Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Wisconsin Administrative Register No. 682, 10/31/2012

Rule-Making Notices

Notice of Hearing

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

CR 12-043

(DATCP Docket No. 12-R-03)

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) will hold a public hearing on a proposed rule revising Chapter ATCP 1 relating to discretion in enforcement of rule violations by small businesses.

DATCP will hold the public hearing at the time and place shown below:

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Time:   9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Location:   Room 456
  Department of Agriculture, Trade and
  Consumer Protection
  2811 Agriculture Drive
  Madison, WI 53718-6777

Accessibility

Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by November 12, 2011, by writing to Karen Schultz, Office of Legal Counsel, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911; or by emailing karen.schultz@ wisconsin.gov or by telephone at [phone]. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at [phone]. The hearing facility is handicap accessible.

Written Comments

DATCP invites the public to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until November 27, 2012 for additional written comments. Comments may be sent to the Office of Legal Counsel at the address below, or to [e-mail], or to http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov.

Comments or concerns relating to small business may also be addressed to DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address below, or by email to [e-mail], or by telephone at [phone].

Copies of Documents

You can obtain a free copy of this hearing draft rule and related documents including the economic impact analysis by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Office of Legal Counsel, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling [phone] or by emailing [e-mail]. Copies will also be available at the hearing. To view the hearing draft rule online, go to: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov.

Analysis prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

This rule complies with the requirements of s. 227.04 (2) (b), Stats., created by 2011 Wisconsin Act 46, which requires each state agency to “establish by rule, reduced fines and alternative enforcement mechanisms for minor violations of administrative rules made by small businesses," and which requires that the rule include a definition of “minor violation."

Statutes Interpreted

Sections 227.04 (2) (b) and 895.59, Stats.

Statutory Authority

Sections. 227.04 (2) (b) and 895.59 (2), Stats.

Explanation of Statutory Authority

Section 227.04 (2) (b), Stats., provides that each state agency shall “establish by rule, reduced fines and alternative enforcement mechanisms for minor violations of administrative rules made by small businesses", and requires that the rule include a definition of “minor violation." Section 895.59 (2), Stats., provides that “each state agency shall promulgate a rule that requires the agency to disclose in advance the discretion that the agency will follow in the enforcement of rules and guidelines against a small business."

Related Statutes and Rules

In compliance with s. 895.59, Stats., which was created by 2003 Wisconsin Act 145, DATCP adopted ATCP Ch. 1, Subch. VII which identifies the discretion DATCP will use in enforcing rule violations against small businesses. Section 227.04, Stats., is closely related to s. 895.59, Stats. This rule making will make those changes necessary to comply with the new requirements created by s. 227.04 (2) (b), Stats., and will conform to the requirements of s. 895.59 (2), Stats.

Plain Language Analysis

Background

DATCP adopted Ch. ATCP 1, Subch. VII, in November, 2006, to comply with the requirements of s. 895.59, Stats. Prior to the creation of s. 895.59, Stats., and the DATCP rules subchapter, DATCP exercised much the same discretion as is provided in the statute and rule when determining if and how to enforce regulation violations committed by small businesses. For example, DATCP has always considered the seriousness of the violation, the risk of harm to the public and the history of compliance when making enforcement determinations.

Rule Content

General

This rule does all of the following:

•   Creates a definition of “minor violation" for certain violations of department rules by small businesses.

•   Provides that the department may exercise the discretion to forego formal sanctions or to seek reduced sanctions when a minor violation of department rules has been committed by a small business.

Fiscal Impact

This rule will not have a significant fiscal impact on state government. DATCP enforcement practice has exercised much the same discretion as is directed by s. 227.04 (2) (b), Stats., both before and after adopting the current rule as required by s. 895.59 (2), Stats., when determining if, and how, to enforce regulation violations committed by small businesses. For example, DATCP has always considered the seriousness of the violation, the risk of harm to the public and the history of compliance when making enforcement determinations. This rule will have no fiscal effect on local governments.

Business Impact

This rule will not increase any costs for businesses. The rule may produce an economic benefit for small businesses that commit minor violations of DATCP regulations when discretion is exercised to forego formal sanctions or to seek reduced sanctions.

Comments or concerns relating to small business may also be addressed to DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, or by email to [e-mail], or by telephone at [phone].

Economic Impact

This rule will not have an economic impact upon the state, any business sector, citizens, utility rate payers or any geographical area in the state.

Environmental Impact

This rule will not have any environmental impact.

Federal and Surrounding State Programs

Federal Programs

Federal agencies exercise similar enforcement discretion.

Surrounding State Programs

Agencies in the surrounding states exercise similar enforcement discretion.

Data and Analytical Methodologies

Each DATCP division contributed to the analysis of the effect of the proposed rule.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis

Supporting documentation includes files of enforcement activities in DATCP and the DATCP compliance manual.

