lake Superior since the early 2000s. This decline has been confirmed by independent surveys conducted by the department and has been projected by models used to set safe harvest levels. Some level of decline was expected due to high harvest limits in the early 2000s, which were in response to several large year classes (numbers of fish spawned in the same year) predicted to enter the fishery. However, sea lamprey mortality over the last eight years has also been higher than Lake Superior target levels. This combination of increased harvest and lamprey mortality has caused lake trout abundance to decline. While relatively stable abundances of spawning lake trout suggest that this decline is still reversible, action needs to be taken to arrest the lean lake trout population's decline. The continued, persistent decline in lake trout population abundances and predicted further declines necessitate the current reductions in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.
The rule will reduce the annual commercial fishing harvest limit for lake trout on Lake Superior, revise rules limiting gill-net fishing effort, and authorize limitations on recreational fishing if the recreational lake trout harvest exceeds specified limits. Rule alternatives are not being considered because the recommendations have been negotiated to develop the State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
The proposed rule amends the annual commercial fishing harvest limit for lake trout on Lake Superior, which is an “outlying water." Commercial fishing harvest limits are authorized under s.
29.014(1), Stats., which directs the department to establish and maintain any bag limits and conditions governing the taking of fish that will conserve the fish supply and ensure the citizens of this state continued opportunities for good fishing.
Section
29.041, Stats., provides that the department may regulate fishing on and in all interstate boundary waters and outlying waters.
Section
29.519 (1m) (b), Stats., grants discretion to the department to establish commercial fish species harvest limits after giving due consideration to the recommendations made by the commercial fishing boards. It also specifies that the limitations on harvests must be based on the available harvestable population of fish and in the wise use and conservation of the fish, so as to prevent over-exploitation.
Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
Employees may spend up to 200 hours in total developing the emergency rule. It will require in-state travel to meet with tribal negotiators.
List with Description of All Entities that May Be Affected by the Proposed Rule
• State-licensed commercial fishers on Lake Superior
• Recreational fishers on Lake Superior
• Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
• Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
State-licensed and tribal commercial fishers may be affected by the amount of fish they are able to harvest. It is not expected that fishers will have any compliance expenditures or reporting changes associated with the rule.
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
No federal regulations apply.
Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note If the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The rule may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2011 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. However, this rule will also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish since lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $160,000 in 2011. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $40,000 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. The exact amount of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000.
Contact Person
William Horns, Great Lakes Fisheries Specialist, 608-266-8782.
Safety and Professional Services —
Wisconsin Auctioneer Board
The statement of scope was approved by the governor on December 4, 2012.
Rule No.
Relating to
Educational programs.
Rule Type
Permanent.
Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A.
Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The Wisconsin Auctioneer Board seeks to amend section
SPS 128.04 to allow persons who have extensive knowledge regarding the sale of goods and real estate, but are not auctioneers, or attorneys, or real estate appraisers, be a course instructor to teach continuing education.
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 Board seeks to amend various provisions of Chapter
SPS 128 because section
SPS 128.04 (6) only permits Wisconsin licensed auctioneers, Wisconsin licensed attorneys, and real estate appraisers who are approved by the AQB of the Appraisal Foundation to provide continuing education. The Board is concerned that: (1) professionals in the field of auctioneering who are licensed in the other states, or (2) unlicensed professionals who work in state agencies, or (3) other licensed professionals in this state would not be able to provide expert knowledge regarding the sale of goods and real estate. The Board seeks to expand the types of course instructors that can provide continuing education in this state in order to best protect the public by increasing the knowledge base of licensed auctioneers.
For example, it would be very helpful to auctioneers if licensed real estate salespersons and/or brokers could provide continuing education on real estate matters. It would also be very helpful if tax professionals can teach on state and federal tax laws, which apply to auctions, or if a professional from the Department of Transportation can provide continuing education on the motor vehicle auction requirements. As a final example, it would be helpful if a professional with expert knowledge regarding certain goods, such as the value of specific antiques, could provide continuing education.
The Board concludes that the proposed rule amendment would benefit auctioneers and the public by allowing professionals, including Wisconsin licensed professionals, to assist auctioneers in increasing their understanding in the various fields related to auctioneering.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
480.04 (1), Stats., authorizes the Board to “advise the secretary on matters relating to auctioneers or auction companies." Section
480.04 (2), Stats. states that “the Board does not have rule-making authority." The department has rulemaking authority under section
480.06, Stats.
Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
80 hours.
List with Description of All Entities that May Be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Auctioneers and other professionals yet to be determined.
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
None.
Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note If the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
None.
Contact Person
Kris Anderson, DSPS (608) 261-2385.
Safety and Professional Services —
Pharmacy Examining Board
The statement of scope was approved by the governor on December 4, 2012.
Rule No.
Relating to
Electronic prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances.
Rule Type
Permanent.
Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A.
Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board seeks to modify s.
Phar 7.08 (1) and note, ss.
Phar 8.05,
8.07 (2), and
8.09, to allow pharmacists/pharmacies to dispense a Schedule II controlled substance with an electronic prescription by a practitioner, instead of only pursuant to a written order. Further, the Board seeks to modify the above rules to allow pharmacists/pharmacies to dispense a Schedule II controlled substance in emergency cases with the requirement that the prescription is promptly reduced to a written hard copy or electronic record.
2011 Wisconsin Act 159 provides that, except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacy, to an ultimate user, a Schedule II controlled substance may be dispensed by a pharmacy by either a written hard copy or electronic prescription of a practitioner. Act 159 also provides that when a Schedule II controlled substance is dispensed upon an oral prescription in an emergency, the prescription must be reduced promptly to a written hard copy or electronic record.
Prior to
2011 Act 159, except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacy, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance included in Schedule II could be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner under s.
Phar 8.05 (4). However, in emergency situations, under s.
Phar 8.09, Schedule II controlled substances could be dispensed upon oral or electronic prescription of a practitioner, reduced promptly to writing, and filed by the pharmacy.
As a result of the statutory changes to ss.
450.11 (2),
961.38 (1r), and
961.38 (2), Stats., due the passage of
2011 Act 159, the Board has determined that the above rules must be amended to conform to the revised statutes.
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 proposed modifications to s.
Phar 7.08 (1) and note, ss.
Phar 8.05,
8.07 (2), and
8.09 would allow a pharmacy/pharmacist to use modern technology to dispense Schedule II controlled substances in a manner that efficiently meets patient needs by allowing electronic prescriptions for all Schedule II controlled substances and allowing oral prescriptions to be reduced to an electronic record while maintaining public safety.
The Board seeks to conform the above rules to the revised statutes. Moreover, the Board has determined that the rules, as they currently exist, do not grant enough flexibility for patients to have their prescriptions received by the pharmacy of their choice in a timely manner.
The Board has determined that the rule changes will help to cut down on dispensing errors or patients misplacing their written prescription orders by allowing electronic prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances, rather than only written prescription orders.
Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
450.02 (3) (a), Stats., authorizes the Board to promulgate rules “[r]elating to the
…distribution and dispensing of prescription drugs." Under s.
450.01 (7), Stats., the definition of dispense “means to deliver a prescribed drug or device to an ultimate user
…" Section
450.02 (3) (d), Stats., authorizes the Board to promulgate rules necessary for the administration and enforcement of Chapters
450 and
961, Stats.
Section
15.08 (5) (b), Stats., allows each examining board to “promulgate rules for its own guidance and for the guidance of the trade or profession to which it pertains and define and enforce professional conduct and unethical practices not inconsistent with the law relating to the particular trade or profession."
Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
30 hours.
List with Description of All Entities that May Be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Pharmacies, pharmacists, and practitioners.
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
Federal law under
21 C.F.R. Parts 1300,
1304,
1306, and
1311 pertain to the transfer of electronic prescriptions. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) revised its rules, effective June 1, 2010, to provide practitioners with the option of writing prescriptions for controlled substances electronically. The regulations permit pharmacies to receive, dispense, and archive these electronic prescriptions. The regulations provide pharmacies, hospitals, and practitioners with the ability to use modern technology for controlled substance prescriptions while maintaining the closed system of controls on controlled substances dispensing. In effect, federal law permits Wisconsin to allow schedule II controlled substances to be dispensed by a pharmacy upon an oral prescription of a practitioner, that is promptly reduced to a written hard copy or electronic record, and filed by the pharmacy, as provided in
2011 WI Act 159.
Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note If the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
Minimal or no economic impact.
Contact Person
