1. Less stringent compliance or reporting requirements.
Agricultural Operations
Agricultural livestock and crop producers are required to comply with the new performance standards and modifications to the performance standards contained in ch.
NR 151, just as they are for the existing performance standards and manure management prohibitions. Producers who are in compliance with the existing nutrient management performance standard may already be in compliance with the proposed phosphorus index and tillage setback performance standards. The phosphorus index standard is included in nutrient management technical standard 590. The maintenance of streambank integrity, as proposed through a tillage setback standard, is an assumption of the phosphorus index calculation. In circumstances where the phosphorus index has been determined to be insufficient to achieve water quality standards in areas where a total maximum daily load (TMDL) has been approved, a phosphorus index lower than 6 may ultimately be required. The process wastewater performance standard may require producers to have higher levels of pollution control to be in compliance. The annual cap included in the phosphorus index performance standards may mean that some producers will need to modify their tillage practices to reduce the rate of cropland soil erosion.
For existing agricultural facilities and practices, compliance is only required if cost sharing is provided at 70% of the eligible costs, or up to 90% for cases of economic hardship. If actions needed to comply with the rules only involve minor management changes that aren't eligible for cost sharing, then a producer must implement those practices to comply with the standards without cost sharing. New agricultural facilities and practices that are established after the effective date of the new and modified performance standards will need to comply, regardless of the availability of cost sharing. In other words, any new facilities or practices installed or constructed after the performance standards are in effect must be installed or implemented in compliance with the new standards.
The proposed code changes do not require crop producers and livestock operators with less than 1,000 animal units to report to the department. Counties that choose to implement the performance standards and prohibitions via ordinances may require some form of reporting. It is not possible to determine what type of reporting or the impact such reporting would have on these types of operations. In general, the purpose of relying on performance standards and prohibitions is more conducive to minimal reporting, allowing operations to rely on more visual, rather than technical, methods of determining compliance. Reporting required by counties would likely be minimal due to the large number of facilities that will need to meet the standards.
Non-agricultural Businesses
The compliance and reporting requirements for businesses involved with land-disturbing construction sites, including commercial sites, will not change except that a plan is no longer required for sites less than one acre. The rule revisions provide for a clarification of the performance standards when developing an erosion and sediment control plan or a storm water management plan, but do not require additional reporting. Small businesses have been meeting the current reporting and compliance requirements of the permit program. It is not anticipated that small businesses undertaking new construction, whether it be for commercial or industrial sites, will have a harder time meeting the reporting and compliance requirements than any other industry or commercial development.
2. Less stringent schedules or deadlines for compliance or reporting requirements.
Agricultural Operations
Existing livestock operations with fewer than 1,000 animal units and crop producers are only required to comply with the new and modified performance standards if cost sharing is provided. Implementation schedules and deadlines, consequently, are dependent on when cost-sharing dollars are available. The code sets up time frames for compliance once dollars are available. Counties, however, may have different time frames established although cost sharing is still required. Since compliance is contingent on cost-share availability and cost-share dollars will be limited each year, it may be years before the standards are fully implemented and less stringent time frames would only stretch compliance out further. New crop producers and livestock facilities with fewer than 1,000 animal units will need to comply with the new and modified performance standards from the date the rule becomes effective, regardless of the availability of cost sharing. It is more cost effective for new facilities to construct best management practices or otherwise comply with performance standards up front rather than correct problems later on.
Non-agricultural Businesses
The proposed revisions did not change the schedule for compliance and reporting. A Notice of Intent (NOI) is still required to be submitted 14 days prior to commencing construction. Once construction commences, the required plans must be followed. This rule refines the performance standards for the erosion and sediment control plan and storm water management plan and does not change the time schedule. New industrial permittees will continue to have requirements to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prior to construction of a new site. As part of their construction NOI, their storm water management plan and best management practice implementation will have a clear set of performance standards to meet.
3. Consolidation or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements.
Agricultural Operations
Department compliance and reporting requirements for agricultural operations and facilities are not expected to change as a result of the proposed code changes. For crop producers and livestock operations with fewer than 1,000 animal units, the majority of compliance efforts will be handled through the counties. The counties can provide a convenient, accessible contact for operations and several counties have developed compliance checklists and/or tracking and reporting systems to consolidate and simplify compliance identification and verification. As for reporting, as mentioned above, the proposed rule revisions do not require additional reporting.
Non-Agricultural Businesses
For commercial development, the department will be assuming the responsibilities formerly held by the Department of Commerce to regulate storm water discharges from commercial building sites in a manner that meets ch.
NR 151 requirements. The rule revisions simplify the construction erosion control requirements that Commerce formerly imposed.
4. Performance standards in lieu of design or operational standards.
For both agricultural and non-agricultural operations, the program requirements are already in the form of performance standards. Many of these promote self-assessments on behalf of the operation because they can be easily recognized and complied with via site management or low-cost improvements. However, meeting some of the performance standards may require technical assistance with designs, operational standards or written management plans.
5. Exemptions from any or all requirements of the rule.
Agricultural Operations
Crop producers and livestock operations with fewer than 1,000 animal units cannot be wholly exempted from applicable performance standards and prohibitions because: 1) the authorizing statute was specifically established to apply to these operations (i.e., nonpoint source agricultural operations); and 2) they are the sectors that need to give further consideration to the impacts of their operations on water quality. Conditional exemptions based on the availability of cost sharing do exist.
