This rule will affect agricultural producers, grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors. Many of these businesses are small businesses.
This rule will have a minimal impact on most affected businesses, and effects will be positive in many cases (especially for agricultural producers). The Wisconsin legislature has spelled out detailed statutory requirements for grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors (ch.
126, Stats.). DATCP has limited authority to change these requirements by rule.
This rule will make minor changes to current rules. Among other things, this rule:
• Allows licensed contractors to file voluntary security (it does not change current mandatory security requirements).
• Allows some contractors to pay reduced fund assessments.
• Changes and simplifies current contractor disclosures to producers. In some cases, current disclosures overstate the amount of security coverage afforded to producers. Some contractors may incur one-time costs to change their disclosure forms.
• Clarifies current grain warehouse record keeping requirements (this rule does not add major new record keeping requirements).
This rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on small business. Therefore, it is not subject to the delayed small business effective date provision in s.
227.22 (2) (e), Stats.
Under
2003 Wis. Act 145, DATCP and other agencies must adopt rules spelling out their rule enforcement policy for small businesses. DATCP has not incorporated a small business enforcement policy in this rule, but it will propose a separate rule on that subject. DATCP will, to the maximum extent feasible, seek voluntary compliance with this rule.
Wisconsin's Security Program
Wisconsin has an agricultural producer security program for grain, milk and vegetables. The Wisconsin legislature has spelled out detailed statutory requirements for grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors (ch.
126, Stats.). Contractors must be licensed by DATCP, and most contractors must contribute to an agricultural producer security fund administered by DATCP. A few contractors must also file security with DATCP.
Federal Programs
There is no federal producer security program related to milk. The U.S. department of agriculture (USDA) administers a producer security program for federally licensed grain warehouses that store grain for producers. Grain warehouses may choose whether to be licensed under state or federal law. Federally-licensed warehouses are exempt from state warehouse licensing and security requirements. State-licensed warehouses are likewise exempt from federal requirements.
The federal grain warehouse program provides little or no protection against financial defaults by grain dealers. Grain dealers are persons who buy and sell grain. Sometimes, grain dealers also operate grain warehouses. DATCP currently licenses grain dealers. Licensed warehouse keepers must also hold a state grain dealer license if they engage in grain dealing.
USDA proposes to regulate grain dealer activities (grain “merchandising") by federally licensed warehouse keepers, to the exclusion of state regulation. But USDA has not yet finalized its regulations. In any case, the federal regulations would not apply to state-licensed grain warehouses, or to grain dealers who do not operate a warehouse.
There is a federal security program for vegetables. This security program is mainly limited to fresh market vegetables, and consists of a priority lien against vegetable-related assets. Wisconsin's vegetable security program applies only to processing vegetables (not fresh market vegetables covered by federal regulations). There may be some limited overlap between the Wisconsin and federal programs (the overlap may be justified because the scope of federal coverage is not entirely clear).
State Comparisons
In Minnesota, contractors must be licensed to procure grain, milk or processing vegetables from producers, or to operate grain warehouses. Regulated contractors must file bonds as security against default.
Neither Iowa nor Illinois have producer security programs for milk or vegetables. However, both states maintain indemnity funds to protect grain producers. Fund assessments are based solely on grain volume. In Wisconsin, by contrast, fund assessments are based on grain volume and financial condition.
Michigan has the following producer security programs:
• Potato dealers must be licensed, and must post bonds as security against defaults. (Wisconsin's vegetable security program includes, but is not limited to, potatoes.)
• Dairy plants that fail to meet minimum financial standards must file security or pay cash for milk.
• Grain producers have the option of paying premiums into a state fund. In the event of a grain default, the fund reimburses participating producers.
Agency Contact
Questions or comments related to this rule may be sent to the following address:
Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Trade and Consumer Protection Division
Bureau of Trade Practices
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708-8911
Notice of Hearing
Commerce
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to s.
