ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE
AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
Ch. ATCP 141, Cherry Marketing Order
| |||
Subject
| |||
Marketing Order program for Cherries
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS
X SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
None
| ||
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| |||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
| ||
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes
X No
| |||
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| |||
This rule changes the cherry marketing board from a 7 member board with two districts each represented by 3 board members plus one at large member to a 5 member board with all members elected at large.
DATCP administers Wisconsin's agricultural marketing law which authorizes the creation of marketing orders for agricultural commodities. Each marketing order board collects assessments from producers of the applicable commodity. The assessments may be expended by the board for promotion, research or consumer education of the commodity. The provisions of Ch. 96, Stats., and Ch. ATCP 140 Wis. Adm. Code and the applicable marketing order (Chs. ATCP 141 to 148) govern the organization of each of the seven marketing order boards, the election of marketing board members, the assessment of producers and the use of assessments.
In recent years, the number of cherry growers has decreased so that currently there are 33 growers. The number of growers in each district has also changed. With the number of growers down to 33, it became difficult to consistently elect 7 members willing to serve on the Board. The Board requested the proposed amendment in order to have representation appropriate to the size of the industry. The Board also requested that the elections be at large rather than by district so that the representation would remain equitable regardless of changes to the location of producers.
| |||
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| |||
Local Governments
This rule will not impact local governments.
Cherry Growers
This rule will have no negative economic impact on small businesses. The reduction of board membership plus the elimination of election districts will reduce the cost of administering elections and thus free up more assessment monies for cherry promotion, research and education benefiting cherry growers.
Utility Rate Payers
The rule will have no impact on utility rate payers.
General Public
This rule will have no effect on the general.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
Benefits
This rule will benefit cherry growers by improving and making more equitable representation on the Cherry Marketing Board and by reducing the cost of cherry Board elections thereby freeing up more assessment monies for cherry promotion, research and education.
General Public
The general public will benefit from this rule as a result of continued growth of an important segment of the Wisconsin economy.
Alternatives
The alternative is to leave cherry board representation as is instead of making the representation that is more equitable and appropriate to the size of the industry.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
Long-term, implementing the rule will benefit business, the general public, and the Wisconsin economy as improved representation and lower cost elections will promote growth of the cherry industry in Wisconsin.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
There is a federal marketing order for cherries under which assessments are collected in a manner similar to the state cranberry marketing order. The state and federal marketing orders are operated cooperatively to effectively use the assessments for the benefit of cranberry growers.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
There are very few cherry producers in the surrounding states and none of the surrounding states have a cranberry marketing order.
Comments Received in Response to Web Posting and DATCP Response
No comments were received in response either to the posting on the DATCP external website or the statewide administrative rules website.
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
| ||||
X Original
⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
| ||||
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| ||||
Chapter NR 150- Environmental Analysis and Review Procedures for Department Actions
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Implementation of Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
X GPR
⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS
X SEG ⍽SEG-S
|
None.
| |||
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
⍽ No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
X Decrease Cost
| ||
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| ||||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
X Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
| |||
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| ||||
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| ||||
Chapter NR 150 was revised and went into effect April 1, 2014. An emergency rule is needed to clarify the procedures for the review and analysis of new administrative rules in order to assure that the intent of the ch. NR 150 revision is being met and potential procedural questions do not invalidate the years of work and public engagement on new rules packages, and for additional housekeeping changes to ensure that the intent of the recent ch. NR 150 rewrite is being met, all in a manner that is consistent with past WEPA compliance approaches that have been upheld by the courts.
The pre-2014 version of ch. NR 150 classified the promulgation of most administrative rules as “Type 3 actions", a classification requiring some form of public notice and no additional environmental analysis as part of the formal rules process. The rule changes now being proposed would be simple changes to clarify that emergency rules are “minor actions", requiring no additional environmental analysis, and that the process for developing permanent rules is an “equivalent analysis action" under the new ch. NR 150, similar to how they were treated under the old ch. NR 150.
In addition, the revision includes clarification changes regarding strategic analysis requirements, minor actions, and procedures for publishing determinations. Consistent with the intent of the previous version of ch. NR 150, the emergency rule clarifies that a strategic analysis is required for review of significant policies, but for other policies or issues the strategic analysis can be used as a discretionary tool. The list of minor actions, not requiring additional environmental analysis, has been expanded to include actions that originally were intended to be outlined in program guidance. The proposed revisions in the emergency rule would clarify in rule the list of activities.
| ||||
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
| ||||
Businesses that may be affected by this rule revision include mainly those that are required to apply for WDNR permits for projects that exhibit the potential to have "significant effects upon the quality of the human environment" (due to major air emissions, wastewater discharges, water withdrawals, etc.). However, ch. NR 150 Is primarily an administrative process that applies internally to WDNR, so impacts to businesses are minimal. In addition, most environmental review data is also required under permit review procedures, so in general little to no additional cost is imposed by the environmental impact statement process.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
None.
| ||||
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| ||||
Not required for emergency rules. Wis. Stat. s. 227.137(5)
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
DNR staff will have more clarity regarding the implementation of ch. NR 150 and regarding the required review process for promulgating administrative rules. DNR staff and the public will have more clarity regarding publication requirements and WEPA compliance determinations for various permits and plan approvals.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
No long range implications, since it is an emergency rule, and can only be in place for up to 270 days.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
This revised rule is similar to the existing rule, in that it substantially follows the guidelines of the federal Council on Environmental Quality as directed by s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Neighboring states have significant differences in their related laws, so the opportunity to gain from their experience is limited. For example, Minnesota requires that counties also follow WEPA-like analysis procedures, whereas Wisconsin counties have no such requirements. Illinois' law covers only actions conducted by the state itself, whereas in Wisconsin, WEPA applies to all actions, including actions permitted or regulated by the state.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
David Siebert
|
608-264-6048
|
ATTACHMENT A
|
1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
None.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
None.
|
3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?
|
⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements
⍽ Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting
⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements
⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards
⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements
⍽ Other, describe:
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
Not applicable.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
This rule carries no enforcement provisions. Disputes regarding the need to conduct an EIS analysis have judicial avenues of appeal.
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes X No
|