Non-agricultural Businesses
Small businesses that undertake construction are required to comply with the construction erosion control and storm water management requirements of ch.
NR 151. Construction site erosion, whether it is from a small business or a large one is still potentially a major water quality problem and storm water discharges from these sites have been equally regulated with those of other businesses under ch.
NR 216. A small business building and parking lot can have a greater impact than a large business depending on the amount of imperviousness, and its proximity to a water resource. If small business were to be exempt from meeting the performance standards, then the level of control and the attainment of water quality standards would be significantly diminished.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
No comments were reported.
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — General, Chs.
NR 100 —
Environmental Protection — Water Supply,
Chs.
NR 800 —
(DNR # DG-25-10)
Revises sections
NR 142.03 (1),
(2) and
(3) and creates Chapter
NR 856, relating to the registration and reporting process for water withdrawals and affecting small business. Effective 1-1-11.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rule does not have a significant economic impact on small businesses. This rule will affect small businesses that supply their own water with water supply systems that have the capacity to withdraw over 100,000 gallons per day. Small businesses, like other entities that are affected by this rule, will have to determine the amount of water used on a monthly basis and report that water use annually. Small businesses that receive water solely from a public water supply will not be impacted by this rule. The registration, withdrawal measurement, and reporting requirements are straightforward and can be accomplished by most individuals with no specific professional background.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
No comments were reported.
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — General, Chs.
NR 100 —
Environmental Protection — Water Supply,
(DNR # DG-23-10)
Repeals section
NR 142.03 (4) and creates Chapter
850, relating to water withdrawal fees in the Great Lakes basin and affecting small business. Effective 1-1-11.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Although the rule will primarily affect public water systems, power companies, and large industrial water users, small businesses that will be affected include agricultural operations, including irrigation, livestock, and aquaculture. The department lacks comprehensive data regarding water withdrawals; however, the data the department does have suggests that relatively few small businesses withdraw more than 50 MGY. The proposed modification would limit the fees charged to a small business to $1,000.
Small businesses that withdraw an average of 100,000 gallons of water per day or more in any 30-day period must report their calendar year water usage to the department by March I of the following calendar year. Minimal computer skills will be necessary to report the amount of water withdrawn annually. Fees based on the amount of water withdrawn must be paid by June 30th . The department is developing an online reporting mechanism for water withdrawals that is expected to be easy to use and take little time to complete.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
No comments were reported.
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Air Pollution Control,
Chs.
NR 400 —
(DNR # AM-06-10)
Revises Chapter
NR 410, relating to asbestos inspection and notification fees. Effective 1-1-11.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rule changes do not increase any regulatory or reporting requirements on small businesses. Asbestos notification fees that are proposed to be increased by this rule are ultimately paid by the owners of the structures that are being renovated or demolished. Some of those owners are small businesses. However, the increased fee amounts are a very small percentage of the overall cost of the related renovation or demolition projects. No comments were received from building owners concerning the proposed increased fees. Three comments were raised during the public comment period by asbestos abatement contractors, who were likely small businesses. It is quite common for abatement contractors to initially pay the notification fees for a project, and then be reimbursed once they are paid for their work. The issue is the notification fee cost that is “carried" by the contractors during the course of the abatement contract. We believe this can be mitigated by structuring abatement project contracts to provide for payment of notification fees by the project owners as those costs are incurred.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment. A hearing was held by the Senate Committee on September 29, 2010. No comments or requests for modifications from either committee were forwarded to the Department.
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Air Pollution Control,
Chs.
NR 400 —
(DNR # AM-09-10)
Revises Chapter
NR 410, relating to air management new source permit application review fees. Effective 1-1-11.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rule has the potential to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small sources.
I. Identify and discuss why the rule includes or fails to include any of the following methods for reducing the impact on small business.
A. Less stringent compliance or reporting requirements.
Not applicable. Proposal does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements
B. Less stringent schedules or deadlines for compliance or reporting requirements.
Not applicable. Proposal does not impose any compliance or reporting deadlines.
C. Consolidation or simplification of performance standards in lieu of design or operational standards.
Not applicable. Proposal does not impose any performance, design or operational standards.
D. The establishment of performance standards in lieu of design or operational standards.
Not applicable. Proposal does not impose any design or operational standards.
E. The exemption from any or all requirements of the rule:
Proposal applies to sources that do not qualify for exemptions that currently exist in permitting rule. Proposal does provide relief for small business for additional fees that apply over and above the initial application fee when the small business withdraws the permit application prior to a final determination being made.
II. Summarize the issues raised by small business during the rule hearings, any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of alternatives suggested by small business and the reasons for rejecting any alternatives suggested by small business.
No issues were raised by small business during the hearings or during the public comment period.
III. Identify and describe any reports required by the rule that must be submitted by small business and estimate the cost of their preparation.
No reports are required by the proposal.
IV. Identify and describe any measures or investments that small business must take to comply with the rule and provide an estimate of the associated cost.
No measures or investments need to be made by small business to comply with the proposal.
V. Identify the additional cost, if any, to the state in administering or enforcing a rule which includes any of the methods listed in I. A through E.
Not applicable.
VI. Describe the impact on public health, safety and welfare, if any, caused by including in the rule any of the methods listed in I. A through E.
Not applicable.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment. A hearing was held by the Senate Committee on September 29, 2010. No comments or requests for modifications from either committee were forwarded to the Department.
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Water Supply,
