Natural Resources:
(Environmental Protection--General, Chs. NR 100--)
Ch. NR 140
S. NR 140.03 (entire section) had a correction made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
Ch. NR 141
S. NR 141.01 (entire section) had a correction made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. NR 141.03 (entire section) had corrections made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. NR 141.05 (20) had a correction made under
s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. NR 141.20 (entire section) had corrections made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
Ch. NR 142
S. NR 142.02 (1), (2) (b), (3) and (17) to (19) had
corrections made under
s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. NR 142.03 (3) had a correction made under
s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. NR 142.04 (1) (e) had a correction made under
s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. NR 142.06 (1) (intro.), (2) (L), (3) (b) and (5) (c)
had corrections made under
s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. NR 142.09 (1) and (4) had corrections made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
Pharmacy Examining Board:
Ch. Phar 1
S. Phar 1.01 (entire section) had a correction made
under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
S. Phar 1.02 (intro.) had a correction made under
s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
1.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 99-87)
Ch. ATCP 34 - Chemical Collection and Container Collection Program.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
Overview
The proposed rule updates ATCP 34, the Agricultural Clean Sweep Program rule. Ag Clean Sweep is an annual, competitive grants program for Wisconsin counties, allowing them to collect unwanted pesticides and chemical wastes from the agricultural community and dispose of them at public collection sites. Agricultural chemicals from active and abandoned farms have remained the primary program target over the years, and farmers use the program largely free-of-charge.
Beginning in 1996, the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection began to offer collection services to businesses and municipalities that handle or use agricultural pesticides. This change came about because of changes in state rules for very small quantity generators (VSQGs) * of hazardous wastes. Participants received up to a 50% disposal subsidy from the department for the disposal of unwanted agricultural pesticides. These same rules allowed counties to create permanent or season-long collection facilities for the collection of hazardous wastes. Several counties have developed permanent facilities and have received grants from the department.
* Note: Very small quantity generator (VSQG) is a term used within the federal Resource and Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) to define a group of businesses or entities that generate no more than 220 pounds of hazardous wastes per month and who accumulate no more than 2,205 pounds per year.
The proposed rule will have positive impacts upon businesses. It includes provisions which allow VSQGs access to public collection sites and allows national and regional hazardous waste disposal contractors to serve counties receiving Ag Clean Sweep Program grants.
Businesses Affected
The proposed rule will make it easier for a wide variety of businesses and public entities, including schools, to use the Agricultural Clean Sweep Program. During the past two years, only businesses that were agricultural in nature were encouraged to participate. These businesses included lawn care companies, structural and aerial applicators, golf courses, and chemical co-ops. The new rule extends services to any business or municipal entity that uses or holds non-household pesticides for disposal, provided VSQG self-certification requirements are met. This means that hardware stores, department stores, marinas, parks, cemeteries, and construction companies along with schools and local units of government would qualify for service and could receive up to a 50% pesticide disposal subsidy from the department. This change could quadruple the number of businesses eligible for Agricultural Clean Sweep disposal services.
Even though the proposed rule extends services to a range of new businesses, it must also be kept in mind that farmers, the program's main audience, will benefit too. Because counties with permanent or season-long collection facilities can receive ATCP 34 grants, farmers in these counties will be able to dispose of their unwanted chemicals throughout the year thereby reducing environmental and public health risks.
Also affected by the proposed rule are national and regional hazardous waste contractors who operate federally and state-approved disposal facilities. These companies could compete for contracts from counties who have been awarded Ag Clean Sweep Program grants by the department to conduct permanent collection events. It is estimated that up to ten contractors could seek permanent collection contracts from counties. These contractors would, however, be precluded from competing for grants from temporary collection events since counties with these events are required to use the State of Wisconsin's hazardous waste contractor.
Operating Procedures Improved for Businesses
The proposed rule streamlines and simplifies procedures for business participation. To receive service at clean sweep collection sites, holders of unwanted agricultural pesticides must: 1) pre-register with the collection site or its hazardous waste contractor, 2) selfcertify their Very Small Quantity Generator (VSQG) status, and 3) complete a qualification form for the department's 50% pesticide subsidy if they want financial assistance. VSQG self-certification is a Department of Natural Resources requirement under ch. NR 610.
Poor knowledge of hazardous waste risks and federal/state disposal regulations have been two obstacles preventing businesses from making good decisions on hazardous waste management. Recognizing these limitations, Ag Clean Sweep encourages interested persons to directly contact waste contractors on their disposal issues, (e.g. “Do I have hazardous wastes?”, “Am I a VSQG?”, “Is there a better or cheaper disposal option?”). Pre-registration begins the process, allowing waste haulers to initially see the chemical inventory. All correspondence is conducted via fax or phone. Once businesses agree to use Ag Clean Sweep, they are assigned a collection location and told to bring a check for the predetermined amount. Businesses can readily meet program disposal requirements with existing staff.
Federal and state hazardous waste reporting requirements have been incorporated into Ag Clean Sweep procedures. Because long term liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or “SuperFund”) cannot be waived by public program participation, businesses, with the exception of farmers, remain responsible for their wastes and appropriate records must be prepared. This reporting begins with the initial chemical inventory and ends with waste disposal receipts provided by the waste hauler. While this proposed rule incorporates federal and state reporting requirements, it does not impose any new requirements.
