Rules published with this register and final regulatory flexibility analyses
The following administrative rule orders have been adopted and published in the April 30, 2006, Wisconsin Administrative Register. Copies of these rules are sent to subscribers of the complete Wisconsin Administrative Code and also to the subscribers of the specific affected Code.
For subscription information, contact Document Sales at (608) 266-3358.
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(
CR 05-014)
An order affecting ch.
ATCP 51, relating to livestock facility siting. Effective 5-1-06 and 7-1-06.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rule will have a significant impact on livestock businesses in this state. This rule will facilitate the orderly growth and modernization of Wisconsin's critical livestock industry by providing a more uniform, objective and predictable process that local governments must follow in issuing local permits for new and expanded livestock facilities.
This rule directly affects only a small number of livestock operators – those who voluntarily choose to build new or expanded livestock facilities in jurisdictions that require local approval. The affected facilities will typically have over 500 “animal units" (some smaller facilities may be affected, in local jurisdictions that had lower permit thresholds prior to July 19, 2003).
DATCP estimates that this rule will directly affect only about 50-70 livestock facilities per year. But the rule will have a significant impact in those cases. It will also have a long-term, indirect impact on the growth and development of the state's livestock industry as a whole. The rule will facilitate more orderly planning, more appropriate siting choices, more predictability for livestock operators and their lenders, and more efficient and environmentally sustainable industry development.
Prior to the Livestock Facility Siting Law, some individual livestock operators spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on unsuccessful applications for local siting approval. When local approval was denied, the operators lost income opportunities. Other operators, though ultimately successful, incurred extraordinary (and often unnecessary) costs and delays.
Contentious local proceedings have exacted a heavy emotional toll on livestock operators and their families, and harmed community relations. The unpredictability of local approval has discouraged lending and capital investment.
New and expanding operations will need to comply with regulations spelled out in this rule. This may add costs for some new or expanding operations, but will also save costs related to local siting disputes and litigation. Operators will be able to evaluate compliance needs before applying for local approval, and will be able to plan their investments accordingly.
DATCP has developed preliminary cost estimates for livestock facilities directly affected by this rule. DATCP estimates the following average cost (or savings) range per siting, by livestock facility size category:
Under 500 “animal units:" ($15,500 savings) to $18,500
500 to 1,000 “animal units:" ($46,150 savings) to $48,200
Over 1,000 “animal units:" ($163,590 savings) to $159,000
Based on reports of livestock siting disputes prior to the Livestock Facility Siting Law, DATCP believes that the net costs of this rule may actually be much lower, and that savings may actually be much higher. Net costs may also be offset, in some cases, by government cost-sharing grants. An applicant for local approval is not ordinarily entitled to cost-sharing for conservation practices needed to comply with this rule. However a local government may provide cost-sharing if it wishes to do so.
This rule affects local approval of livestock facilities that will have 500 or more “animal units" (or that will exceed a lower threshold established by local zoning ordinance prior to July 19, 2003). Many of these operations would be considered a “small business" as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats, or under the definition of “small business" as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats. as amended by
2003 Act 145. The department has attempted to accommodate the interests of small businesses by establishing less rigorous standards for existing structures, allowing the addition of a “separate species facilities" without triggering local permit requirements, completely exempting smaller livestock operations from the odor management and nutrient management standards, and capping the permit application fee charged by local governments. In other respects, this rule requires the same procedures for small businesses as other businesses.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
On November 1, 2005, DATCP referred its final draft rule to the Legislature, for standing committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture.
On December 9, 2005, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance asked DATCP to consider modifications to the rule (the committee did not specify the modifications requested). On December 21, 2005, the Assembly Committee on Agriculture also asked DATCP to consider modifications to the rule. The Assembly Committee attached a motion identifying, in general terms, the modifications requested (the Assembly Committee also attached lists of modifications requested by individual members of the committee).
DATCP carefully considered all of the requested modifications, including those requested by individual committee members, and made significant modifications to the final draft rule. The DATCP Board approved the requested modifications on February 8, 2006. DATCP forwarded the proposed modifications to the Senate and Assembly review committees on February 9, 2006. Neither committee requested any further modifications, or took further action on the rule. The legislative committee review period has now expired.
