An order affecting ss. Trans 276.07 and 276.09, relating to allowing the operation of “double bottoms” (and certain other vehicles) on certain specified highways.
Effective 05-01-97.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
1.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 96-138)
Ch. ATCP 98 - Security requirements for vegetable contractors.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This rule amends ch. ATCP 98, Wis. Adm. Code, to incorporate changes made to s. 100.03, Stats., by 1995 Wis. Act 460. The rule makes the following changes:
• It exempts fruit contractors.
• It changes the annual registration expiration date to January 31.
•It requires some vegetable contractors to submit, with their annual renewal application, an interim financial statement as of the quarter ending closest to November 30 of the prior year.
• It changes the minimum financial standards that a vegetable contractor must meet. A contractor who fails to meet the minimum security requirements must file security or make “payment on delivery” for all vegetables purchased.
• It phases in, over a 3 year period, the security requirements for contractors who met the previous minimum financial standards but do not meet the “new” minimum standards.
As a result of the new minimum financial standards, it may be necessary for some contractors to file security for the first time. However, this rule softens the impact of this requirement by allowing the department to return security to a contractor who later files one annual financial statement which meets the new minimum standards during the transitional security-filing period.
These changes may affect some contractors who are small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats. However, most vegetable contractors are not small businesses. This rule will provide increased financial security for Wisconsin's vegetable growers, many of whom are small businesses.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources on January 15, 1997, and the Assembly Agriculture Committee on January 23, 1997. The department received no comments from either committee.
2.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 96-139)
Ch. ATCP 21 - Control of potato late blight.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This rule interprets ss. 93.07 (12) and 94.02 (1), Stats., which provides the authority to abate the spread of plant pests and diseases through survey or inspection and recommend measures of control.
The rule applies to approximately 262 potato growers, 237 of which meet the definition of small business. It will not significantly affect small business, because it does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements and does not require new professional skills. Technical assistance is available from the University of Wisconsin-Extension and the Potato and Vegetable Growers Association.
The rule defines the practices that are necessary to control a highly virulent potato fungus commonly known as “late blight”. It also clarifies the department's authority to enforce those practices. Growers are required to dispose of cull potatoes and volunteer potato plants and must treat or dispose of diseased crops in order to mitigate the spread of late blight.
Most growers are well aware of the severe economic damage that this disease can cause and are already following pest management practices recommended by the University of Wisconsin-Extension/Plant Pathology Department and outlined in the proposed rule.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
This rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources on January 15, 1997 and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on January 23, 1997. The department received no comments or requests for hearing from either Committee.
3.
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(CR 96-142)
Ch. ATCP 30 - Relating to atrazine use restrictions.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
Businesses Affected:
The amendments to the atrazine rule 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 areas contain approximately 18,000 acres. Assuming that 50% of this land is in corn and that 50% of these acres are treated with atrazine, then 4,500 acres of corn will be affected. This acreage would represent between 25 and 60 producers, depending on their corn acreage. 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 week control methods, these effects will most likely result in additional or replacement business.
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 rquired 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 requires 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.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Transportation, Agriculture, and Local Affairs and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on December 21, 1996. The department received no comments from either committee.
Ch. DOC 309 - Stamping outgoing prisoner mail.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This proposed rule is not expected to impact on small businesses as defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments reported.
Ch. DOC 328 - Incapacitating agents and firearms use by parole, sanctions and probation staff members.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This proposed rule is not expected to impact on small businesses as defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments reported.
Ch. HSS 90 - Birth to 3 Program.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These rule changes will not directly affect small businesses as “small business” is defined in s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats. They apply to the Department and to county agencies administering the Birth to 3 Program. County agencies may contract with medical and other service providers organized as small businesses to provide early intervention services, in which case the small business providers, like other public and private providers of services to eligible children and their families, must comply with the rules for provision of services. The rules also establish parental liability for the cost of non-core services. This means that, with the parent's consent, third party payers could be expected to pay at least a part of the cost of services. However, it is unlikely that any third party payer is a small business.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees:
No comments were received.
S. Ins 18.07 (5) (b) - HIRSP rate decrease.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and therefore a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees:
The legislative standing committees had no comments on this rule.
Chs. NR 190 & 191 - Lake management planning grants and lake protection grants.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rules are grant programs and do not regulate businesses. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees:
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Agriculture and Environmental Resources Committee. There were no comments.
Ch. NR 25 - Commercial fishing for whitefish and chubs in Green Bay and Lake Michigan.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed order will directly affect licensed commercial fishers. No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed as a result of these rule changes.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees:
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Agriculture and Environmental Resources Committee. There were no comments.
S. PD 6.05 (1) (b) - Reimbursement from parents of juveniles.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This proposed rule will have no adverse impact on small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
S. PD 3.04 - Partial indigency.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
