The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources did not take any action on the rule during its review period. However, the Assembly Committee on Agriculture held a hearing on November 13, 1997. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture took no action regarding the proposed rule.
2.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 97-43)
Ch. ATCP 31 - Groundwater protection.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
Businesses Affected:
This rule has no direct effect on small businesses in Wisconsin. The rule may indirectly affect small businesses, in that it spells out criteria for the repeal of pesticide prohibition areas. This rule authorizes, but does not mandate the repeal of a prohibition area if certain criteria are met. To implement the actual repeal of a prohibition area, the department would have to take separate action to amend its pesticide-specific rules (e.g., atrazine rules under ATCP 30). The department would do a separate, more specific “small business analysis” related to those rule amendments.
Farmers are the primary small businesses having an interest in this rule. The standards contained in this rule may eventually affect the regulation of specific pesticides such as atrazine. For example, if the department annually repealed four atrazine prohibition areas, the repeals would affect about 10,000 acres each year. Assuming that farmers would elect to use the pesticide on 25% of this land, then 2,500 acres of land would be affected annually. This acreage would represent between 12 and 30 producers, depending on their crop acreage.
Producers using pesticides are typically small businesses, as defined by s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats. Secondary effects may be felt by distributors and applicators of the specific pesticide, crop consultants and equipment dealers. The net effect on farmers and pesticide sellers is difficult to estimate, because alternative pesticides are generally available.
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Procedures Required for Compliance:
Renewed use of a prohibited pesticide may include some restrictions including limits on application rates and limits on the soil types to which the pesticide could be applied. 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 document compliance. A map delineating application areas may be required if the field is subdivided and variable application rates are used. This procedure is already required under the current atrazine rule.
Professional Skills Required to Comply:
The rule may indirectly affect how much pesticide can be applied and on which fields. Because renewed use of the pesticide may involve some restrictions, alternative pest control techniques may be needed in some situations. These techniques may include different crop rotations, reduced pesticide application rates, or combinations of pesticides and mechanical pest control measures.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on August 27, 1997. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture did not take any action on the rule during its review period. However, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources held a hearing and requested the department accept the rule for modification based on hearing testimony.
The department agreed to insert a note after the proposed s. 31.08 (4) (b)2., Stats. The note explains that the repeal of a prohibition area does not limit the department's responsibility to take reasonable action to minimize contamination to achieve compliance with the preventive action limit. Further, the department may reinstate a repealed prohibition area if testing shows an increasing trend of pesticide contamination.
The note reads:
“The repeal of a prohibition area does not affect any responsibility which the department has under s. ATCP 31.07 to take other appropriate action to minimize the concentration of the pesticide substance where technically and economically feasible, and to restore and maintain compliance with the preventive action limit. The department may also reinstate a repealed prohibition area if groundwater testing at a point of standards application shows an increasing trend of pesticide contamination, suggesting that contamination may again attain or exceed the enforcement standard.”
Ch. DOC 304 - The inmate secure work program.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This proposed rule is not expected to impact on small businesses as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments reported.
S. NR 101.13 (2) - Wastewater fee program.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule eliminates a $100 fee that may have been charged to a small business if that business held a general permit for wastewater discharges. There are no changes to any requirements of the permit.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees:
The proposed rule was reviewed by the Assembly Environment Committee and the Senate Agriculture and Environmental Resources Committee. There were no comments.
Ch. PD 3 - The calculation of indigency.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments reported.
Ch. RL 17 - The employment of personal assistants by real estate salespersons and broker-employes.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Chs. RL 80-87 - The regulation of certified and licensed appraisers.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Chs. Trans 129 & 503 - The waiver of the motorcycle skills test and to required attendance of motorcycle rider courses and motorcycle instruction permit issuance.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This proposed rule will have an impact on small businesses involved in motorcycle training because statutory license requirements are being imposed upon these businesses. The fees for instructor and school licenses under current law are $5 and $25 per annum, respectively.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
E x e c u t i v e O r d e r s
The following is a listing of recent Executive Orders issued by the Governor.
Executive Order 324. Relating to a Special Election for the Eighty-Second Assembly District.
Executive Order 325. Relating to a Special Election for the Twenty-Eighth Senate District.
Executive Order 326. Relating to the Approval and Issuance of Model Academic Standards.
The State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration
Document Sales Unit
P.O. Box 7840
Dated Material. Please Do Not Delay!
