Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

This rule makes a large number of technical changes to existing regulations. For the most part, however, this rule will not have a significant impact on affected businesses.

Some rule changes may have a significant impact on some affected businesses. For example, this rule mandates certain pasteurization and cooling requirements that may require some dairy plants to install new or remodeled equipment. DATCP estimates that no more than 5 dairy plants will be affected by this particular requirement. The actual impact will depend on variable factors related to processing operations, current equipment and plant size. This rule delays the effective date of the requirement by one year, so that affected dairy plants will have time to make the necessary changes.

This rule changes current recordkeeping requirements, but the changes should not impose a significant burden on affected businesses. This rule will not require affected businesses to obtain any new professional skills or services.

Federal Regulations

FDA administers the PMO in cooperation with the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS). NCIMS, a cooperative organization of states, develops and adopts PMO provisions subject to approval by FDA. FDA audits state compliance, and may “de-list" individual milk shippers or entire states that fail to comply. Other states may refuse to accept milk shipments from “de-listed" states or shippers.

Wisconsin rules must be consistent with the PMO, in order for Wisconsin to ship milk and fluid milk products in interstate commerce. FDA has requested changes in the Wisconsin rules, to make them consistent with the current version of the PMO. This rule updates Wisconsin rules, so they will be consistent with the PMO.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recommends standards for non-fluid dairy products (such as cheese), and for “Grade B" milk used in the manufacture of those products. USDA evaluates state programs for consistency with its recommended standards. Unlike PMO standards for “Grade A" milk and fluid milk products, the USDA “Grade B" standards are not mandatory. However, Wisconsin and surrounding state rules are consistent with those standards.

USDA and the United States Environmental Protection Agency administer other programs (such as milk marketing orders, pesticide registration and water pollution regulations) that affect the operation of dairy businesses, but the PMO is the primary federal or interstate regulation relevant to this rule. Federal regulations in 21 CFR 1240 mandate pasteurization of milk and prohibit interstate sale of unpasteurized milk and fluid milk products.

Surrounding State Programs

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota are all members of the NCIMS. All 4 states have dairy regulations that are in substantial compliance with the PMO. They also have regulations for “Grade B" milk and non-fluid dairy products (such as cheese) that are substantially equivalent to USDA recommended standards.

Notice of Hearing

Commerce

[CR 07-005]

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to section 895.59 (2) of the Statutes, the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on proposed rules in chapter Comm 200 relating to small business enforcement discretion.

The public hearing will be held as follows:

Date and Time:

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Commencing at 10:00 A.M.

Location:

Thompson Commerce Center, Third Floor, Room 3B

201 West Washington Avenue

Madison, Wisconsin

Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing, via e-mail. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until February 20, 2007, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. All written comments should be submitted by e-mail to [e-mail]. If e-mail submittal is not possible, written comments may be mailed to Sam Rockweiler, Department of Commerce, Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 14427, Madison, WI 53708-0427.

This hearing will be held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call [phone] or [phone] (TTY) at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability.

Analysis

1. Statutes Interpreted. Section 895.59 of the Statutes

2. Statutory Authority. Section 895.59 (2) of the Statutes

3. Explanation of Agency Authority. Section 895.59 (2) of the Statutes directs the Department to promulgate a rule that discloses the discretion the Department may exercise in the enforcement of rules and guidelines against a small business. The rule must also specify when the Department will not allow this discretion.

4. Related Statute or Rule. None known.

5. Plain Language Analysis. The proposed rule discloses the discretion the Department may exercise in enforcement actions that are undertaken to obtain a small business's compliance with the Department's rules and guidelines. The proposed rule also specifies when such discretion is not allowed.

An informational Note is included under section Comm 200.01, for alerting readers that the Department has additional discretion – beyond what is specified in this chapter – for enforcing rules to gain compliance by any business, regardless of size. The Department exercises this additional discretion for determining such things as where or when Department staff should perform enforcement inspections.

Similarly, a subsequent informational Note under section Comm 200.10 (1) explains that the Department also has additional, specific discretion to extend a compliance deadline for any entity, regardless of size – after the decision to perform an inspection is made.

Under section Comm 200.10 (3), the Department's responsibility for exercising the discretion in this chapter will not begin until after the corresponding small business entity informs the Department that the entity meets the definition of small business under section Comm 200.03 (2), and that the violation circumstances in section Comm 200.10 (2) have not occurred.

6. Summary of, and Comparison With, Existing or Proposed Federal Regulations. The Department is not aware of any existing or proposed federal regulation that addresses the activities to be regulated by this rule.

7. Comparison With Rules in Adjacent States. The Department is not aware of any similar rule in an adjacent State.

8. Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies. The data and methodology that was used to develop the proposed rules consisted of reviewing (1) the requirements in section 895.59 of the Statutes, (2) the Department's current practices for exercising enforcement discretion, and (3) the corresponding rules that other State agencies have developed in response to section 895.59 of the Statutes.

9. Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of an Economic Impact Report. The primary document that was used to determine the effect of the proposed rules on small business was 2003 Wisconsin Act 145. This Act addressed numerous aspects of administrative rule making that relate to small business, and required the Department and other State agencies to each promulgate a rule which discloses the discretion that may be exercised when enforcing rules and guidelines against a small business. Neither the Act nor the proposed rule imposes constraints on small business. An economic impact report was not required.

10. Effect on Small Business. The proposed rule should have a positive effect on small business.

11. Agency Contact Information. Jim Quast, Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Bureau of Program Development, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI, 53707-2689; telephone [phone]; e-mail [e-mail].

12. Place Where Comments Are to Be Submitted, and Deadline for Submission. Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted by e-mail to [e-mail], no later than February 20, 2007. If e-mail submittal is not possible, written comments may be mailed, by the same date, to Sam Rockweiler, Department of Commerce, Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 14427, Madison, WI 53708-0427.

The proposed rules and an analysis of the rules are available on the Internet, by entering “Comm 200" in the search engine at the following Web site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Roberta Ward at the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Program Development, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI, 53701-2689; telephone [phone]; e-mail [e-mail]; or [phone] (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.

Environmental Analysis

Notice is hereby given that the Department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with chapter Comm 1, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.

Fiscal Estimate

The proposed rules will not create any significant additional workload costs for the Department or its local agents, and will not result in any significant changes to the revenues collected by the Department or its local agents.

The enforcement discretion that is the subject of the proposed rules will not have a direct, substantive fiscal effect on the private sector.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.

The rules may affect any business that must comply with the administrative codes enforced by any of the Divisions within the Department.

2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.

There are no reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures required for compliance with the rules.

3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.

There are no types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.

4. Rules have a significant economic impact on small businesses.

No. Rules not submitted to Small Business Regulatory Review Board

The small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Commerce is Carol Dunn, who may be contacted at telephone [phone], or by e-mail at [e-mail].

Notice of Hearing

Insurance

[CR 07-001]

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority granted under s. 601.41 (3), Stats., and the procedures set forth in under s. 227.18, Stats., OCI will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the attached proposed rulemaking order affecting section Ins 17.25 (12m) and 17.28 (6s), Wis. Adm. Code, relating to Peer Review Surcharge Rates.

Hearing Information

Date: February 19, 2007

Time: 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be reached

Place: OCI, Room 227, 125 South Webster St 2nd Floor, Madison, WI

Written comments can be mailed to:

Theresa Wedekind

OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 1725

Office of the Commissioner of Insurance

PO Box 7873

Madison WI 53707-7873

Written comments can be hand delivered to:

Theresa Wedekind

OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 1725

Office of the Commissioner of Insurance

125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor

Madison WI 53702

Comments can be emailed to:

Theresa Wedekind

[e-mail]

Comments submitted through the Wisconsin Administrative Rule website at:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov on the proposed rule will be considered.

The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 8th day after the date for the hearing stated in this Notice of Hearing.

Analysis Prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI)

1. Statutes interpreted: ss. 655.27 (3), and 619.04 (5m), Wis Stats.

2. Statutory authority: ss. 601.41 (3), 619.04 (5m) and 655.27 (3) (bg), Wis Stats.

3. Explanation of the OCI's authority to promulgate the proposed rule under these statutes:The commissioner of insurance, with the approval of the board of governors (board) of the injured patients and families compensation fund (fund) and the Wisconsin health care liability insurance plan (plan), is required to establish by administrative rule the surcharge rates which may be applied to a health care provider's annual fund fee, and provider annual premium if participating in the plan, based upon recommendations from the fund's peer review council.

4. Related Statutes or rules:None.

5. The plain language analysis and summary of the proposed rule:This rule establishes the surcharge rates which a health care provider may be required to pay to the fund or the plan. These surcharge rates are based upon the number of claims paid on behalf of a health care provider in addition to the dollar amount of those claims. Paid claim reports are reviewed by the fund's peer review council and if deemed appropriate the council makes a recommendation to the board of governors to assess a surcharge to the health care provider for their coverage under the fund. The board approved these surcharge rates at its meeting on December 14, 2005, based on the recommendation of the board's actuarial and underwriting committee and reports of the fund's actuaries.

6. Summary of and preliminary comparison with any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule: To the fund board's and OCI's knowledge there is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address patient compensation fund rates, administration or peer review activities.

7. Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states as found by OCI: To the fund board's and OCI's knowledge there are no similar rules in the adjacent states to compare this rule to as none of these states have a patients compensation fund peer review council created by statute where rates are directed to be established yearly by rule as is true in Wisconsin.