A rule-making order revising chs.
ATCP 60,
69,
70,
71,
75,
77,
80,
81,
82 and
85, relating to food and dairy license and reinspection fees. Effective 5-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rule increases existing license and reinspection fees for milk producers, dairy plants, food processing plants, food warehouses, milk distributors, retail food stores, dairy, food or water testing laboratories, milk haulers, buttermakers, cheesemakers and butter or cheese graders.
This rule affects all milk producers, dairy plants, food processing plants, food warehouses, milk distributors, retail food stores, dairy and food testing laboratories, milk haulers, buttermakers, cheesemakers, and butter and cheese graders licensed by the department. Many of these businesses are “small businesses" as defined in s.
227.114(1), Stats.
This rule increases annual license fees, reinspection fees, and milk procurement fees for all affected businesses, including small businesses, beginning with fees that are due on or after July 1, 2008. This rule will increase overall dairy and food industry costs by a combined total of approximately $683,000 per year. Costs for individual businesses will depend on business size and type. Because of competitive market conditions, it may be difficult for affected businesses to increase prices to recover these costs.
The adopted fee increases will have a significant but not dramatic impact on affected businesses. In the multi-billion dollar dairy and food industries, license fees comprise a relatively small overall share of industry costs. DATCP has worked to maintain a fair and equitable license fee schedule.
Fees are based on actual food safety costs related to each license sector. Fees are also based on business size, food product type, and type of food handling operations. Smaller businesses generally pay lower fees than larger businesses. Businesses that produce lower-risk foods or engage in lower-risk activities generally pay lower fees than businesses that produce higher-risk foods or engage in higher-risk activities.
This rule increases food safety license fees, but it does not change other license requirements. This rule requires no additional recordkeeping and no added professional services to comply.
DATCP has not incorporated a small business enforcement policy in this rule, but it has adopted a separate rule on that subject (see subch.
VII of ch. ATCP 1). DATCP will seek voluntary compliance. However, food and dairy businesses must pay required license fees in order to obtain a license from DATCP.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
On December 18, 2007, DATCP transmitted the above rule for legislative review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Higher Education and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Higher Education held a hearing on January 30, 2008, and took no action. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture held a hearing on January 10, 2008, an information only hearing on February 7, 2008 and an Executive Session on February 12, 2008, and sent the rule back to DATCP requesting modifications to the rule. The Department considered this request and made the following modifications to the rule:
• Reduced by 25% the estimated annual increase in the aggregate amount of fees collected under the proposed rule.
• Allocated the reductions in fees paid by individual types of dairy and food businesses.
The requested modifications were approved by the DATCP Board on February 13, 2008 and returned to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on February 15, 2008. After receiving the rule with the requested modifications, neither the Assembly nor the Senate Committee took further action.
Commerce
A rule-making order revising ch.
Comm 67, relating to rental unit energy efficiency. Effective 5-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Section
101.122, Stats., directs the Department to review the energy efficiency requirements for rental units for any new energy conservation technologies. The proposed rules of Clearinghouse Rule No. 07-008 are minimum requirements to meet this directive of the statutes, and the modifications to the technical requirements were for clarification purposes. The fees to operate this program have been modified to more accurately reflect the program function and costs. The Department believes there is no significant impact on small business.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
No comments were received.
Natural Resources
A rule-making order repealing and recreating ch.
NR 149, relating to laboratory certification and registration. Effective 9-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A small number of the 428 regulated laboratories would fit the definition of “small business". Many of the proposed changes are clarifications of the code and will not create new requirements. A delayed effective date has been incorporated into the rule to allow the Department sufficient opportunity for outreach efforts to further clarify the rule revision. Section
299.11, Stats., does not allow for less stringent schedules, deadlines or reporting requirements for different types of laboratories. Small businesses that experience undue hardship as a result of these requirements can apply to the Department for a variance from non-statutory requirements under s.
NR 149.12.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
The proposed rule was reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. On January 16, 2008, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing. The Department did not receive any requests for modifications as a result of this hearing.
Natural Resources
A rule-making order revising chs.
NR 10,
12, and
16, relating to hunting, nuisance wild animal removal, and captive wildlife. Effective 5-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The revisions to chs.
NR 10,
12 and
16 pertain to hunting, trapping and nuisance wild animal removal. These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
The rule was reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. On September 27, 2007, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing and requested the Department to make a modification to the rule. At its December 5, 2007 meeting, the Natural Resources Board added a provision to s.
NR 10.13 (1) (b) 15. that the use of cable restraints for bobcat would sunset following the 2009 season.
Natural Resources
A rule-making order revising chs.
NR 400,
406,
407 and
410, relating to construction permits, portable source relocation and affecting small business. Effective 5-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Based on the context of the rule changes, which are already in place at the federal level, there should not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. On December 19, 2007, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing. The Department did not receive any comments or a request for modification as a result of this hearing.
