Assumptions Used in Arriving at Fiscal Estimate
This proposed rule addresses two portions of the rules of the State Fair Park Board. First, it addresses several subsections of ch. SFP 2
in which a minimum age for doing some specific thing is 18 years of age. Under the amendment, most of these references to age are changed from 18 years of age to 17 years of age. The Board does not believe this change will cause any fiscal impact. The existing staff have enforced the 18 year age requirement in the past, so the Board does not expect any additional fiscal impact with the new age level.
The second portion of the rules affected by this proposed order is the bond schedule. In September, 1996, new SFP rules numbered chs. SFP 1
were published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register
. Chapter SFP 7
was also published, but it did not include changes which were needed under the newly-published chs. SFP 1
. This proposed order changes the bond schedule to provide bond amounts for violations of provisions created in the 1996 rules. Since this order does not create new violations, there should be no additional fiscal impact. The persons who enforce chs. SFP 1
will simply have an accurate bond schedule to use.
There is no local government fiscal impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rule proposal has minimal effect on small businesses in Wisconsin. To the extent that it does affect small businesses, it grants them additional rights without imposing any additional costs.
This rule changes several references in SFP rules from 18 years of age to 17 years of age. This means that if something was previously prohibited for persons under 18 years of age, it is now prohibited for persons under 17 years of age. There is one exception to this lowering of age. Current rules require persons serving, selling or vending alcoholic beverages to be 18 years of age or older. That provision was not changed. These changes do not have a negative impact on small businesses.
The other thing this rule does is establish a bond schedule for persons who violate provisions of chs. SFP 1
. Since this will only apply to persons who violate the rules, it is not anticipated that this will have an effect on small businesses. While it is true that small businesses may be faced with paying a forfeiture, that is completely within their control because they are able to determine whether they will violate the rules and, therefore, whether they will be subject to the bond.
Notice of Submission of Proposed Rules to the Presiding Officer of each House of the Legislature, Under S. 227.19, Stats.
Please check the Bulletin of Proceedings for further information on a particular rule.
Financial Institutions--Division of Securities (CR 97-148):
SS. DFI-Sec 7.01 (6), 27.01 (5) and 35.01 (4) - Relating to Division photocopying fee charges.
S. El Bd 1.855 - Relating to contributions from conduit accounts.
S. El Bd 1.30 - Relating to filing campaign finance reports.
S. El Bd 1.655 - Relating to the identification of the source of communications in polls and surveys paid for with money raised for political purposes.
S. El Bd 1.85 - Relating to conduit registration and reporting requirements.
SS. NR 132.085 and 132.09 and ch. NR 182
- Relating to regulation of metallic mineral mining.
Ch. VA 12
- Relating to the personal loan program.
The following administrative rule orders have been adopted and published in the January 31, 1998
Wisconsin Administrative Register. Copies of these rules are sent to subscribers of the complete Wisconsin Administrative Code, and also to the subscribers of the specific affected Code.
For subscription information, contact Document Sales at (608) 266-3358.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection (CR 97-38):
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection (CR 97-43):
An order creating ss. ATCP 31.03
, relating to standards for repealing site-specific prohibitions against the use of pesticides found in groundwater.
An order affecting chs. Comm 2
, relating to the inspection of elevators and mechanical lifting devices.
Part effective 01-01-98.
Part effective 02-01-98.
An order creating ch. DOC 304
, relating to the inmate secure work program.
An order amending s. NR 101.13 (2)
, relating to the wastewater fee program.
An order affecting s. PD 3.038 (2)
, relating to the calculation of indigency.
An order affecting ss. RL 17.02
, relating to the employment of personal assistants by real estate salespeople and broker-employes.
An order affecting chs. RL 80
, relating to the regulation of certified and licensed appraisers.
An order affecting chs. Trans 129
, relating to the waiver of the motorcycle skills test and to required attendance of motorcycle rider courses and motorcycle instruction permit issuance.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
1. Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This rule increases existing license fees for dairy plants, food processing plants, food warehouses and retail food establishments. The department has not increased license fees since 1991.
Wisconsin's food safety programs are funded by general tax dollars (GPR) and industry license fees (PR). In 1991, license fees funded about 40% of the food safety program costs. Program costs have increased due to external factors, such as inflation and statewide pay increases, over which the department has no control. In addition, the 1995-97 biennial budget reduced GPR funding, and required a higher percentage (50%) of license fee funding. As a result, the department projects a deficit in its food safety budget in FY 1997-98.
Increasing license fees as proposed in this rule will affect small businesses. License fees for all categories of dairy plants, food processing plants, food warehouses and retail food establishments will increase. Small businesses exist in each category of food and dairy establishment.
The department has attempted to accommodate small businesses and provide a reasonably fair and equitable license fee schedule. This is done by basing fees on the actual costs associated with each category of licensed establishment and then determining further subcategories of establishments based on the size or volume of each establishment and the food products processed or handled by the establishment. Smaller establishments processing and handling food with less potential food safety risks pay lower license fees than large establishments handling foods with higher food safety risks.
This rule requires no additional recordkeeping or other procedures for small businesses. Small businesses will need no additional professional skills or assistance in order to comply with this rule.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
On September 16, 1997, this department transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources did not take any action on the rule during its review period. However, the Assembly Committee on Agriculture held a hearing on November 13, 1997. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture took no action regarding the proposed rule.
2. Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
Ch. ATCP 31
- Groundwater protection.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This rule has no direct effect on small businesses in Wisconsin. The rule may indirectly affect small businesses, in that it spells out criteria for the repeal of pesticide prohibition areas. This rule authorizes, but does not mandate the repeal of a prohibition area if certain criteria are met. To implement the actual repeal of a prohibition area, the department would have to take separate action to amend its pesticide-specific rules (e.g., atrazine rules under ATCP 30). The department would do a separate, more specific "small business analysis" related to those rule amendments.
Farmers are the primary small businesses having an interest in this rule. The standards contained in this rule may eventually affect the regulation of specific pesticides such as atrazine. For example, if the department annually repealed four atrazine prohibition areas, the repeals would affect about 10,000 acres each year. Assuming that farmers would elect to use the pesticide on 25% of this land, then 2,500 acres of land would be affected annually. This acreage would represent between 12 and 30 producers, depending on their crop acreage.
Producers using pesticides are typically small businesses, as defined by s. 227.114 (1)(a)
, Stats. Secondary effects may be felt by distributors and applicators of the specific pesticide, crop consultants and equipment dealers. The net effect on farmers and pesticide sellers is difficult to estimate, because alternative pesticides are generally available.
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Procedures Required for Compliance:
Renewed use of a prohibited pesticide may include some restrictions including limits on application rates and limits on the soil types to which the pesticide could be applied. This may necessitate referring to a soil survey map or obtaining a soil test. While this activity is routine, documentation would need to be maintained to document compliance. A map delineating application areas may be required if the field is subdivided and variable application rates are used. This procedure is already required under the current atrazine rule.
Professional Skills Required to Comply:
The rule may indirectly affect how much pesticide can be applied and on which fields. Because renewed use of the pesticide may involve some restrictions, alternative pest control techniques may be needed in some situations. These techniques may include different crop rotations, reduced pesticide application rates, or combinations of pesticides and mechanical pest control measures.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on August 27, 1997. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture did not take any action on the rule during its review period. However, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources held a hearing and requested the department accept the rule for modification based on hearing testimony.