2. Of the existing white-tailed deer farms, it is estimated the 26% will go out of business, and the remaining farms will generate $32,500 annually in registration fees.
3. For a multiple registration on one premises, inspections are estimated to generate $2,500 annually
The fiscal estimate is $2,406,000 annually.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Rule Description
This rule affects farm-raised deer keepers. It includes general registration requirements and provisions related specifically to chronic wasting disease. This rule does the following:
•
Includes white-tail deer farmers in the registration requirements that already exist for farm-raised deer keepers. This implements the new captive wildlife law (
2001 Act 56) which will be effective January 1, 2003.
•
Changes requirements for persons keeping 2 or more farm-raised deer herds.
•
Increases record keeping requirements for farm-raised deer keepers.
•
Prohibits farm-raised deer keepers from accepting into his or herd, on a permanent or temporary basis, any cervid from a wild herd.
•
Imposes import restrictions specifically related to reducing the likelihood that chronic wasting disease will be imported to a farm-raised deer herd.
•
Imposes restrictions on movement of farm-raised deer within Wisconsin. Requires participation in CWD herd monitoring program before any live cervid can be moved off farm-raised deer premises in Wisconsin.
•
Requires CWD testing of every cervid over the age of 16 months that dies on a farm-raised deer farm if any part of the carcass is removed from the farm.
•
Requires pre-movement tuberculosis testing of farm-raised white-tail deer in Wisconsin.
Small Businesses Affected by this Rule
Currently there are approximately 985 persons who are either registered as farm-raised deer keepers or licensed by DNR as game farms. After January 1, 2003, all of these people will be required to register with DATCP as farm-raised deer keepers. Most of these people qualify as a small business and will be affected by this rule.
Effects on Small Business
This rule will have a substantial impact on registered farm-raised deer keepers. It increases costs by requiring the farm-raised deer keeper to have CWD testing done on any cervid over 16 months of age that dies on the registered premises if any portion of the carcass leaves the registered premises. It also requires CWD testing of any cervid over 16 months of age that is shipped directly to slaughter. In addition, if any live cervid is moved from the registered premises, the farm-raised deer keeper is required to test every cervid over 16 months of age that dies on the premises, whether or not any part of the carcass leaves the premises. All costs of testing are the responsibility of the farm-raised deer keeper. It is not clear how much the testing will cost, but it is estimated it could cost as much as $100 per test.
If the farm-raised deer keeper plans to move any live animal off the registered premises, the herd will have to be enrolled in the CWD herd monitoring program. The farm-raised deer keeper whose herd is enrolled in the CWD herd monitoring program under this rule will incur additional costs. Every cervid in the herd that dies after reaching 16 months of age must have a CWD test completed, regardless of whether any part of the carcass leaves the premises. In addition, every cervid in the herd must be identified with official individual identification before it reaches 1 year of age, or before it leaves the premises whichever occurs first. If the herd owned applies the identification herself or himself, it could be done for $1.00 or less per animal. If a veterinarian is used to apply the identification, the costs could be substantially more. As part of the CWD herd monitoring program, the herd owner will have to maintain more detailed records and file an annual census with the department. Under this rule, the requirement that cervids moving off registered premises must originate from a herd that is enrolled in the CWD monitoring program is effective immediately. The requirement is gradually increased so that effective in 2008, the herd of origin must have been in the herd monitoring program for 5 years prior to movement of animals from the herd.
Under current rules, a farm-raised deer may not be removed from the herd premises unless a certified veterinarian completes a certificate of veterinary inspection and the cervid has tested negative for tuberculosis. This rule extends the requirement for a certificate of veterinary inspection and negative tests for tuberculosis prior to movement to all farm-raised white-tail deer. These requirements represent an additional cost to the keeper of farm-raised white-tail deer. In addition to the costs to obtain a certificate of veterinary inspection and to complete the tuberculosis tests, many keepers of farm-raised white-tail deer will find that efficiency in completing the tuberculosis tests requires the keeper to purchase new animal handling equipment that will permit testing of the cervids without anesthetization. The rule does not require installation of animal handling equipment, only completion of the test. We estimate this type of animal handling equipment could cost about $3000 – 5000.
Some limited number of farm-raised deer keepers will incur additional registration fees. Under current rules, a keeper of farm-raised deer is allowed to register more than one location as one operation and pay one registration fee. Under this rule, each separate location must be registered separately and separate registration fees are paid for each location. (The registration fee for each location is $50 if no more than 15 deer are kept at the location or $100 if more than 15 deer are kept at the location.)
