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 because of 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, successive versions of a statistical catch-at-age model also suggest that previous estimates of lake trout abundance were inflated. This combination of increased harvest and re-scaled estimates of lake trout abundance has resulted in total allowable catch recommendations to decline. While relatively stable abundances of spawning lake trout suggest that this decline is still reversible, action needs to be taken to stop the lean lake trout population's decline. The continued, persistent decline of the lake trout population necessitates harvest reductions in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.
Rule alternatives are not being considered because the process is guided by the 2005 State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
29.014 (1), Stats., 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.
5. 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 developing the emergency rule. It will require in-state travel to meet with tribal negotiators.
6. 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
• Recreational fishing guides and charter fishing businesses
• Commercial fishers licensed by the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
• Commercial fishers licensed by the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
State-licensed and tribal commercial fishers will 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.
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
No federal regulations apply. None of the rule proposals violate or conflict with federal regulations.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The rule will impact the harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal fishers, and sport fishers. Because of the decline in lake trout populations, all of these three groups that fish in Lake Superior would have a reduction in overall harvest limits. The rule may alter the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish because lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets, potentially reducing harvest and income. However, the impact can be buffered if fishers shift to using trap nets, which are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Sport fishers will be affected by a change in the lake trout daily bag limit or size limit in order to reduce overall harvest, but this is not expected to cause any expenditures for sport fishers.
The rule imposing harvest reductions is necessary in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term, an economic and natural resource benefit for all affected. The rule may have a moderate economic impact in the Lake Superior region, but an exact amount of impact is unknown at this time. The Department will conduct an economic impact analysis to gather comments from any individuals, businesses, local governments, or other entities that expect to be affected economically by the rule change. In addition, the Department is planning to meet with the state licensed commercial fishers in September 2014 and to hold a public meeting in November 2014 to discuss the rule's lake trout quotas, allocations, and options for the 2014-15 lake trout management actions on Lake Superior, before the rule is finalized.
The proposed rule will have an effect on small businesses, but does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements nor would any design or operational standards be contained in the rule.
9. Anticipated Number, Month, and Locations of Public Hearings
In November 2014, prior to rule implementation, the Department is planning to hold a public meeting in Ashland to discuss the rule's lake trout quotas, allocations, and options for the 2014-15 lake trout management actions on Lake Superior. The Department anticipates holding one public hearing in the month of February 2015, or within 45 days after the emergency rule is in effect. Hearing city will be: Ashland, WI.
The Department will hold the hearing in this location to collect additional public input on the lake trout harvest quota.
Contact Person
Terry Margenau, Lake Superior Fisheries Supervisor, 715-779-4035 ext. 15.
Safety and Professional Services
Professional Services, Chs.
SPS 1—299
The statement of scope was approved by the governor on September 19, 2014.
Rule No.
Relating to
Registered sanitarian examination requirements.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
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
2013 Act 114 prohibits the department of safety and professional services or a credentialing board from requiring a person to complete any postsecondary education before the person is eligible to take an examination for a credential. The current rule requires sanitarian applicants to submit evidence of completion of educational requirements in order to receive Department approval to sit for the exam. The proposed rule will revise the rules to specify the requirements for registration rather than the requirements for examination. This will allow the applicant to complete the registration requirements in any order including allowing an applicant to take an examination prior to the completion of the education requirements.
The alternative to the proposed policy is to continue with the current rules that are in conflict with
2013 WI Act 114.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
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.
Section 440.98 (2), Wis. Stats. Registration qualifications. In order to safeguard life, health and property, to promote public welfare and to establish the status of those persons whose duties in environmental sanitation call for knowledge of the natural sciences, the department may establish minimum standards and qualifications for the registration of sanitarians.
Section 440.98 (5), Wis. Stats. Registration. Except as provided in s.
440.12 or
440.13, the department shall register as a sanitarian any person who satisfies the conditions in sub. (6) and who has presented evidence satisfactory to the department that sanitarian registration standards and qualifications of the department, as established by rule, have been met.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
40 hours
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Sanitarian applicants
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
None
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule
None to minimal. The rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
Contact Person
Safety and Professional Services —
Dentistry Examining Board
The statement of scope was approved by the governor on September 19, 2014.
Rule No.
Relating to
Pathway to licensure for foreign trained applicants for licensure as dentists.
Rule Type
Permanent.
THIS STATEMENT OF SCOPE AMENDS AND REPLACES THE STATEMENT OF SCOPE APPROVED BY THE DENTISTRY EXAMINING BOARD ON APRIL 3, 2014 AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR ON MAY 8, 2014
(The original statement of scope, SS
044-14, was published in
Register 701 on May 31, 2014.)
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to modify and clarify the pathway to licensure for foreign trained dentist applicants.
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 Board has determined that the standards for evaluating applications from individuals whose education were obtained from a school other than an accredited U.S. or Canadian dental school is inconsistent with our surrounding states. Wisconsin's standards for foreign trained dentists were last revised in 2007 and require evidence of the successful completion of an accredited postgraduate program in advanced education in general dentistry or an accredited general dental practice residency. This is a minimum one year program. A one year program's content is not sufficiently equivalent to the education received at a U.S. or Canadian dental school.
Michigan requires a 2 year program leading to awarding of a DDS or DMD degree or a 2 year dental specialty program. Illinois requires a 2 year clinical training at a school resulting in meeting same level of scientific knowledge and clinical competence as all graduates from the dental school or 2 year accredited advanced dental education program. Iowa requires a 2 year undergraduate supplemental dental education program at an accredited dental college providing didactic and clinical education to the level of a DDS or DMD graduate of the same school. Minnesota requires evaluation of the foreign dental school by the International Credentialing Associates and the education must be equivalent to a school accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation and once the exam is passed and other requirements, the Minnesota Board issues a Limited General Dental License which requires practicing under a Minnesota licensed dentist for 3 years.
The alternative to proposed rule is for Wisconsin to license foreign trained dentists without ensuring that their training is equivalent to dentists trained at a school accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
15.08 (5) (b) Each examining board: Shall 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.
447.04 (1) (b) 1. Except as provided in par. (c), the examining board may grant a license to practice dentistry to an individual who is licensed in good standing to practice dentistry in another state or territory of the United States or in another country if the applicant complies with all of the following requirements: Meets the requirements for licensure established by the examining board by rule.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
150 hours
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Applicants with dentistry training from a school located outside of the United States or Canada
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
None
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
None to minimal economic impact. The rule is not likely to have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
Contact Person