To support business disposal services, the department established working relationships with nine agricultural associations several years ago, (e.g.. Wisconsin Federation of Coops, Wisconsin Fertilizer and Chemical Association). These associations advertise clean sweep services to members in newsletters and serve as references for program participation. The proposed rule will allow the department to create partnerships with a host of new organizations, (e.g. hardware, recreational, real estate).
Hazardous Waste Contractors
The proposed rule allows counties who have been awarded ATCP 34 grants for permanent collection events to select their own hazardous waste contractor, providing this contractor can meet Ag Clean Sweep performance standards, is selected by the annually established date, and is otherwise capable of meeting the department's statewide hazardous waste goals. It is expected that numerous local, regional, and national contractors will seek contracts from counties. The rule requires counties conducting temporary collection events to contract with the hazardous waste contractor selected under the Department of Administration's (DOA's) cooperative purchasing process.
The impact of this rule on hazardous waste contractors will generally remain unchanged for counties receiving grants for permanent collection events. It is expected that the proposed rule will facilitate better coordination and communication for contractors working with neighboring counties out of a regional, permanent collection facility. The rule will have a negative effect on hazardous waste contractors excluded from contracting with counties conducting temporary collection events who will be required to contract with the DOA's, hazardous waste contractor.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
On October 18, 1999 the department transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources, and Campaign Finance Reform on October 20, 1999 and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture on October 28, 1999. Neither the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources, and Campaign Finance Reform or the Assembly Committee on Agriculture took any action on the rule during their review period.
2.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 99-117)
Ch. ATCP 30 - Pesticide product restrictions.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
Businesses Affected
The amendments to ATCP 30 Appendix A 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 6,000 acres. Assuming that 50% of this land is in corn and that 50% of these acres are treated with atrazine, then 1,500 acres of corn will be affected. This acreage would represent between 5 and 20 producers, depending on their corn acreage. These producers are small businesses, as defined by s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats. Distributors and applicators of atrazine pesticides, crop consultants and equipment dealers may feel secondary effects. 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 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 require assistance. In the past University Extension personnel and farm chemical dealers have provided this type of assistance. 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:
On November 24, 1999 this department transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform on December 1, 1999 and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture December 6, 1999. Neither the Assembly Committee on Agriculture nor the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform took any action on the rule during their review period.
3.
Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
(CR 99-133)
Ch. ATCP 105 - Selling motor vehicle fuel below cost.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
The proposed additions to ATCP 105, Wis. Adm. Code do not have a significant adverse effect on small business. ATCP 105 interprets the “Unfair Sales Act,” s. 100.30, Stats. This statute prohibits sellers of motor vehicle fuel and other products from selling products below cost as “cost” is defined in the statute. An exception allows a seller to sell products below cost in order to meet the price of a competitor.
Competition in the retail motor fuel industry is also affected by credit card promotions offered by third parties. A credit card company (such as a financial institution or major oil company affiliate) may offer credit card discounts to consumers who buy a particular brand of motor fuel, even though the credit card company is not the retail seller of that motor fuel. For example, a credit card company may advertise: “Use your ABC Oil Company credit card, and receive a discount of 3 cents per gallon.” The credit card company, rather than the motor fuel retailer, offers the promotional discount. Although the motor fuel retailer charges and receives the normal pump price, the credit card user receives an effective discount of 3 cents per gallon.
Because the credit card company is not the motor fuel retailer, the credit card promotion may escape coverage under the Unfair Sales Act. Since the motor fuel retailer charges and receives the full pump price, the retailer may be in compliance with the act (assuming that the pump price complies). The credit card company, which offers the promotion, may escape coverage because it is not engaged in the retail sale of motor fuel.
This rule clarifies that, under certain conditions, a motor fuel retailer may “match” a competing credit card promotion without violating the Unfair Sales Act, even though the competing promotion is offered by a credit card company rather than a competing motor fuel retailer. This rule may help some small motor fuel retailers by allowing them to compete more effectively.
Summary of Comments from Legislative Committees:
On December 22, 1999, the department transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was referred to the Assembly Committee on Consumer Campaign Finance Reform. The Assembly Committee took no action.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Environmental Resources and Campaign Finance Reform held a hearing on the rule on February 15, 2000. After hearing testimony from Bill Oemichen, Administrator, Division of Trade and Consumer Protection, representing the department, the Committee held an executive session and voted unanimously to take no action.
S. Chir 4.07 - Practice while suspended.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
These rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1)(a), Stats.
Summary of Comments:
No comments reported.
Chs. Comm 50-64 - Fire safety requirements in the Commercial Building Code.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:
Only 2 comments were received during public hearings on these rules. Both comments were strongly in favor of adopting the proposed rules as written. The NFPA standards proposed for adoption are established through a national consensus process, which takes full advantage of the latest design, inspection and maintenance technologies. The proposed rule changes are written to allow these technologies to be used. The public hearing participants, as well as the members of the Fire Safety Code Council and the Commercial Building Code Council strongly believe that adoption of these updated standards will be a service for all citizens and businesses of the state.
Summary of Comments of Legislative Standing Committees:
The rules were reviewed by the Assembly Committee on Labor and the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and Government Operations. No comments were received.
