Ch. NR 25 - Relating to licensing commercial fishers on Lake Michigan.
Ch. Phar 7 - Relating to transfer of prescription orders.
Rule orders filed with the
revisor of statutes bureau
The following administrative rule orders have been filed with the Revisor of Statutes Bureau and are in the process of being published. The date assigned to each rule is the projected effective date. It is possible that the publication date of these rules could be changed. Contact the Revisor of Statutes Bureau at (608) 266-7275 for updated information on the effective dates for the listed rule orders.
An order revising ch. Comm 8 relating to mine, pits and quarries.
Effective 6-1-01
An order revising ch. Comm 5 relating to renewal of expired credentials.
Effective 6-1-01
An order revising ch. ElBd 1 relating to the term “express advocacy" for campaign finance purposes.
Effective 6-1-01
An order revising ch. Ph-Int 1 relating to pharmacy intern training.
Effective 6-1-01
A rule relating to a motor vehicle emissions inspection program.
Effective 6-1-01
An order relating to the application deadline date for the examination required for licensure as a veterinarian.
Effective 6-1-01
rules_published
Rules published with this register and final regulatory flexibility analyses
The following administrative rule orders have been adopted and published in the April 30, 2001 Wisconsin Administrative Register. Copies of these rules are sent to subscribers of the complete Wisconsin Administrative Code and also to the subscribers of the specific affected Code.
For subscription information, contact Document Sales at (608) 266-3358.
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(
CR 00-119)
An order relating to groundwater protection.
Effective 5-1-01
Summary of final regulatory flexibility analysis
Businesses Affected: The amendments to ch. ATCP 30 Appendix A will affect small businesses in Wisconsin. The greatest small business impact of the rule will be on users of atrazine -- farmers who grow corn. The proposed prohibition area contains approximately 1,000 acres. Assuming that 50% of this land is in corn and that 50% of these acres are treated with atrazine, then 250 acres of corn will be affected. About three producers would be affected, depending on their corn acreage and their reliance on atrazine products. These producers are small businesses, as defined by s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats. Secondary effects may be felt by distributors and applicators of atrazine pesticides, crop consultants and equipment dealers. Since the secondary effects relate to identifying and assisting farmers in implementing alternative weed control methods, these effects will most likely result in additional or replacement business and the impacts are not further discussed in this document.
Specific economic impacts of alternative pest control techniques are discussed in the environmental impact statement for this rule.
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Procedures Required for Compliance:
The maximum application rate for atrazine use in Wisconsin is based on soil texture. This may necessitate referring to a soil survey map or obtaining a soil test. While this activity is routine, documentation would need to be maintained to justify the selected application rate. A map delineating application areas must be prepared if the field is subdivided and variable application rates are used. This procedure is already required under the current atrazine rule.
All users of atrazine, including farmers, will need to maintain specific records for each application. This procedure is already required under the current atrazine rule.
Atrazine cannot be used in certain areas of the State where groundwater contamination exceeds the atrazine enforcement standard in s. NR 140.10 Wis. Adm. Code.
Professional Skills Required to Comply:
The rule affects how much atrazine can be applied and on which fields. Because overall use of atrazine will be reduced in the State, alternative weed control techniques may be needed in some situations. These techniques may include different crop rotations, reduced atrazine rates, either alone or in combination with other herbicides, or combinations of herbicides and mechanical weed control measures.
While alternative weed control techniques are available, adoption of these techniques on individual farms will in some cases require assistance. In the past this type of assistance has been provided by University Extension personnel and farm chemical dealers. In recent years many farmers have been using crop consultants to scout fields, identify specific pest problems and recommend control measures. The department anticipates these three information sources will continue to be used as the primary source of information, both on whether atrazine can be used and which alternatives are likely to work for each situation.
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(
CR 00-145)
An order relating to importing bovine animals, goats and cervids from “non-modified accredited" states.
Effective 5-1-01
Summary of final regulatory flexibility analysis
This rule will affect small businesses that import bovine animals, goats or cervids into this state. It requires the operator of those businesses to either refrain from importing bovine animals, goats or cervids from states the United States department of agriculture has designated as tuberculosis non-modified accredited states, or to comply with the standards this rule establishes to assure that the animals that are imported are not infected with bovine tuberculosis.
