The amendments to s. ATCP 75.015 (7)(c), Wis. Adm. Code, will have a fiscal impact on small businesses as defined in s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats. Currently, approximately 7,500 retail food establishments are licensed and inspected by either the department or a local city/county health department that is an agent of the department. Retail food establishments range from small establishments that sell only pre-packaged food to large establishments which process as well as sell a variety of foods.
Over time some retail food establishments have added restaurant type operations and, conversely, some restaurants have added retail food sales operations. Under current rules, a person who operates both a retail food store and a restaurant at the same location may be subject to duplicate licensing by both the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) and the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS). Local city/county health departments that contract to perform licensing and inspection of retail food establishments as agents of the state may also issue duplicate licenses for establishments which perform both restaurant and retail food sales or processing activities.
This rule exempts holders of restaurant permits from licensing as a retail food establishment if the retail food sales at the same location as the restaurant are less than 50% of the total food sales at the location. This rule effectively eliminates unnecessary duplication of licensing in restaurants with limited retail food sales or processing activities. DHFS is adopting a similar rule which will exempt retail food establishment licenses from obtaining a restaurant permit if meal food sales are less than 50% of the total food sales. These actions will eliminate unnecessary costs and help small business by reducing their license fees and inspection costs.
The proposed rule provides specific accommodations to certain small businesses. Restaurant operators who are exempt from a retail food establishment license will no longer have to pay the retail food establishment license fee or be inspected by the DATCP or its local agent.
The proposed rule does not require any additional recordkeeping for small businesses. The proposed rule does not require any additional professional services to be acquired by small businesses.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
On May 13, 1999, the department transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and Government Operations on May 18, 1999, and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on May 24, 1999. No action was taken during the review period by either committee.
2.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 99-78)
Ch. ATCP 60 - Drug Residues in Raw Milk.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The modifications to ch. ATCP 60, Wis. Adm. Code, Dairy Farms, will not have a fiscal impact on small businesses as defined in s. 227.1 14(1)(a), Stats. There are approximately 110 dairy plants currently licensed and inspected by the department that meet the definition of a small business.
The testing of every bulk load of raw milk for a drug residue received by a dairy plant operator is required under the dairy farm rule. A dairy plant operator is also required to test each of the producer milk samples collected for a bulk load that tests positive for a drug residue in order to identify the violative producer or producers.
A dairy plant operator is required to reject a bulk load of raw milk that tests positive for a drug residue. The rejected bulk load cannot be shipped to another dairy plant or used for human food.
The proposed changes to ch. ATCP 60, Wis. Adm. Code, are:
1.Clarify and standardize the testing procedures for the producer milk samples collected for a bulk load of raw milk that tested positive for a drug residue.
2. Clarify who is responsible for insuring that a bulk load of raw milk that tested positive for a drug residue is not used for human food.
The impact of the proposed rule changes on small business is negligible. It would not be necessary for licensed dairy plants to provide additional laboratory facilities or staff, or retain additional testing services to comply with these changes.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
On September 28, 1999, the department transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform on September 30, 1999, and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on October 5, 1999. No action was taken during the review period by either committee.
3.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 99-116)
Ch. ATCP 77 - Certification Fees for Laboratories Engaged in Public Health Testing of Milk, Water, and Food.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This rule establishes fees for certification of laboratories examining milk, food or water for the protection of public health. The 1995-97 biennial budget act transferred much of the administration of Wisconsin's laboratory certification program from the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). Shortly after that transfer, DATCP proposed rules establishing fees to offset the costs of certification of laboratories as required in s. 93.12, Wis. Stats. These fees are based on recovering 100% of the costs of this program from the industry affected by the program. Those rules also required the DATCP to evaluate laboratory certification fees by FY 2000 and make appropriate adjustments to the fees.
