Wisconsin Legislature: Text

(DATCP DOCKET # 13-R-07 )

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed rule to revise Chapter ATCP 55, relating to drug residues in meat and meat food products.

DATCP will hold three public hearings at the times and places shown below.

Hearing Dates and Locations

Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location: Room 106 (Board Room)
Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection
2811 Agriculture Drive
Madison, WI 53718

Date: Tuesday, April 23, 2014
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location: Room 129
Eau Claire State Office Building
718 West Clairemont Avenue
Eau Claire, WI 54701

Date: Friday, April 25, 2014
Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location: Room 152B
200 N. Jefferson Street
Green Bay, WI 54301

Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by April 3, 2014, by writing to Sandra Cleveland, Division of Food Safety, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8911; or by emailing sandy.cleveland@wisconsin.gov; or by telephone at (608) 224-4712. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at (608) 224-5058. The hearing facility is handicap accessible.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline For Submission

DATCP invites the public to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearings, the hearing record will remain open until May 9, 2014, for additional written public comments. Comments may be sent to the Division of Food Safety at the address below, or to Cindy.Klug@wisconsin.gov, or to http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov.

Copies of Rule

You can obtain a free copy of this hearing draft rule and related documents including the economic impact analysis by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and consumer Protection, Division of Food Safety, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling Sandra Cleveland at (608) 224-4670 or by emailing sandy.cleveland@wisconsin.gov. Copies will also be available at the hearing. To view the hearing draft rule online, go to: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov.

Comments or concerns relating to small business may also be addressed to DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, or by email to keeley.moll@wisconsin.gov, or by telephone at (608) 224-5039.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) proposes a rule revision for ch. ATCP 55, Wis. Adm. Code, specifying corrective actions that must be imposed by state-licensed meat establishments on certain livestock producers before the establishment operator accepts animals from the producer for slaughter. The required corrective actions apply to livestock producers who, on two or more occasions during the past year, submit animals testing positive for any illegal drug residue to be slaughtered at a state or federally inspected meat establishment.

Statutes interpreted

Section 97.42, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 93.07 (1), 97.09 (4), and 97.42 (4), Stats.

Explanation of statutory authority

DATCP has broad general authority, under s. 93.07 (1), Stats., to adopt rules to implement programs under its jurisdiction. DATCP also has general authority under s. 97.09 (4), Stats., to adopt rules specifying standards to protect the public from the sale of adulterated or misbranded foods. The department has specific authority to promulgate rules related to compulsory inspection of animals, poultry and carcasses under s. 97.42 (4), Stats., which allows the department to establish rules related to the inspections before and after slaughter of all animals and poultry killed or dressed for human consumption at any establishment.

Related statutes and rules

Wisconsin's state meat and poultry inspection program is governed by ch. 97, Stats. (Food Regulation), including s. 97.42, Stats. (Compulsory inspection of animals, poultry and carcasses). Chapter ATCP 55 interprets and implements ch. 97, Stats., as it relates to Meat and Meat Food Products.

State meat and poultry inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to provide inspection services to small and very small meat establishments. State meat and poultry inspection programs were established by the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 and the Wholesome Poultry Products Act of 1968, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to create 21 USC 661 and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to create 21 USC 454. Section 11015 of Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 “Farm Bill"), enacted on June 18, 2008, amended FMIA and PPIA to establish a new voluntary program that will allow certain selected state-inspected meat establishments to sell their products in interstate commerce.

Title 9, Animal and Animal Products, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) interprets and implements the federal FMIA and PPIA. Section 97.42 (4m), Stats., and ch. ATCP 55 adopt certain relevant sections of Title 9 that establish slaughter and processing standards for meat and meat products.

Plain language analysis

Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The anti-inflammatory drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.

Meat establishment operators are expected by the United States Department of Agriculture — Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to check the published Residue Repeat Violators list. The list identifies livestock producers whose animals have had two or more positive drug residue test results in the past year. Meat establishment operators are also expected to take appropriate measures before accepting animals from these producers. Recent federal data suggest that dairy cattle are responsible for a high proportion of repeat tissue drug residue offenses. As a leading producer of dairy cattle, the reputation of Wisconsin's agriculture industry is jeopardized by the few Wisconsin producers who repeatedly violate prohibitions against drug residues in livestock and meat products.