Under this rule a farm-raised deer keeper may register more than one herd at a location if the fences and facilities are adequate to maintain a “medically significant separation" between the herds. One instance where this would be necessary is if the farm-raised deer keeper maintains a breeding herd that he wants to ship live animals out of, and a hunting herd at the same location. If the keeper ships live animals out of the breeding herd, he or she must either enroll all the animals in both herds in the herd monitoring program, including applying official individual identification to all the animals and maintaining an accurate census, or maintain and register two separate herds. If the keeper maintains two separate herds at one location, he or she will incur the additional registration fee and an inspection fee of $150 per inspection for a DATCP employee to inspect the premises to assure that the fences and/or facilities are adequate to maintain a “medically significant separation."
Under this rule, cervids may not be imported into Wisconsin unless they originated from a herd that has been under surveillance or monitored for CWD for a period of 5 years. A herd that is under surveillance for CWD is being watched by an accredited veterinarian to determine whether animals in the herd show clinical signs of CWD. A herd that is being monitored for CWD is being watched for clinical signs of CWD and animals that die are being tested for CWD. In addition, the herd owner identifies each animal, maintains in depth records of each animal and makes those records available to the animal health officials in the state of origin. This rule immediately requires that any cervid being imported originate from a herd that has been under surveillance for 5 years. The rule gradually phases in a change from 5 years of surveillance to 5 years as a monitored herd. This requirement reduces the number of potential sources for a farm-raised deer farmer to purchase animals for addition to the herd. Because the number of sources is reduced, the price of the cervids may increase. It is not possible to determine how much of a price increase might occur.
Steps to Assist Small Business
For purposes of controlling this disease threat, it is essential that cervids be identified with official individual identification and records maintained of their movements. Prior to this rule, official individual identification generally required a veterinarian to insert an official eartag in the ear of the animal. This could become very costly and caused extreme stress for some of the animals. This rule recognizes a new form of official individual identification called a “chronic wasting disease registration tag." The herd owner will register with DATCP and receive a premises ID. The herd owner then is allowed to contact an approved manufacturer to obtain eartags that will include both the premises ID and an individual ID number that the owner will assign to each individual animal. The owner will be able to apply these tags to the cervids and will probably be able to do so at a cost of less than $1.00 per animal.
The department would like to require that any cervid moving interstate or within Wisconsin originate from a herd that has been participating in a CWD monitoring program for at least 5 years. However, the department recognizes that imposing such a restriction at this time would be onerous. Therefore, the department is phasing in the restriction to allow people to get enrolled in the program and meet shipment requirements as the requirements increase. By 2008, the requirements for 5 years of participation in the herd monitoring program will be fully implemented.
Conclusion
This rule will have a significant impact on farm-raised deer keepers throughout Wisconsin. It may be costly for farm-raised deer keepers to comply with the requirements of the rule. However, the alternative may be the total failure of the industry. If Chronic Wasting Disease becomes established in the farm-raised deer industry in Wisconsin, we will see significant loss of animals due to the disease, a complete closing of markets for live animals from Wisconsin and we may see a significant reduction in the number of hunters willing to pay for a hunt in Wisconsin. In addition, we would likely see a significant call from politicians and the public for the elimination of legal deer farms in the state. The provisions of this rule are designed to minimize the risk that chronic wasting disease will be introduced to Wisconsin deer farms, and if it is discovered in a deer farm, they should help confine and potentially eliminate the disease from the farmed population. Ultimately, if the industry is to survive, these provisions need to be adopted.
Notice of Hearing
Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors Examining Board
[
CR 02-090]
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors in ss.
15.08 (5) (b) and
227.11 (2), Stats., and interpreting s.
443.06 (3), Stats., the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to create s.
A-E 6.07, relating to land surveyor temporary permits.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: July 24, 2002
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: 1400 East Washington Avenue
Room 124
Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received by August 7, 2002 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Section
443.06 (3), Stats., provides for the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors, to grant a temporary permit for the practice of land surveying to applicants who hold a valid land surveying license in another state. Current laws and rules do not specify an expiration date for the temporary permit. The proposed rule would clarify the expiration date of the temporary permit to be the date the applicant is notified that he or she passed or failed the state jurisdictional examination. If the applicant did not appear to be tested, the temporary permit would expire on the date of the next scheduled state jurisdictional examination.
The proposed rules would consist of three sections. The first section would identify the requirements for obtaining a temporary permit. The second section would describe the conditions under which the temporary permit would expire. And the third section would provide for the board to grant an extension of the temporary permit under certain conditions.
Fiscal Estimate
1. The anticipated fiscal effect on the fiscal liability and revenues of any local unit of government of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
2. The projected anticipated state fiscal effect during the current biennium of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
3. The projected net annualized fiscal impact on state funds of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These proposed rules will be reviewed by the department through its Small Business Review Advisory Committee to determine whether there will be an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Wis. Stat.