The approximately 180 laboratories currently certified range from small, one person laboratories to large facilities with dozens of analysts. This rule will have a fiscal impact on “small businesses” as defined in s. 227.1 14(1)(a) Wis. Stats. Annual laboratory fees are increased as compared to the $216 per test fee currently charged by DATCP. This fee increase is due to the fact that the laboratory certification program is inadequately funded. Inadequate funding occurs because the number of laboratories requiring certification has decreased. Costs of the program have actually been reduced in the past two years by reducing program support activities.
The proposed rule will increase costs for laboratories that test milk, food or water. These laboratories currently pay a fee of $216 per test. Fees under the proposed rule range from $336 for one milk or food test to $3,360 for 10 tests. Fees for water laboratories under the proposed rule range from $276 for one test to $1104 for four tests.
The proposed rule will impact local government water laboratories. These laboratories currently pay fees of $216 per test, based on the number of tests they run. Under the proposed rule, these laboratories would pay a $276 fee for each test.
The proposed rule has no other impact on small businesses. It would not be necessary for certified laboratories to retain additional professional services such as accounting or legal services to comply with this rule.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
On October 1, 1999, the department transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources Campaign Finance Reform on October 5, 1999, and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on October 12, 1999. No action was taken during the review period by either committee.
Chs. ER 1, 18 & 29 - Reinstatement eligibility and restoration of sick leave for state employes, other related time periods for state personnel transactions, and minor and technical rule changes.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule does not affect small business; therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
5.
Employment Relations - Division of Merit Recruitment and Selection
(CR 99-111)
Ch. ER-MRS 1, 11, 16, 22 & 34 - Reinstatement eligibility and employment register expiration for state employment and minor and technical rule changes.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule does not affect small business; therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
6.
Financial Institutions - Securities
(CR 99-121)
Chs. DFI-Sec 1, 2, 4 & 5 - Securities broker-dealer, agent and investment adviser licensing requirements and procedures, securities registration exemptions, definitions and forms.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
No final regulatory flexibility analysis is included on the basis that the Division of Securities has determined, after complying with s. 227.016(1) to (5), Wis. Stats., that the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
7.
Geologists, Hydrologists and Soil Scientists
(CR 99-88)
Chs. GHSS 1 to 5 - Registration and regulation of professional geologists, hydrologists and soil scientists.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments reported.
Ch. HFS 115 - Screening of newborn children for congenital and metabolic disorders.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These rule changes will not affect small businesses as “small business” is defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats. The addition of another condition for which the same blood sample of a newborn child is screened will affect the State Laboratory of Hygiene, the Department for follow-up treatment, newborn children identified as having the particular condition who will benefit from the follow-up treatment, and their parents, and all parents of newborn children or their third-party payers for the additional cost (about $5.50) of a delivery. No third-party payer is likely to be a small business, and in any case would likely absorb or else pass-on increased costs to parents.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
S. HFS 105.39 (4) (b) 3. — Refresher training requirements in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid for drivers of specialized medical vehicles (SMVs) under the medical assistance (MA) program.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
Nearly all of the 191 MA-certified SMV providers are small businesses as “small business” is defined ins. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats. Many of the SMV providers and their drivers are affected by the amendment of s. HFS 105.39 (4) (b) 3.
The amendments change the required frequency of SMV driver refresher training in first aid and provide that the drivers get the refresher training in CPR that they need in order to maintain certification.
Because of this updating of s. HFS 105.39 (4) (b) 3., SMV providers are likely to realize savings in training costs and providing coverage for drivers taking training. Drivers will not have to receive refresher training in first aid and CPR as often as they did before publication of the emergency rules. Consequently, the amendments themselves provide regulatory relief to some small businesses.
No comments were received on the emergency and the proposed permanent rule changes during public review of them.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were received.
10. Law Enforcement Standards Board
(CR 99-93)
Ch. LES 4 - Certification of instructors for law enforcement, jail and secure detention training.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rules do not affect small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments reported.
11. Medical Examining Board
(CR 99-1)
Ch. Med 8 - Licensure and regulation of physician assistants.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Chs. Med 6, 10, 13 & 21 - The repeal of rules relating tot he practice of podiatry.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Ch. NR 410 — Increase in construction permit fees.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
