Ch. DFI-Sec 4
S. DFI-Sec 4.04 (1) (a)
Natural Resources:
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1--
Ch. NR 50
S. NR 50.03 (10)
Public Instruction:
Ch. PI 11
S. PI 11.14 (4)
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
1.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 97-113)
Ch. ATCP 30 - 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 13,000 acres. Assuming that 50% of this land is in corn and that 50% of these acres are treated with atrazine, then 3,250 acres of corn will be affected. This acreage would represent between 20 and 50 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 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 specified 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 week 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 week control measures.
Summary of Comments From Legislative Committees:
The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources on December 17, 1997 and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on December 23, 1997. Neither the Assembly Committee on Agriculture nor the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Environmental Resources took any action on the rule during their review period.
Chs. Comm 18, 82, ILHR 50, 51 & 55 - Elevators and mechanical lifting devices.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The work of small business people such as architects, engineers and fire sprinkler installers will be simplified by changing the sprinkler and fire alarm requirements to be consistent with National Standards and by updating the elevator construction and installation requirements.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Standing Committees:
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment and the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and Government Operations. No comments were received.
S. Comm 108.21 (1) (f) - Emergency Grant Funding.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
No comments or issues were received at public hearings from small business. Federal and state rules require that government units that receive grants be responsible for recordkeeping, reporting, auditing, close-out, payment and reimbursement activities related to the grant. Small business must use basic accounting and bookkeeping skills and use the same skills in the conduct of their business.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees:
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs and the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and Government Operations. No comments were received.
Ch. DOC 310 - The inmate complaint review system.
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:
Public Hearings:
The Department held three public hearings on the proposed rule. The public hearings were held in Madison, on October 15, 1997; in Eau Claire on October 16, 1997; and in Madison on October 17, 1997. No one appeared to testify at the public hearings. The open comment period was held open until October 21, 1997. No one submitted written comments during the open comment period.
Modifications Made as a Result of Public Hearing Testimony:
No modifications were made to the proposed rule in response to comments received to comments received during the public review of this rule because there were no comments from the public. Modifications have been made to the proposed rule based on comments the agency received from Rep. Goetsch after publication of the emergency rule. As a result of the comments received from Rep. Goetsch, the department clarified some sections of the rule and changed the sentences in the rule from passive voice to active voice.
S. ElBd 1.855 - Contributions from conduit accounts.
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. ElBd 1.30 - Filing campaign finance reports.
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. ElBd 1.655 - Identification of the source of communications paid for with money raised for political purposes.
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. ElBd 1.85 - Conduit registration and reported requirements.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
This proposed rule will have no adverse impact on small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Ch. DFI-Sec 7.01 (6), 27.01 (5) & 35.01 (4) - Division photocopying fee charges.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The Division of Securities has determined that the proposed rule amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Summary of Comments:
No comments were reported.
Ch. NR 27 - Incidental take of an endangered or threatened species.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed rule does not regulate small businesses; therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees:
The proposed rule was submitted to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Agriculture and Environmental Resources Committee. On January 28, 1998, the Senate Agriculture and Environmental Resources Committee held a public hearing. No comments or recommendations were received by the Department as a result of this hearing.
S. Trans 201.15 - Erecting outdoor advertising signs where messages may be changed by electronic process.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