Currently ch. ATCP 55 (Meat and meat food products) addresses the production of meat and meat food products starting with the submission of an animal for slaughter for human consumption and, by reference, adopts United States Department of Agriculture regulations prohibiting the slaughter of “downer" cattle (non-ambulatory) for human food or feed destined for bovine animals.

Current rules prohibit slaughter of a food animal for human consumption or submission of a food animal for slaughter if the person knows or has reason to know the animal is diseased or injured. The proposed rule will further prohibit someone from slaughtering or submitting for slaughter a food animal for human consumption if they know that the animal is adulterated. The rule then defines animals from producers included on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments as adulterated unless the producer provides written evidence that they have completed a course on proper administration of animal medications. The department will approve an acceptable course or courses. Completion of the approved course(s) will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian.

The proposed rule also revises s. ATCP 55.07, which requires a person who knows or has reason to know that he or she is submitting a diseased or injured animal for slaughter to sign and deliver a written statement to the person who will perform the slaughter. The proposed rule will revise the requirement that the written statement include a list of all drugs administered to the animal as treatments or feed within 30 days prior to the slaughter submission date. The rule will instead require that the statement certify that the withdrawal time following administration of all drugs as treatments or feed additives has complied with the manufacturer's recommendations. This revision acknowledges that some drugs may require a longer withdrawal time than 30 days.

Summary of, and comparison with existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations require meat and poultry processors to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is an approach for preventing food safety hazards that involves identifying key food processing steps essential for ensuring safety. Plants must develop a plan to monitor and document that each of these key steps is functioning properly and minimizing the risk associated with food safety hazards. As part of their HACCP plan, federally-inspected plants are required by 9 CFR 417.2 (a) (3) (v) to identify preventive measures for food safety hazards that could arise from drug residues. Drug residues include veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants.

One approach for minimizing drug residue risks is for abattoir operators to avoid accepting animals from sources that have had drug residue violations in the past. Since past performance is often the best indicator as to whether an animal may have a drug residue problem, federal plants are expected to consult the federal Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before accepting animals for slaughter. The National Residue Program (NRP) at FSIS has collected data on drug residues in meat, poultry and egg products since 1967. Producers who are found to have had more than one residue violation in the previous 12 months under this sampling program are placed on the federal Residue Repeat Violator List.

State meat inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Under this agreement, state meat inspection programs are required to adopt regulations that are “at least equal to" federal meat and poultry inspection regulations. In addition, Wisconsin is one of three states recently accepted into the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program allowing certain selected meat establishments to ship their products in interstate commerce. States in the CIS program must adopt regulations that are the “same as" federal meat inspection regulations.

The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations at state-inspected meat plants. It will enhance the effectiveness of these procedures by adding an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action is needed.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Michigan currently does not operate a state meat and poultry inspection program and all meat slaughtered and processed in Michigan is federally-inspected by USDA. Illinois' state meat inspection program includes USDA's Federal-State Cooperative program (formerly known as the “Talmadge-Aiken" program). Under this program, state inspectors conduct federal inspections. Minnesota and Iowa operate state meat inspection programs. All processors of meat and meat products, whether operating under state meat-inspection programs or by the USDA program, are expected to minimize the risk associated with drug residues and to consult the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before purchasing animals for slaughter. The approach proposed in this rule revision is innovative and goes beyond requirements in neighboring states which operate state meat inspection programs. Although enforcement of the provisions in the proposed rule is expected to be infrequent, the provisions are necessary to protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Proposed rule changes were developed after careful analysis of federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations at state-inspected meat plants. The department consulted with a large livestock medication and veterinary services company, and with the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association before developing the proposed rule. Each of these entities supported the intent of the proposed rule.

