Scope statements
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Subject
Objective of the rule. Create rules identifying the discretion the department will use in the enforcement of rules against small business in compliance with s.
895.59 (2), Stats., and make minor technical changes and updates to a variety of current rules.
Policy analysis
The part of the rule concerning enforcement discretion will potentially affect all small businesses that engage in activities that are the subject of current and future rules of the department. Those small businesses include farms and other food producers, food processing, warehousing, food wholesalers, retail food establishments, sellers of consumer goods and services and residential rental property owners.
The technical changes department proposes to make include the following:
• Update technical standards incorporated by reference in current rules (new editions of technical references cited in current rules).
• Correct erroneous and obsolete citations and cross-references.
• Correct typographical errors.
• Make non-substantive organizational and drafting changes.
• Make other minor changes to current rules.
The technical changes do not raise any significant policy issues.
Policy alternatives
The part of the proposed rulemaking concerning enforcement discretion is being undertaken to comply with the statutory directive contained in s.
895.59 (2), Stats., that provides, “Each agency shall promulgate a rule that requires the agency to disclose in advance the discretion that the agency will follow in the enforcement of rules and guidelines against a small business." Given the statutory requirement, there is no alternative to adoption of the rule.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
The department estimates that it will use less than .1 FTE staff time to modify this rule. This includes research, drafting, preparing related documents, holding public hearings, and communicative with affected persons and groups. The department will use existing staff to develop this rule.
Comparison with federal requirements
There are no federal regulations that address the subject proposed to be treated by this rulemaking.
Health and Family Services
Subject
The Department of Health and Family Services proposes to create Ch.
HFS 44, relating to reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of children from their homes and to reunify children with their families in the context of the best interests of the child, to achieving the goal of the permanency plan, and to permanency planning.
Policy analysis
At the present time, there are federal laws and regulations and state laws related to the issues to be included in this rule. To a certain extent, the purpose of this rule is to codify those existing requirements. Over the years, as federal laws and regulations have changed, we have also issued numbered memos (policy memos) to implement those changes. This rule will also codify those memos. The federal requirements, in terms of laws, are primarily found in Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act as affected by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, and other laws.
It is important that these requirements be codified into an administrative rule because it is currently very difficult for county child welfare staff, judges, District Attorneys, Corporation Counsel, and others to understand the complexity and comprehensiveness of existing requirements when they are so sporadic and unorganized.
The rule will also include some new policies, mostly relating to how requirements are to be implemented (e.g., conducting permanency plan reviews, submitting review results to the court, supervisory sign-off at various stages in the case process).
Statutory authority
Staff time required
A great deal of work has gone into what will become the content of the rule over many years. It is anticipated that approximately 20 hours of staff time will be required prior to Department level review.
Comparison with federal requirements
Federal law and regulations establish the parameters for the content of the rule. For example, federal law requires that agencies provide reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of a child from his or her home; the rule will assist agencies in determining what efforts are “reasonable."
For the most part, the federal regulations applicable to this rule are found at
45 CFR 1356 and
1357. The rule generally either replicates the federal regulation (or law under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) or provides additional guidance on the implementation of that law or regulation. The rule is not more strict than the federal regulation but, as noted above, provides some level of definition for terms used but not defined in the federal regulation or law. In addition, the rule provides policies and procedures for implementing federal requirements (e.g., federal law requires 6-month reviews of permanency plans; the rule provides the mechanisms by which those reviews must occur).
Entities affected by the rule
The rule will have a direct impact on DHFS, the Department of Corrections, county departments, private child placing agencies, residential care centers, group homes, treatment foster parents, foster parents, courts, and others affiliated with the child welfare and juvenile justice systems.
Insurance
Subject
Licensing of intermediaries and affecting small businesses.
Objective of the rule. Changes required to chs.
Ins 6,
26 and
28 to adopt language conforming to the NAIC Producer Model Act, NAIC Uniform Resident Licensing Standards, NAIC Uniform Continuing Education (“CE") Standards, changes required for the migration from paper to electronic processing within a new computer environment and to modify fees as required.
Policy analysis
It is the intent to adopt national uniform licensing and CE standards by 2006; to modify rules relating to renewal and CE compliance so all are in place at the time of conversion to an updated computer system. Failure to comply with model licensing and continuing education standards will cause problems with reciprocity with the other states, and may constitute grounds for the imposition of federal regulation. Fees need to be adjusted to cover increased expenses and reduced in other areas because of less costly electronic processing.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
400 hours and no other resources are necessary.
Comparison with federal requirements
There is currently no federal regulation of insurance agent licensing requirements. The threat of federal regulation in the insurance industry has been proposed over the past several years. Uniform standards in licensing and continuing education will eliminate the need for federal regulation in the future.
Entities affected by the rule
Insurance Intermediaries (individuals and firms), Managing General Agents (individuals and firms), Reinsurance Intermediaries Brokers and Managers (individuals and firms), Prelicensing Education Schools, Continuing Education Providers and Insurers.
Natural Resources
Subject
Removal of sunset dates from rules which establish small game and spring turkey hunting in select state parks.
Policy analysis
In 2002, the department promulgated administrative rules which established small game hunting in four state park properties and offered expanded spring turkey hunting opportunities in three state parks. Based on recommendations from a citizen advisory committee, a three year sunset was placed on these hunting opportunities in order to measure user tolerance for increased hunting opportunities on these properties. Following an evaluation of the 2003 and 2004 hunting seasons, which looked at criteria such as hunter utilization and user conflicts, the department recommends that these hunts continue at three of the four state parks where small game hunting was offered, since there was no evidence that these additional hunting opportunities conflicted with non-hunting park utilization at these parks. Additionally, the department recommends that the spring turkey hunts continue at each of the three state parks where additional opportunities were offered during the pilot.
Statutory authority