Natural Resources
A rule-making order revising chs.
NR 466 and
484, and creating ch.
NR 460 Appendix JJJJ, relating to national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for paper and other web surface coating processes. Effective 5-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Since the proposed rule is required by law to be identical to the existing federal rule, the Department has no flexibility to make any substantial changes to the proposed rule. Because all affected sources must comply with the federal rule, the proposed state rule will have no additional adverse economic impact on small businesses or any other affected source.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. On December 19, 2007, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing. The Department did not receive any comments or a request for modification as a result of this hearing.
Natural Resources
A rule-making order amending s.
NR 25.06 (2) (b) 1., relating to commercial fishing for yellow perch in zone 1 (Green Bay). Effective 5-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed as a result of these rule changes. Commercial fishing businesses would be directly affected by the rule, but would not be subject to any new reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures. No special skills would be required for compliance with the rule.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
The rules were reviewed by the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources and the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. On March 6, 2008, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing and then waived its jurisdiction on the rule.
Revenue
A rule-making order revising chs.
Tax 61 and
63, creating billing terms options for Wisconsin lottery retailers, creating additional shipping options at cost in situations where the retailer requests those options, correcting minor requirements in the lottery retailer performance program, creating rules relating to the voluntary disclosure requirements of
2003 Wis. Act 145, and correcting minor technical problems. Effective 5-1-08.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Each of the major substantive changes in this rule is addressed separately.
Distribution Controls
Impact on small business: It is difficult to estimate exactly how much a given retailer would experience in charges for additional order(s) in a given week. However, the expenses would be consistent with those currently experienced by the lottery. For example, an additional order of 6 packs might cost $3.44 total ($3.09 for the first pack, and $.07 for each pack after the first.) Variations in the count and weight of packs in each order, as well as the current pricing structure itself, will cause some variation in the expense per order shipped. The variations will be generally limited to less than an estimated 10% of current cost, for the foreseeable future.
It is important to note that the lottery currently does not have plans to implement this rule language regarding retailers paying for additional orders. To do so would require the lottery to have delivery day assignments in place as of the promulgation date; this will not be the case. Instead, the rule order has been drafted using conditional language, and is being proposed now to ensure that the authority is available should the improvements under consideration prove workable. For example, computer software is being reviewed that offers the potential to track extra orders per week, for which the cost could be programmed to be billed to the retailer. Having the authority clearly stated well before implementation will provide the lottery with useful preparation time, in which retailers can be notified and given ample opportunity to review the initiative.
Conclusion: As of the date of promulgation, and for at least a calendar year after, there will be no effect on lottery retailers. Any intended activation of the rule would only be completed after significant notice of the event to all retailers, with retailers being given meeting opportunities with Lottery administration.
Reselling Controls
Impact on small business: It is difficult to identify the number or range of impact these self-styled `retailers' have upon lottery retailers or players, but some loss of retail sales opportunity is occurring. The Wisconsin Lottery has proposed language that permits `friend and family' purchasing but bans subscription services, and has also adopted language from the adjacent states to address issues of “service fees" and “charging to validate", found under Sections 3, 4 and 5.
Conclusion: The impact upon lottery retailers of this language change should be negligible to slightly positive. The language does not ban `friend or family' purchases as gifts (which would be sold by retailers), but does clarify that it is illegal for unscrupulous parties to pretend to be a legitimate retailer when they are not or to apply service fees or validation charges to players.
Billing Terms Authority
Impact on small business: While retailers receive more time, under new terms, to sell through a pack of tickets, they could in theory be responsible for a somewhat larger sticker price for each pack. This is because lottery intends to greatly simplify the accounting of lottery packs by eliminating the discounting of GLEPS that normally occurs when the pack is billed. This, and its related cross-redeem calculations, are the source of much confusion among retailers accountants. The lottery intends to keep the commission discounting on the pack price, but not GLEPS discounting. Therefore, instead of a pack of 400 tickets that costs $212.50 the week after it is shipped, the retailer will be billed for a pack of 400 tickets that costs $375.00 the fourth week after it is shipped, allowing more time for the retailer to sell the product. Also, the retailer will still be receiving credits each week for winners actually scan-validated, consistent with how the current system provides credits. The combination of more time to sell the product and the continuation of currently-offered credits for validations will help ease the financial impact of the perceived sticker price of a pack.
Conclusion: Ultimately, the combination of new billing terms, reinforced by new pack size, should help ease the financial and labor burdens that lottery billing currently places upon retailers. The impact will ultimately be a reduction in expense per pack, once all the aspects of net 28 days billing terms are in place. Therefore, the impact on lottery retailers will be slightly to significantly positive, depending on each retailer's sales history.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
No comments were reported.