Effect on Small Business

This rule change is anticipated to have a very slight impact on meat establishment operators, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. Since very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list, the proposed rule change will have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a minor short-term negative economic impact on livestock producers who must attend a course and improve documentation of animal medications as a result of the proposed rule. To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, there will be a positive long-term economic impact. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility rate payers.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Rule summary

The proposed rule will specify corrective actions that must be imposed by state-licensed meat establishments on certain livestock producers before the establishment operator accepts animals from the producer for slaughter. The required corrective actions apply to livestock producers who, on two or more occasions during the past year, submit animals testing positive for any illegal drug residue to be slaughtered at state- or federally-inspected meat establishments.

Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.

Meat establishment operators are expected, but not required in regulation, by the United States Department of Agriculture — Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to check the published Residue Repeat Violators List. The list identifies livestock producers whose animals have had two or more positive drug residue test results in the past year. Meat establishment operators are also expected to take appropriate measures before accepting animals from these producers. Recent federal data suggest that dairy cattle are responsible for a high proportion of repeat tissue drug residue offenses. As a leading producer of dairy cattle, the reputation of Wisconsin's agriculture industry is jeopardized by the few Wisconsin producers who repeatedly violate prohibitions against drug residue in livestock and meat products.

Small businesses affected

State-inspected meat establishment operators, who accept livestock for slaughter, and livestock producers included on USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who submit their animals for slaughter at state meat establishments, will be affected by this rule. This proposed rule is anticipated to have a very slight impact on meat establishment operators, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. Since very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list, the proposed rule change will have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a minor short-term negative economic impact on a small number of livestock producers listed on the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who, under the proposed rule, would be required to attend a course and improve documentation of their use of animal medications. There will be a slight impact on the veterinarians of these few producers, because completion of the course will require involvement of the veterinarian. To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, there will be a positive long-term economic impact. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility taxpayers.

Reporting, bookkeeping, and other procedures

The proposed rule would require state-licensed meat establishment operators who slaughter livestock to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. The proposed rule would require a producer who is listed on the federal Residue Repeat Violators List to provide written evidence to a meat establishment operator that they have completed a course on proper administration of animal medications before the state-licensed meat establishment may accept animals for slaughter from that producer.

Professional skills required

The proposed rule does not require any new professional skills by small businesses. However, livestock producers included on USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who wish to submit their animals for slaughter will need to complete a course on proper administration of animal medications. Completion of the approved course will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian.

Accommodation for small business

State meat inspection programs only regulate small businesses. State meat inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement under USDA's authority and must meet federal “at least equal to" requirements. No special accommodation may be made for small businesses to meet the requirements of this proposed rule. However, the rule is expected to have very little impact on meat establishment operators and a slight impact on only a very small number of livestock producers. The rule will affect this small number of livestock producers, but it will benefit small state-inspected meat establishments by further ensuring that the livestock they accept for slaughter are free of drug residues.

Conclusion

Given the potential health risks associated with drug residues in animals for human food, consumers, meat establishment operators, and livestock producers will all benefit from a mandatory procedure for reducing the likelihood that the human food supply contains animals from producers who have been listed for repeated tissue drug-residue violations.

This rule will not have a significant adverse effect on “small business" and is not subject to the delayed “small business" effective date provided in s. 227.22 (2) (e), Stats.

DATCP will, to the maximum extent feasible, seek voluntary compliance with this rule.

DATCP Contact

Cindy Klug, Director

Bureau of Food Safety and Inspection

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: (608) 224-4729

E-Mail: Cindy.Klug@Wisconsin.gov.