Copies of Rule and Contact Person
Copies of this proposed rule are available without cost upon request to: Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 (608) 266-0495
Notice of Hearings
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
227.11 (2) (a),
302.02,
301.03 (2), Stats., the department of corrections proposes the following rule relating to complaint procedures.
Hearing Information:
Date & Time Location
July 15, 2002 Wood County Courthouse
Monday 400 Market Street
11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Room 210B (Second Floor)
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
July 16, 2002 State Office Building
Tuesday 141 N.W. Barstow Street
11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Room 137 A
Waukesha, Wisconsin
The public hearing sites are accessible to people with disabilities.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Corrections
The department's rule on inmate complaint procedures was last amended in 1998. Since that time the department has designed and added a new database and automated many of the record-keeping functions described in this rule. As prison administration continually evolves, so must our administrative code. For these reasons, the department proposes updating the rule.
Since implementing the department's Inmate Complaint Tracking System, physical processing of inmate complaints has changed. This rule helps to clarify the process and that, in turn, promotes efficiency as well as understanding. For example, this rule proposal eliminates various vague statements such as in s.
DOC 310.06 (2) (b) which states that the Inmate Complaint Examiner may “reject a complaint in accordance with provisions of this chapter;" and inserts a more concrete statement of “return complaint forms that do not meet the filing requirements of this chapter." This language is more specific and provides inmates with the clear understanding that their complaints may be returned without being processed for failure to comply with filing requirements. The previous statement notified inmates that they might have their complaint returned but did not go as far to inform the inmate of a specific reason. Clarity in this rule may even lead to fewer inmate complaints, as they may understand the system better. The addition of specific requirements in s.
DOC 310.09 (1) ensures that inmates know exactly what is required of them in filing complaints. It ensures easier processing of complaints through consistency and should logically result in fewer inmate complaints being returned for incomplete filing. This clarification will also assist the department in investigating inmate complaints in a timelier manner.
This proposed rule also eliminates redundancy by removing such items as s.
DOC 310.08 (1), which states that “an inmate may use the complaint review system individually or with a group of inmates collectively." This statement is simply not necessary at this point in the rule as it is addressed in detail in ss.
DOC 310.09 as well as 310.10.
This rule proposal eliminates unnecessary directives regarding internal processing such as in ss.
DOC 310.08 (4) and
(5), which state where complaints will be directed within the department. DOC 310.11 (1) is also amended to simplify existing language to merely specify that “ICE staff" collect complaints.
This rule proposes changes in the time limits throughout the complaint process. The time limit for making a recommendation to the appropriate reviewing authority and the time needed to render a decision have each expanded by five working days. This change reflects both the increased time needed to effectively review and decide certain complaints, as well as the time needed to review the increasing number of complaints from a growing inmate population.
The current rule allows an inmate to appeal only a frivolous complaint to the appropriate reviewing authority, while this proposed rule allows inmates to appeal a rejected complaint to the appropriate reviewing authority. Non-frivolous complaints are currently reviewed directly by the Corrections Complaint Examiner, thereby skipping a logical step in the process. The proposed rule also makes the reviewing authority's decision final in all appeals, not just frivolous appeals as in the current rule.
In summary, this rule proposal more logically and succinctly explains the progression of the complaint from its origin with the inmate through the appeal process and final decision, when applicable, by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These rules are not expected to have an effect on small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
The department's rule on inmate complaint procedures was last amended in 1998. Since that time, the department has designed and added a new database and has also automated many of the recordkeeping functions described in this rule. For these reasons, the department proposed updating the rule.
The updated language helps clarify the process by adding specificity, eliminating redundancy, and providing inmates with a clear understanding of how the process works.
This rule proposes changes in the time limits throughout the complaint process. The time limit for making a recommendation to the appropriate reviewing authority and the time needed to render a decision have each expanded by five working days. This change reflects both the increased time needed to effectively review and to make a decision.
Ultimately, this rule proposal explains the complaint process in a more logical and concise manner. It is not anticipate that these changes will have any fiscal impact on the department.
Contact Person
For a copy of the proposed rule contact:
Julie Kane (608) 240-5015
Office of Legal Counsel
P.O. Box 7925
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7925
If you are hearing or visually impaired, do not speak English, or have circumstances which might make communication at the hearing difficult and if you, therefore, require an interpreter or a non-English, large print or taped version of the hearing document, contact the person at the address or phone number above. A person requesting a non-English or sign language interpreter should make that request at least 10 days before the hearing. With less than 10 days notice, an interpreter may not be available.
Written Comments
