1.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 96-71)
Chs. ATCP 10 - 12 - Animal diseases and animal movements.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
General Overview
This proposed rule establishes the policies and procedures whereby the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection will implement 1995 Wisconsin Act 79 which transferred the primary authority for regulating “farm-raised deer” from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The rule incorporates recently adopted USDA regulations related to branding and shipping to slaughter cervidae and bovine animals defined as tuberculosis suspects or reactors. The rule also includes provisions responding to the recently reached agreement with USDA/APHIS and its Russian counterparts regarding the export of poultry meat to the Russian Federation.
This proposed rule will affect small businesses in Wisconsin. It includes provisions which relate to small businesses engaged in farming specific genera of the family Cervidae defined as “farm-raised deer”, cervidae in general and bovine animals, the practice of veterinary medicine and livestock trucking, livestock dealing and operating a livestock market.
Farm-Raised Deer
The statute requires that any person who keeps farm-raised deer must be registered with the department. This proposed rule defines keeping farm-raised deer as owning, renting, leasing or serving as the custodian of farm-raised deer. For those keeping farm-raised deer, the rule proposes an annual registration fee of $50 for persons keeping 15 or fewer farm-raised deer and $100 for persons keeping more than 15 farm-raised deer. If the department has certified the herd as an accredited tuberculosis-free herd, the keeper is required to register, but the fee is waived. After December 31, 1998, no fee will be charged to any keeper, but all persons becoming keepers of farm-raised deer must register. In registering, keepers of farm-raised deer will need to complete a form providing owner and custodian name and address and herd information.
The rule provides options to keepers of farm-raised deer who have multiple locations. They may register as one entity and pay one fee or they may register each location separately paying multiple fees. Registering as one entity will allow free movement of cervidae between the locations, but the department will view the multiple locations as one premise for disease traceback and control purposes.
The rule requires keepers of farm-raised deer to maintain records for two years relating to all farm-raised deer purchased or received, sold or delivered, including the names and addresses of the parties involved, the official identification of the farm-raised deer, and the date and location of each transaction.
About 150 farms scattered across Wisconsin will be affected by the farm-raised deer requirements in this rule. These farms are presently being licensed by the Department of Natural Resources, by completing an annual license application form, paying an annual $100 fee and submitting quarterly reports on sales, purchases and transfers. Under the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, registration fees for farms with fewer than 15 deer will decrease, from $100 to $50 annually. The effect on small business in the future will be a further reduction in costs as the annual registration requirement and fee both sunset. While this rule requires the keeper of farm-raised deer to maintain records of transactions, this requirement is less burdensome to the keepers than the DNR requirement of quarterly reporting.
Cervidae
The statute requires owners of animals subject to bovine tuberculosis testing to provide animal handling facilities to ensure the safety of the animal being tested and the persons performing the testing. This proposed rule requires the owner or custodian of cervidae to restrain the cervidae for tuberculosis testing by: 1) providing a cervidae handling facility which meets the minimum standards as outlined in the rule; 2) tranquilizing sufficiently to ensure safe testing of the animal and to protect the person conducting the test or; 3) utilizing a private isolation and testing facility, where the testing can be conducted, including transporting the animal to the facility. The expense of any one of these options is to be borne by the small business. The department has provided alternatives to constructing and maintaining a cervidae handling facility because the alternatives accomplish the same goal and provide cost and management alternatives for small businesses. The owner or custodian will be able to minimize costs by choosing the least costly alternative.
This rule creates a requirement for owners or custodians of cervidae to obtain a department permit in order to move a cervid to an isolation and testing facility. The requirement to obtain a department permit prior to moving an untested cervid to an isolation and testing facility may add minimal costs for the small business person choosing this option, but presumably the business person will consider those costs when deciding which restraint option to choose. The disease control concerns outweigh the minimal cost associated with this requirement.
This rule also imposes requirements for the handling of tuberculosis suspect and reactor cervid consistent with USDA regulations relating to branding and shipping to slaughter. The changes related to handling suspect and reactor cervid will not add costs for the business person because the requirements are already in place at the federal level and this is consistent with the federal requirement.
Bovine Animals
The statute includes the requirement that the owner of animals subject to bovine tuberculosis testing provide animal handling facilities to ensure the safety of the animal being tested and of the persons performing the testing. This proposed rule includes this requirement for bovine animals. Since the statute requires it, the rule does not impose additional costs on the business.
Also, this rule imposes requirements for the handling of tuberculosis suspect and reactor bovine animals consistent with USDA regulations relating to branding and shipping to slaughter. Since these requirements are already in place at the federal level, this rule provision does not add costs for the business person.
Veterinarians
This rule requires veterinarians who prepare interstate health certificates or certificates of veterinary inspection for farm-raised deer to record on the certificate the owner's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's farm-raised deer registration number. This will not result in significant time or expense, since veterinarians need only record the registration number supplied to them by the deer owner.
To better define a veterinarian's responsibility in officially identifying cervidae tested for disease purposes or vaccinated, identified or tested for purposes of health certificate documentation, provisions related to officially eartagging are included in the rule. These provisions correlate with existing provisions for bovine animals. These provisions do not create new responsibilities, but clarify responsibilities which are already in effect.
Also, the rule requires veterinarians that diagnose or find evidence of five poultry diseases to report to the department the diagnosis or finding. These diseases are being added to an already existing list of diseases that are reportable to the department. Therefore, this will not result in any notable time or expense since veterinarians already have reporting procedures in place.
