This rule does not impact small business.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
None reported.
An order affecting ch.
HFS 58, relating to the eligibility of nonparent relatives of children to receive kinship care or long-term kinship care benefits to help them provide care and maintenance for the children.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These rules apply to the following agencies and individuals: The Department of Health and Family Services, the Division of Hearings and Appeals in the Department of Administration, County Departments of Human/Social Services, Tribal Child Welfare Agencies and individuals who apply for a kinship care or long-term kinship care benefit.
None of the affected agencies or individuals are “small businesses" as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
The Department submitted the final proposed rulemaking order to the presiding officers on July 9, 2001. On September 5, 2001, the Senate Committee on Human Services and Aging held a hearing on final proposed rules. At the hearing, the Department submitted a germane modification to s.
HFS 58.06 (2). On September 6, 2001, the Department received a letter from Senator Robson on behalf of the Senate Committee on Human Services and Aging requesting the Department to make two changes to the proposed rules. One of the requests pertained to making further changes to s.
HFS 58.06 (2) presented by the Department at the September 5th hearing, while the other pertained to s.
HFS 58.12. On September 6, 2001, the Department notified Senator Robson that it did not intend to amend the proposed rule in the manner requested by her Committee.
The Senate Committee on Human Services and Aging formally objected to the final proposed rule on September 14, 2001.
On November 14, 2001, the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) held a hearing on the final proposed rule. By a 5-5 tie vote, JCRAR failed to concur in the standing committee's objection. The Department received a letter dated November 15, 2001 that, given that JCRAR failed to sustain the Senate Committee's objection, the Department was free to file the rule.
An order amending HFS 94, relating to the rights of patients to make telephone calls.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed permanent rule will not affect small businesses as “small business" is defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
No comments were received.
An order creating ch.
HFS 95, relating to the use of force to prevent escapes, pursue and capture escaped persons detained or committed and to provide security at facilities housing such persons.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rule will not affect small businesses as “small business" is defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
At the conclusion of the November 14, 2001 meeting of Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts, the committee informally asked the Department to consider changing “bodily injury" to “great bodily injury" in s.
HFS 95.06 (1) (c), which addresses when lethal force may be used. Specifically, the language in question currently states that lethal force may be used only when the user reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or bodily injury. The Committee's concern was that this language may unintentionally allow the use of lethal force in situations that are not serious enough to call for lethal force.
The Department believes a language change is unnecessary because the rule as currently drafted addresses the committee's concern. Specifically, the language in question must be read in the context of the entire s.
HFS 95.06 which describes the full use of force continuum. Of particular importance is s.
HFS 95.06 (1) (a), which introduces the progression of force allowed as follows:
“The director shall adopt written policies and procedures that establish a systematic progression of force based on the perceived level of threat... This progression includes staff presence, dialogue, empty-hand control, incapacitating devices, and lethal force. The policies and procedures shall be designed to help ensure that force is only used when necessary and that only the amount of force that is necessary under the circumstances is used." (Emphasis added.)
The limits this introductory language places on the paragraphs that address non-lethal force ensure that both non-lethal force and lethal force will be allowed only in circumstances and in a degree to which they are necessary, while also allowing facility staff to appropriately respond to threats of physical harm.
An order affecting ch.
HFS 119, relating to operation of the health insurance risk-sharing plan (HIRSP).
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rule changes will not affect small businesses as “small business" is defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats. Although the program statutes and rules provide for assessment of insurers to help finance the Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan (HIRSP), no assessed insurer is a small business as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats. Moreover, s.
149.143, Stats., prescribes how the amount of an insurer's assessment to help finance HIRSP is to be determined.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
No comments were received.
An order creating ch.
HEA 13, relating to the teacher education loan program.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Proposed rules relate to a specialized loan program and do not impact small business.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
No comments were received.
An order creating ch.
HEA 14, relating to the teacher of the visually impaired loan program.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Proposed rules relate to a specialized loan program and do not impact small business.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
No comments were received.
An order affecting ch.
Ins 6, relating to regulations concerning agent transactions with customers.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and therefore a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
The legislative standing committees had no comments on this rule.
An order affecting chs.
Ins 6,
26 and
28, relating to revising Wisconsin agent licensing rules to be reciprocal and more uniform under Gramm Leach Bliley Act and the NAIC Producer model.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and therefore a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
The legislative standing committees had no comments on this rule.
An order affecting chs.
NR 1,
10,
12 and
19, relating to deer hunting and the wildlife damage abatement and claims program.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
The proposed rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources. The Senate Committee on Environmental Resources held a public hearing on March 15, 2001. The Senate Committee requested the Department to remove the January deer bow season, extend the current September to November deer bow season by 2 days, remove the December deer gun season, and create a 2-day deer gun season on the Saturday and Sunday immediately after the regular deer gun season.
The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing on April 2, 2001 and requested modifications to the proposed rule.
At its May 23, 2001 meeting, the Natural Resources Board adopted modifications that concluded the late archery season on January 3, extended the early archery season by 4 days, included an experimental 4-day December antlerless gun season north of US highway 8 and clarified the state park herd control seasons.
On June 6, 2001, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources requested further modifications. At its October 26, 2001 meeting, the Natural Resources Board modified the December experimental gun deer season to be in effect for 3 years, after which it would discontinue or sunset according to the rule. The Board declined to add 7 days to the end of the traditional 9-day deer gun season.
On November 7, 2001, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources objected to 4 portions of Clearinghouse Rule No. 00-154 and referred those portions of the rule to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules. The Committee specifically objected to those parts of the rule that:
1. Created a 4-day December antlerless only deer hunting season for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 seasons.
2. Sets the day in October for the start of the 4-day antlerless only deer season, allowing the use of bows and guns, in a special deer herd control hunt.
3. Authorizes a 4-day early bow season immediately prior to the 9-day gun season.
4. Allows gun license deer to be registered only in the unit where the deer was killed or an adjoining unit.
The portions of the rule referred to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules have been removed from Natural Resources Board Order No. WM-40-00 until such time as the Joint Committee takes action on the objections.
An order affecting chs.
NR 103 and
350, relating to wetland compensatory mitigation.
Effective 2-1-02
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules do not directly regulate small business. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees
The proposed rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Environment and the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources. On August 14, 2001, the Assembly Committee on Environment held a public hearing and requested modifications to the proposed rule. On August 31, 2001, the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources requested modifications to the proposed rule.
Both committees suggested changes to the sequence for mitigation in s.
NR 350.04, specifically looking at how the Department “grandfathers" existing banks that were developed prior to this proposed rule. The Natural Resources Board adopted the Senate's recommendation, though it appeared that it was not different in intent from the Assembly's version. The Senate also recommended eliminating the ratio variance language for those filling more than 20 acres of wetland. The Natural Resources Board did not propose to make that change.
Oc October 10, 2001, the Senate Committee on Environmental Resources formally objected to proposed s.
NR 350.06 (3) on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious. On October 11, 2001, the Assembly Committee on Environment objected to proposed s.
NR 350.04 on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious.