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(
CR 05-068)
An order affecting chs.
ATCP 99,
100 and
101, relating to agricultural producer security. Effective 5-1-06.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Rule Description
This rule amends current rules related to the agricultural producer security program under ch.
126, Stats. The program is designed to protect agricultural producers from catastrophic financial defaults by grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors (collectively referred to as “contractors") who procure agricultural commodities from producers.
This rule does all of the following:
•
It permits a licensed contractor to file voluntary security for the benefit of producers if the contractor's estimated default exposure exceeds the maximum amount payable from the Wisconsin agricultural producer security fund. A contractor who files voluntary security may pay lower fund assessments and make more favorable disclosures to producers. A voluntary security filing does not relieve a contractor of any other duty to file security or pay fund assessments.
•
It changes and simplifies the disclosures that contractors must give to producers.
•
It clarifies current grain warehouse keeper record keeping requirements.
Businesses Affected
This rule affects grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors that procure agricultural commodities from agricultural producers. Many of these businesses are small businesses, but others are very large. This rule benefits agricultural producers (many of whom are small businesses), by improving security protection for those producers.
Effects on Business
This rule will have a minimal impact on most grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors. It gives some contractors the option of filing additional security (it does not change or add to current mandatory filing requirements).
Contractors who file voluntary security may benefit from reduced fund assessments and more favorable disclosures to producers. The security provisions in this rule affect very large contractors, and do not affect small contractors.
This rule changes and simplifies current contractor disclosures to producers. In some cases, current disclosures overstate the amount of security coverage afforded to producers. Some contractors may incur one-time costs to change their disclosure forms, but this will not be a major expense for affected contractors.
This rule clarifies current grain warehouse record keeping requirements, but does not add major new record keeping requirements. The changes will not have a major impact on affected contractors.
Effects on Small Business
This rule will not have significant impact on “small business," except that it will have a positive impact on agricultural producers. Producers will receive more accurate information from contractors, and in some cases will receive more complete security protection. Because this rule has no significant adverse effects on small business, and has a positive impact on agricultural producers, there is no need to provide any special accommodation for small business.
Conclusion
This rule will benefit agricultural producers, and will not have a significant adverse effect on other businesses. This rule will not have a significant effect on small business, except that it will benefit agricultural producers. Compliance with this rule will not require additional professional services, and will not entail significant costs. While some (large) businesses may entail significant costs for security filings, that cost is voluntary and may be offset by other benefits.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
On December 15, 2005, DATCP transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture took no action on the rule during the review period.
The Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance requested a meeting with DATCP on the rule. Based on discussions with the Senate Committee Chair, DATCP agreed to add notes clarifying the rule definition of “affiliate." These notes do not change the intent of the rule, but help to clarify that intent. Based on DATCP's agreement to add the notes, the Senate Committee took no action on the rule during its review period.
Conclusion
This rule will benefit agricultural producers, and will not have a significant adverse effect on other businesses. This rule will not have a significant effect on small business, except that it will benefit agricultural producers. Compliance with this rule will not require additional professional services, and will not entail significant costs. While some (large) businesses may entail significant costs for security filings, that cost is voluntary and may be offset by other benefits.
An order affecting ch.
EAB 4, relating to student protection fees paid by schools subject to the approval of the EAB. Effective 5-1-06.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The potential impact of this rule on small businesses is limited to the extent that such businesses meet the statutory definition of a school and are subject to the EAB approval. The EAB currently approves 140 for-profit and non-profit postsecondary schools. These schools consist of technical, career, distance-learning and degree-granting institutions that offer more than 600 degree and non-degree programs to over 30,000 Wisconsin adults annually. Typical programs includes truck driving, massage therapy, home inspection, teacher licensure, IT certifications, CAD drafting, as well a traditional bachelor and master degrees.
Summary of Comments by Legislative Review Committees
No comments were received.
An order affecting ch.
Ins 8, relating to the small employer uniform employee application for group health insurance. Effective 5-1-06.
Summary of Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and therefore a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