Livestock Truckers, Livestock Dealers and Livestock Markets
The statute includes farm-raised deer in the definition of livestock as it pertains to livestock truckers, dealers and markets as of June 1, 1996. This proposed rule imposes requirements for the identification and associated record keeping of farm-raised deer handled by livestock truckers, dealers and markets which are consistent with records currently required for other species of livestock. For existing livestock dealers, truckers and market operators, the costs of complying will be insignificant. There may be a few business people who have previously not been required to be licensed as a livestock dealer, trucker a market operator who will now be required to license. Costs that will be incurred by those people are a result of the statutory change and not as a result of this rule.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Transportation, Utilities and Financial Institutions on October 2, 1996, and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on October 2, 1996. The department received no comments for request for hearing from either committee.
S. ILHR 14.31 (3) (c) 1 - Inspection of fire extinguishing systems.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rules do not create any new requirements for small businesses. The proposed rules consist of a revision that will be a benefit to small businesses. The rule revision will allow more persons, if properly trained, to perform the inspection and testing of fire extinguishing systems for food preparation equipment. All of the small businesses who presented hearing comments were in favor of the proposed rules.
Summary of Comments:
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on labor and Employment and the Senate Committee on Labor. No comments were received.
S. ETF 10.75 - Signatures on Wisconsin retirement system documents by an agent holding the person's power of attorney.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule itself does not directly affect small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
SS. ETF 20.07 and 60.53 - Automatic distributions of Wisconsin retirement system benefits to participants and alternate payees who have attained age 69.5 and to beneficiaries of deceased animals.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule itself does not directly affect small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Ch. ETF 20 - Purchases of service under the Wisconsin retirement system, including forfeited, qualifying and other governmental service.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule itself does not directly affect small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Chs. HSS 124, 132 and 134 - Review of plans fo constructing or remodeling a hospital, nursing home or facility for the developmentally disabled (FDD), including review for compliance with the State Building Code, and fees for plan review.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These rules changes apply to hospitals, nursing homes and facilities for the developmentally disabled that proposed to undertake new construction or remodeling. They provide for the Department to review facility construction and remodeling plans for conformance to the State Building Code. Until October 1, 1995, review of those plans for that purpose was done by a different state agency. About 185 of the 466 nursing homes and facilities for the developmentally disabled in the state are small businesses as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats. No hospital in Wisconsin is a small business.
The changes will not add to facility reporting or recording-keeping requirements nor will they require new professional skills to comply with them. The Department is simply incorporating is simply incorporating in its rules parts of the State Building Code, and is revising its fees for consolidated plan review to be 95% of the sum of the fees previously charged by the Department for review of plans for conformance to the Life Safety Code and other state agency for review of plans for conformance to the State Building Code.
No comments on the proposed rule changes were received at the Department's public hearing on them.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees:
No comments were received.
S. Ins 6.20 - Investments by town mutual insurers.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
1. None of the methods specified under s. 227.114 (2), Stats., for reducing the rule's impact on small business were included because all must be treated equally and thus it is not possible to have different rules for one segment of the population.
2. The issues raised by small business during the hearing are identified in the listing of modifications in the response to the Clearinghouse Report and in the letters included in the rule hearing record.
3. The proposed rule does not impose any additional reporting requirements on small businesses.
4. The proposed rule generally broadens the authority of town mutuals to invest and therefore is not expected to impose additional costs or require additional measures.
5. No methods specified under s. 227.114 (2), Stats., are included in the proposed rule.
6. No methods of specified under s. 227.114 (2), Stats., are included in the proposed rule because the rule relates to financial solvency of insurers.
Summary of Comments:
The legislative standing committees had no comments on this rule.
S. Ins 14.02 and ch. Ins 51 - Financial standards for insurers.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
1. Several provisions were included that exempt o permit the exemption of many insurers which qualify as small businesses from the requirements of the rule. None of the other methods specified under s. 227.114 (2), Stats., for reducing the rule's impact on small businesses were included because all must be treated equally and thus it is not possible to have different rules for one segment of the population.
2. Two small mutual insurers and an association of town mutual insurers suggested broadening the ability of the commissioner to exempt small property and casualty insurers from the requirements of the rule. That change is included in the final rule. No other issues were raised by small businesses during the hearing on the proposed rule.
3. The proposed rule does not impose any additional reporting costs on small businesses. To the extent the rule applies to a small business the reporting requirements are simply additions to existing requirements.
4. The proposed rule does not require any additional measures or investments by small businesses.
5. There will be no additional costs to the agency to implement the methods specified under s. 227.114 (2), Stats., which are included in the proposed rule.
6. The rule permits the commissioner to approve exemptions for small business-insurers.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees:
The legislative standing committees had no comments on this rule.
Ch. NR 20 - Sport fishing.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rules affect individual anglers. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees:
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources and Urban Affairs. On July 10, 1996, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing on the proposed rule. The Committee asked the Department to consider modifications to consider different treatment of the early trout season in the northern and southern parts of the state.
At its July 24, 1996 meeting, the Natural Resources Board declined to make any modifications to the rule, but did commit to evaluate the statewide early season after one year and make adjustments if needed.
On August 7, 1996 the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources and Urban Affairs held a public hearing. The Committee requested the Department to modify the rule by identifying those streams and those areas of the state deemed appropriate by Department fish managers for inclusion in an early trout fishing season, rather than inclusion of the entire state in such a season. The Natural Resources Board declined to modify the rule, emphasizing its direction to the Department to study the implications of the early tout season during the 1997 season.
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources and Urban Affairs took no further action on the rule.