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
ATCP 55-Meat and Meat Products
3. Subject
Drug residues in meat and meat products
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR X FED ⍽PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S			102
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		X Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers X Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The proposed rule will specify corrective actions that must be required by state-licensed meat establishments from certain livestock producers before the establishment operator accepts animals from the producers for slaughter. The required corrective actions apply to livestock producers who, on two or more occasions during the past year, submit animals testing positive for any illegal drug residue to be slaughtered at state- or federally-inspected meat establishments. Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
The rule will have little impact on state inspected meat establishments at which livestock are slaughtered (about 100 establishments), and will have a slight impact on a very small number of livestock producers and veterinarians.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Local governmental units are not impacted by this rule change and did not participate in the development of this EIA.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
State-Inspected Meat Establishments: Current rules prohibit submission for slaughter of a food animal for human consumption if the person submitting the animal knows or has reason to know the animal is diseased or injured. This rule change will further prohibit someone from slaughtering or submitting for slaughter a food animal for human consumption if they know that the animal is adulterated, with animals from producers included on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List defined as adulterated unless the producer provides written evidence that they have completed a course on the proper administration of animal medications. This rule change is anticipated to have little impact on operators of meat establishment at which livestock are slaughtered, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. Livestock Producers: Under the rule change, livestock producers who are listed on the USDA Residue Repeat Violator List will be required to complete a course on the proper administration of animal medications and present written documentation of their course completion before submitting animals for human consumption for slaughter at a state-inspected meat establishment. Very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list and this rule change will have no impact on the majority of livestock producers who follow proper procedures for the administration of animal medications. Livestock producers who take a course in proper administration of animal medications will have to bear costs associated with the course presentation (likely a registration fee to cover expenses incurred by the course presenters) and time away from their regular work. We characterize this impact as slight. Veterinarians: Successful completion of a course in proper administration of animal medications by a producer will require the involvement of the livestock producer's veterinarian. This involvement will require a time commitment by a very small number of veterinarians. We characterize this impact as slight.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rule change will benefit state inspected meat establishments, all of whom are small businesses, by clarifying procedures they must follow in the event that a producer on the Repeat Residue Violators List submits a food animal for slaughter. Implementing these mandatory procedures will further decrease the likelihood that animals with illegal drug residues enter the human food chain, and will protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments. The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations. It adds an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action would normally be taken. The rule change will help livestock producers who are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List improve their practices for administering animal medications and avoid future problems. If the rule is not implemented, there is a chance that producers on the Repeat Residue Violators List would present animals containing illegal residues to unknowing meat establishment operators. Although this scenario is unlikely,the economic importance of the meat industry in Wisconsin is high enough that prudent steps should be taken to make illegal drug residues in meat even more unlikely to occur.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, the rule change will have a positive long-term economic impact on Wisconsin's meat industry.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations require meat and poultry processors to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is an approach for preventing food safety hazards that involves identifying key food processing steps essential for ensuring safety. Plants must develop a plan to monitor and document that each of these key steps is functioning properly and minimizing the risk associated with food safety hazards. As part of their HACCP plan, federally-inspected plants are required by 9 CFR 417.2 (a) (3) (v) to identify preventive measures for food safety hazards that could arise from drug residues. Drug residues include veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants. One approach for minimizing drug residue risks is for abattoir operators to avoid accepting animals from sources that have had drug residue violations in the past. Since past performance is often the best indicator as to whether an animal may have a drug residue problem, federal plants are expected, but not required in regulation, to consult the federal Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before accepting animals for slaughter. The list is compiled by the National Residue Program (NRP) at FSIS which has collected data on drug residues in meat, poultry and egg products since 1967. Producers who are found to have had more than one residue violation in the previous 12 months under this sampling program are placed on the federal Residue Repeat Violator List. Federal regulations do not require producers on the list to take any corrective actions prior to submitting animals for slaughter. Federal action against residue repeat violators is generally not taken unless the US Food and Drug Administration investigates, issues a warning letter and, upon further violations, obtains an injunction against the livestock producer. This process is cumbersome, lengthy, and does not happen often. The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations, and it will enhance the effectiveness of these procedures by adding an additional educational corrective action that would be required of the producer by the abattoir operator well before federal regulatory action is needed.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Michigan currently does not operate a state meat and poultry inspection program and all meat slaughtered and processed in Michigan is federally-inspected by USDA. Illinois' state meat inspection program includes USDA's Federal-State Cooperative program (formerly known as the “Talmadge-Aiken" program). Under this program, state inspectors conduct federal inspections. Minnesota and Iowa operate state meat inspection programs. All processors of meat and meat products, whether operating under state meat-inspection programs or the USDA program, are expected to minimize the risk associated with drug residues and to consult the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator List for use by Livestock Markets and Establishments before purchasing animals for slaughter. The approach proposed in this rule revision is innovative and goes beyond requirements in neighboring states which operate state meat inspection programs. Although enforcement of the provisions in the proposed rule is expected to be infrequent, the provisions are necessary to protect consumer trust in meat from Wisconsin-inspected establishments.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Cindy Klug, Director — Bureau of Meat Safety and Inspection				(608) 224-4729