At the present time, the USDA has only designated one state, Michigan, as non-modified accredited. If the small business operator imports bovine animals, goats or cervids from Michigan, the operator will need to assure that the animal originates from a herd which has tested negative for tuberculosis within the past 12 months (there is an exception if the animal being imported is a veal calf less than 30 days of age) and that the animal has tested negative within the past 60 days (90 days for cervids). This places a burden on the business operator but it does not completely prohibit import of animals from Michigan. The burden of assuring that the animals have been properly tested is minimal compared to the burden that would be experienced by Wisconsin's animal agriculture industry if bovine tuberculosis is introduced to Wisconsin by an animal imported from a non-modified accredited state.
This rule requires persons, including small business operators, who import animals from non-modified accredited states to have the animals retested for tuberculosis after being imported. While these requirements add costs for the importer, the costs that would be incurred if infected animals are imported without these precautions are substantially higher. And, the importer has the ability to avoid these costs entirely by importing animals from other states of origin rather than from a non-modified accredited state.
An order to repeal s. DFI-Bk 8.04 relating to stating name and location of office on bank checks.
Effective 5-1-01
Summary: This proposed repeal will not impact small business.
Chapter HFS 97 - relating to complaint procedures for inmates of the Wisconsin Resource Center
Effective 5-1-01
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).
No comments were received.
Chapter HFS 79 - relating to administration of supplemental security income (SSI), state supplemental payments to low-income elderly and disabled residents of Wisconsin and their dependent children.
Effective 5-1-01
Summary of final regulatory flexibility analysis
This rule affects the Department of Health and Family Services and the Department of Administration's Division of Hearings and Appeals. The promulgation of ch. HFS 79 will not affect “small business" as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a).
No comments were received.
Chapter HFS 133 - relating to home health licensure.
Effective 5-1-01
Summary of final regulatory flexibility analysis
This rule affects the Department of Health and Family Services and the Department of Administration's Division of Hearings and Appeals.
Based on 1998 reporting of gross patient revenue, 156 of 172 home health agencies met the definition of small business under s. 227.114 (1) (a). Under s. 227.19 (3) (e), the Department analyzed the effect of the proposed rule on these small businesses. To that end, the Department considered the information under s. 227.19 (3) (e) 1. to 6., Stats., in proposing these rules. The Department had the following conclusions:
1. The requirements the Department is filing are minimum standards needed to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the patients being served by home health agencies regardless of an agency's size. Therefore, it is not feasible to exempt or create less stringent requirements for home health agencies that meet the definition of small business in s. 227.114 (1) (a).
2. The Department cannot revise the rule to reflect comments it received from small businesses regarding the proposed licensure fee structure both because of the current inequity resulting from the current licensure fee structure and the Department's urgent need to fund its home health agency regulatory activities.
The proposed rules will not require a small business to report any new information.
The Department's proposed method of fee calculation will create an equitable and stable funding source to support the Department's regulatory activities. Given that, and the fact that the Department considered the small business nature of many home health agencies in proposing its fee calculation methodology, the Department does not create exemptions or alternatives for small businesses to its calculation of license fees.
In promulgating this rule, small businesses raised issues with the proposed rules regarding patient discharge procedures. In response, the Department modified its draft to:
• Allow appeal of a discharge, unless the discharge was ordered by the attending physician; and
• Allow the home health agency to distribute its patient discharge summary only if it receives a request to do so.
3. Two of the revisions will require small businesses to expend additional resources: a requirement that home health agencies provide written notification to patients before or at the time of discharge and a requirement that home health agencies create a discharge summary report at the time a patient is discharged. Written notification of discharge will require additional resources to generate and mail discharge notices to all patients. Creation of a discharge summary will require appropriately qualified staff to create the discharge summary. The estimated cost of these requirements is difficult to quantify as some home health agencies already create the discharge summary. The cost for both requirements will depend on the number of patients served by the home health agency.
4. The proposed rules will not require any further costs for requirements since many of the provisions incorporate existing practices established in statewide variance.
5. The Department does not anticipate any additional costs to administer the proposed rules.