101.125, Stats., the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on proposed rules under ch.
Comm 72, relating to cleaning methods for historic buildings.
Hearing Information
The public hearing will be held as follows:
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
August 1, 2005
at 10:00 a.m.
|
Thompson Commerce Center
201 W. Washington Avenue
Conference Room #3C
Madison, Wisconsin
|
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until August 15, 2005, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. Written comments should be submitted to Diane Meredith, at the Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at
dmeredith@commerce.state.wi.us.
This hearing is held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY) at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Commerce
Under the statutes cited, the Department of Commerce protects public health, safety, and welfare by promulgating comprehensive construction requirements for public buildings and places of employment. In accordance with s.
101.1215, Stats., the Department is required to develop requirements for prohibiting the use of abrasive cleaners on the exterior of qualified historic buildings, including both commercial buildings and one-and two-family dwellings.
The proposed rules under ch.
Comm 72 are being created to comply with s.
101.1215, Stats., relating to the prohibition of abrasive cleaning methods and identification of acceptable methods for cleaning the exterior facades of qualified historic buildings The Division of Safety and Buildings will enforce the proposed rules by doing an investigative inspection when a complaint is received by the agency. If a violation is found, the Division may refer the violation on to the appropriate authority responsible for assessing penalties as specified in s.
101.1215 (4), Stats.
The proposed rules include the following:
1. The requirements apply to both public buildings and places of employment, and one-and two-family dwellings that are qualified historic buildings. [Comm 72.02]
2. Administration and enforcement of these rules is by complaint. Penalties as specified under s.
101.1215, Stats., may be assessed for violation of these rules. [Comm 72.03 and 70.04]
3. The term “abrasive cleaning method" has the meaning given in s.
101.1215, Stats., and identifies as abrasive, cleaning procedures that employ certain materials or tools, such as sand, glass, rice husks carried in high or low-pressure air or water, or the use of high pressure water. [Comm 72.05 (1)]
4. The term “qualified historic building" has the meaning given in s.
101.121 (2) (c), Stats. [Comm 72.05 (3)]
5. Specific prohibition of any abrasive cleaning method on a qualified historic building. [Comm 72.06 (1)]
6. Identifies where abrasive cleaners may be used, and identifies a non-abrasive cleaning methods. [Comm 72.06 (2)]
Federal Comparison
An Internet-based search for “abrasive cleaning of exterior surfaces of historic buildings" in the Code of Federal Regulations identified the following existing federal regulations that address abrasive cleaning of historic buildings:
1. 36CFR67– Historic Preservation Certifications Pursuant to Sec. 48(g) and Sec. 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
2. 36CFR68– The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
3. 36CFR800– Protection of Historic Properties
Under these existing federal regulations, chemical or physical treatments may be used on historic properties for preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration; however, the treatments used must be the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials are not to be used.
An Internet-based search for “abrasive cleaning of exterior surfaces of historic buildings" of the 2003 and 2004 issues of the Federal Register did not identify any proposed federal regulations that address abrasive cleaning of exterior surfaces of historic buildings.
State Comparisons
An Internet-based search of adjacent states identified that Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan and Iowa do not have any specific rules relating to cleaning methods for the exterior facades of historic buildings.
Council Members and Representation
The proposed rules were developed with the assistance of the Historic Building Code Council, Dan Stephans, from the Department of Administration, and James Draeger, Wisconsin Historical Society. The members of the Historic Building Code Council are as follows:
Name
|
Representing
|
Bruce Johnson
|
Wisconsin Builders Association
|
Steve Gleisner
|
City of Milwaukee Fire Dept.
|
Charles Quagliana
|
AIA-Wisconsin Department of Commerce
|
Chris Rute
|
Milwaukee Historic Preservation Commission
|
Jim Sewell
|
Wisconsin Historical Society
|
Harry Sulzer
|
City of Madison
|
David Vos
|
Project Developer/Alexander
Company
|
Copies of Rule
The proposed rules and an analysis of the proposed rules are available on the Internet at the Safety and Buildings Division Web site at
www.commerce.wi.gov/SB/. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Roberta Ward, at the Department of Commerce, Program Development Bureau, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at
rward@commerce.state.wi.us, or at telephone (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
Environmental Analysis
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with ch.