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)

This proposed rule is anticipated to have little impact on meat establishment operators, who will be required to determine whether livestock producers presenting animals for slaughter are on the USDA Residue Repeat Violators List. However, meat establishments are already expected to review the list before accepting animals for slaughter. Since very few livestock producers from Wisconsin and neighboring states are on this list, the proposed rule change will have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a slight short-term negative economic impact on a small number of livestock producers listed on the USDA's Residue Repeat Violator list who, under the proposed rule, would be required to attend a course and improve documentation of the use of animal medications. The primary economic impact for these producers would be the registration cost for the course and time away from their farm duties. There will be a slight impact on the veterinarians of these few producers, because completion of the course will require involvement of the veterinarian.

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

To determine the potential impact on small businesses, DATCP requested input from a meat processors professional organization, and the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association.

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

X Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements

X Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting

X Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements

X Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards

X Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements

⍽ Other, describe:

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

The rule is expected to only have an appreciable impact on meat establishments interacting with a small number of livestock producers. The rule will affect this small number of livestock producers, but it will benefit small state-inspected meat establishments by further ensuring that the livestock they accept for slaughter is free of drug residues. Under the proposed rule, DATCP must approve the course on proper administration of animal medications that livestock producers on the Repeat Residue Violators List would be required to attend before they can submit animals for slaughter at a state-inspected meat establishment. In evaluating course(s) for approval, the DATCP will carefully balance the effectiveness of the learning activities in the course with the number and duration (and thus economic impact) of these learning activities to ensure that an undue economic burden is not placed course attendees.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

Enforcement of the rule will occur as part of normal meat establishment regulatory activities. Typically, noncompliance with regulatory requirements results in a Noncompliance Report (NR). Upon receiving an NR, the establishment operator takes corrective actions, which are described to the Meat Safety Inspector. In cases of noncompliance related to suspected drug residues, carcasses may be retained for testing. Non-violative carcasses would be released for further processing and/or sale. Violative carcasses would be condemned in accordance with normal procedures.

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

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. 1—

rulemaking_notices EmR1205 EmR1205

(DNR# WM-24-13(E) )

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014, 29.041, and 227.24 (4), Stats., interpreting ss. 29.014, 29.041, and 29.192, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public meetings on revisions to Chapters NR 1, 10, 13, and 45, Wis. Adm. Code, related to deer management, hunting, and implementation of the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee Report. This emergency order has been adopted by the Natural Resources Board and the public hearing is being held to fulfill statutory requirements.

Hearing Dates and Locations

Date: Friday, March 28, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Location: Natural Resources State Office Building
(GEF-2)
101 S. Webster St.
Room 613
Madison, WI 53707

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Scott Loomans at (608) 267-2452 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Copies of the Rule and Place Where Comments are to be Submitted

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov or by searching the keywords “administrative rules" on the department's website. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to scott.loomans@wisconsin.gov. Written comments, whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail, will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Loomans.

Environmental Impact

The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with rulemaking. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Plain language rule analysis

Gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker made a promise to appoint a “Deer Trustee" to review white-tailed deer management programs and hunting in Wisconsin. In October of 2011 Dr. James C. Kroll, officially known as Wisconsin's white-tailed deer trustee, 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 these rules, which are in effect, is to work with sportsmen and sportswomen and other stakeholders in order to implement ideas and solutions from the Deer Trustee's report to forge a new age for deer management.

Sections 1 to 6 update Natural Resources Board policy so that the term “population objective" and “goal" are used consistently and for concise wording.