DATCP Contact

Questions and comments related to this rule may be directed to:

Dennis Fay

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone [phone]

E-Mail: [e-mail]

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Ch. ATCP 1, Subch. VII
Subject
Discretion in enforcement of rule violations by small businesses
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO PRS SEG SEG-S			None
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
This rule complies with the requirements of s. 227.04 (2) (b) created by 2011 Wis. Act 46, which requires each state agency to “establish by rule, reduced fines and alternative enforcement mechanisms for minor violations of administrative rules made by small businesses", and which requires that the rule include a definition of “minor violation".
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
This rule will not increase any costs for businesses. The rule may produce an economic benefit for small businesses that commit minor violations of DATCP regulations when discretion is exercised to forego formal sanctions or to seek reduced sanctions. Local Governments This rule will not impact local governments. Local governments will not have any implementation or compliance costs. Utility Rate Payers The rule will have no impact on utility rate payers. General Public This rule will have no impact on the general public.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Benefits This rule may benefit small businesses that commit minor violations of DATCP rules. Alternatives Adoption of this rule is required by the provisions of s. 227.04 (2) (b).
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range implications.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Federal agencies exercise similar enforcement discretion.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Agencies in surrounding states exercise similar enforcement discretion. Comments Received in Response to Web Posting and DATCP Response No comments were received in response either to the posting on the DATCP external website or the statewide administrative rules website.

Notice of Hearing

Department of Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. 1 —

EmR1215

(DNR # WM-16-12(E))

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Section 21 of 2011 Act 169, ss. 227.11, and 227.24, Stats., and interpreting 2011 Act 169 and ss. 29.014, and 29.185 (5) (d), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to Chapter NR 10, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the coyote hunting season. This emergency order took effect upon publication in the official state paper on Monday October 1, 2012.

Hearing Information

Date:   Monday, November 12, 2012

Time:   11:00 a.m.

Location:   Room 613
  Natural Resources State Office Building
  (GEF-2)
  101 South Webster St.
  Madison, WI 53707

Accessibility

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Scott Loomans at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Written Comments and Copies of Rule

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to scott.loomans@ wisconsin.gov. Comments may be submitted until November 12, 2012. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Loomans.

Plain Language Analysis

The Bureau of Wildlife Management recommends promulgating rules modifying chapter NR 10 Wis. Admin. Code related to the coyote hunting season.

SECTIONS 1 and 2 repeal the coyote hunting season closure in Wolf Management Zone 1 and create a statewide open season.

Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed Federal Regulations

These state rules and statutes do not relieve individuals from the restrictions, requirements and conditions of federal statutes and regulations. Regulating the hunting and trapping of native species has been delegated to state fish and wildlife agencies.

Comparison with Rules in Adjacent States

Coyotes are an unprotected species in Minnesota and they may be hunted year-round. In Michigan, the coyote hunting season begins on July 15 and ends on April 15. The Iowa coyote season is open continuously, year-round. In Illinois, the coyote season is open year-round except that, during firearm deer seasons, coyote hunters must also possess a valid, unfilled deer tag.

Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies

The coyote hunting season is currently closed at times when firearm deer seasons are open in Wolf Management Zone 1. This rule would open the coyote season.

Under this proposal, wolves would continue to be protected during the firearm deer season and harvest would only be allowed by a person who possesses a valid wolf harvesting license.

The current closure was established when wolves were listed in Wisconsin and federally as an endangered species, to prevent incidents of misidentification by people who intended to harvest coyotes. The closure is no longer needed for protection of the wolf population and this coyote hunting opportunity can be restored. The wolf population has expanded and packs are established in many areas outside of Wolf Management Zone 1, where the current coyote season closure has never been in effect. Coyote harvest has also been allowed in Wolf Management Zone 1 at times when firearm deer seasons were not open.

- See PDF for diagram

Policies relevant to the rule are consistent with existing policies for hunting. Coyote harvest is currently and has historically been allowed during firearm deer seasons outside of Zone 1 and this does not seem to have impacted wolf management in those areas. The department has regulations in place establishing open and closed seasons or continuous open seasons for many established species.

Coyotes are commonly harvested incidentally by people who primarily hunting deer during the firearm deer season. Expanding that opportunity to hunters in Wolf Management Zone 1 will increase opportunity for those hunters and they are the only people who are likely to be affected by the proposed rule.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Report

These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no costs are associated with compliance to these rules. During the firearm deer season, hunters are primarily pursuing deer and that is what drives a person's decision to participate. Hunters may appreciate the opportunity to harvest a coyote incidentally to their deer hunting activities, but the opportunity is not anticipated to have any impact on hunter participation or their related activities and expenditures.

Effects on Small Business

These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under 227.24 (3m), Stats.

Pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Environmental Impact

That the department has determined these emergency rule revisions are a Type IV action which is exempt under Chapter NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, and no environmental analysis is required.

Fiscal Estimate

State: No State Fiscal Effect.

Local: No Local Government Costs.

Agency Contact Person

Mr. Scott Loomans

Bureau of Wildlife Management

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

email to [e-mail].