Comm 1, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.
A small business owning a qualified historic building or providing exterior cleaning services may be affected by these rules. The primary purpose of these rules is to codify the statutory prohibitions of certain types of cleaning methods for exterior facades of qualified historic buildings. Masonry facades are the most vulnerable to abrasive cleaning methods and there are only around 5,000 qualified historic buildings with masonry exteriors statewide. The rules do not mandate cleaning and the impact on small businesses should be minimal.
2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
There are no reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures necessary for compliance with the rule.
3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.
None known.
4. Rules have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
No.
The small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Commerce is Carol Dunn, who may be contacted at telephone (608) 267-0297, or Email at
cdunn@commerce.state.wi.us.
Fiscal Estimate
General effects: The proposed rules do not mandate cleaning the exterior facades of a qualified historic building. However, under the enabling statutes and the proposed rules, when the facades of the qualified historic building are cleaned, the cleaning methods must be non-abrasive. There are approximately 21,000 qualified historic buildings throughout the state, with approximately 70% of the buildings having wood facades, 25% having masonry facades, and 5% having other types of facade material, such as stucco. Masonry facades are the most vulnerable to abrasive cleaning methods, and there are only around 5,000 qualified historic buildings with masonry exteriors statewide. Sandblasting is a typical abrasive method used to clean the exterior facade of a building, and chemical washing is a typical non-abrasive method. The average price for sandblasting is $1.50 to 2.25/square foot and the price for chemical washing is $3.00 to 6.75/square foot.
The Safety and Buildings Division is responsible for enforcing chapter Comm 72 relating to abrasive cleaning of historic buildings, and the enforcement mechanism is by receipt of a complaint. If a complaint were received, the Division would do an investigative inspection and may assess the owner a fee for the inspection. There are no proposed changes in the Division's fee schedule. Violations of the statutes and the proposed rules would be subject to the penalties prescribed under s.
101.1215 (4), Stats.
Overall effect on state, local or privately owned qualified historic buildings: When the exterior facade of any qualified historic building is to be cleaned, a non-abrasive cleaning method must be employed. Since the rules do not mandate cleaning and with only a specified number of buildings that would be affected by the rules, the fiscal effect is anticipated to be minimal.
Notice of Hearing
Financial Institutions-Banking
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
426.108 and
227.11(2), Stats., and interpreting s.
426.108, Stats., the Department of Financial Institutions, Office of Consumer Affairs will hold a public hearing at the Department of Financial Institutions, Office of the Secretary, 5
th Floor Conference Room, 345 W. Washington Avenue in the city of Madison, Wisconsin, on the
28th day of July, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. to consider a rule to amend s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (1) and (2), and create s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (5), relating to prohibited bases for discriminating in the extension of consumer credit.
Analysis Prepared by the Office of Consumer Affairs
Statute(s) interpreted:
s.
426.108, Stats.
Related statute or rule: None.
Explanation of agency authority: Pursuant to s.
426.104, Stats., the department administers the Wisconsin Consumer Act.
The objective of the rule is to amend s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (1) and (2), and create s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (5). The purpose of this rule is to expand the prohibited bases for discriminating in the extension of consumer credit. Currently the Wisconsin Consumer Act makes discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status in the granting or extension of credit an unconscionable credit practice. The rule makes discrimination on a prohibited basis in the granting or extension of credit an unconscionable credit practice. The rule defines prohibited basis to include the already existing bases as well as additional bases.
Federal Comparison
Federal regulation:
12 CFR 202 identifies similar prohibited bases.
State Comparisons
