Scope Statements
Health and Family Services
Subject
The Department of Health and Family Services proposes to modify ch.
HFS 173, relating to tattooing and body piercing establishments to increase license fees, pre-inspection fees, and practitioner fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for late renewal, a fee for operating without a license, and a fee for special condition inspections; to modify ch.
HFS 175, relating to recreational and educational camps to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections; to modify ch.
HFS 178, relating to campgrounds to increase permit and late renewal fees and to create pre-inspection and re-inspection fees, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections; to modify ch.
HFS 195, relating to hotels, motels, and tourist rooming houses to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections; to modify ch.
HFS 196, relating to restaurants to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees, to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, a fee for operating without a certified operator, and a fee for special condition inspections, and to revise the restaurant complexity ratings; to modify ch.
HFS 197, relating to bed and breakfast establishments to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections; to modify HFS 198 relating to vending of food to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections. In addition to modifying fees, the department may update the above identified rules as needed to ensure continued consistency between rules and current practice.
Policy Analysis
Before a person may operate a tattooing or body piercing establishment, recreational or educational camp, campground, hotel, motel, tourist rooming house, bed and breakfast establishment, restaurant, or a vending machine commissary or vending machine, the person is required by state law to have a permit or a license issued by the department upon a successful pre-inspection and payment of the license or permit fee, pre-inspection fee, and all other applicable fees established by the department by rule. In addition, state law prohibits a person from operating or maintaining a restaurant unless the person or a manager holds a current, valid certified manager's certificate from the department.
For recreational and educational camps, campgrounds, hotels, motels, tourist rooming houses, bed and breakfast establishments, restaurants and vending, the department is required under ss.
252.23 (4), 252. 24 (4), 254.47 and 254.68, Stats., to establish by rule, license and permit fees, pre-inspection fees, re-inspection fees, fees for operating without a permit or license, and fees for untimely permit or license renewal. For tattoo establishments and body piercing establishments, the department is required to establish, by rule, fees to offset the costs of licensing establishments.
License/Permit, Pre-inspection and Late Renewal Fees. The department intends to increase or create license/permit fees, pre-inspection fees and late renewal fees pursuant to its authority under ss.
252.23 (4), 252. 24 (4), 254.47 and 254.68, Stats., as a means of achieving a more appropriate state staffing level and improving local service delivery. Though the department actively encourages local public health departments to provide environmental health regulatory services by acting as agents of the state, many local governments opt-out because the fee structure will not sustain appropriate inspection and licensing activities. The department believes that changes in fees will help the department increase the number of agencies providing local services. In addition, this will bring the number of inspections per state inspector more in line with FDA's recommended guidelines, ultimately providing better protection and service within the state.
Except for tattooing and body piercing establishments, license/permit fees and pre-inspection fees were last revised in 2002. Permit and pre-inspection fees for tattooing and body piercing establishments and practitioner license fees were last revised in 1998. Fees for late renewal were last revised for all entities in 1998. None of the regulated entities have been subject to re-inspection fees or fees for operating without a license. Although it is difficult to match program for program in comparison with other states, Wisconsin's fees are typically lower.
To further augment the licensing and inspection program, the department intends to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit or license, a fee (for restaurants only) for operating without a certified operator, and a fee for special condition inspections.
Re-inspection Fee. The department intends to create a re-inspection fee to assess facilities that pose increased risk to the public due to significant violations of the public health and safety rules. The department has determined that operators that fail to maintain safe conditions, not only present an increased risk to the public, but also consume a disproportionately larger share of public health resources than those operators that function safely.
Fee for Operating without a Permit or License. The department is required under s.
254.47 (4), Stats., to establish by rule fees for operating campgrounds and recreational and educational camps without a permit, and under s.
254.68, Stats., to establish by rule fees for operating a hotel, restaurant, temporary restaurant, tourist rooming house, vending machine commissary or vending machine without a permit. Although there is no statutory requirement that the department establish a comparable rule for tattooists or body-piercing establishments, the department believes that ss.
252.23 (4) and
253.24(4), Stats., give it general authority to do so. The department intends to assess this fee to persons that fail to obtain a permit or license and pre-inspection before operating a facility. This fee would be collected in addition to the permit or license and pre-inspection fees. Such a fee would not relieve the operator from being subject to a fine under s.
254.88, Stats.
Fee for Operating without a Certified Operator. Section
254.71 (1), Stats., requires that a restaurant have a manager or operator certified in food protection practices. The National Conference of Food Protection recommends that restaurants have certified operators as a means of increasing food safety knowledge and, thereby, reducing the risk of food-borne illnesses. Chapter 12.201.11 of the Wisconsin Food Code (HFS 196 Appendix) requires restaurants to have a certified operator within six months of opening or within six months of losing an existing certified operator. Due to past difficulties in encouraging compliance with this risk-reduction standard, the department proposes to assess a fee on any restaurant that operates without a certified operator.
Fee for Special Condition Inspections. As part of the department's general responsibility for oversight of public health, the department routinely conducts inspections, without reimbursement, for state, local and private sector entities for activities that are not directly related to the department's permitting and licensing responsibilities. Because these requests and subsequent inspections have become routine and are not supported under the department's licensing fee structure, the department intends to create a "special condition inspection" fee to offset the costs for conducting these inspections. Examples of special condition inspections include sanitation inspections of liquor establishments for liquor licenses, establishment pre-purchase compliance inspections for parties intending to purchase DHFS-regulated facilities, preliminary inspections of complex waterpark facilities, and food safety inspections at schools participating in the National School Lunch (NSLP) or School Breakfast Programs (SBP).
HFS 196 Restaurant Complexity Rating - Frozen versus Thawed Meat Handling. Retail food service establishments are rated for complexity based on an evaluative formula. Entities that handle raw meat, poultry and seafood pose a greater risk for introducing food-borne contamination and, as such, have a higher level of complexity and an expectation for more frequent and detailed inspections. Entities that handle frozen and preformed meat patties, chicken breasts, or breaded, chopped or comminuted meats are currently categorized as less complex. However, the department has determined through program evaluation that there is no discernable difference in risk between handling frozen pre-formed meats and raw poultry, meat or seafood. Therefore, the department intends to modify the restaurant code (HFS 196) to revise the complexity rating formula under s.
HFS 196.04 for restaurants that handle frozen pre-formed meat patties, chicken breasts, and breaded, chopped or comminuted meats. Specifically, the department intends to re-categorize entities that handle frozen pre-formed meat patties, chicken breasts, and breaded, chopped or comminuted meats to the same level that applies to raw meat handling. In some instances, this revision of the risk-based complexity rating formula may result in higher fees.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Entities directly affected by these proposed rule change may include:
• Restaurant and other retail food service facilities.
• Hotel, motel and other lodging facilities.
• Campgrounds and recreational and educational camps.
• Tattoo and body piercing facility owners and operators.
• Vending machine owners and operators.
• City and county public health agencies.
Comparison with Federal Regulations
There appears to be no existing or proposed federal regulations that address fee requirements for the entities regulated under the proposed rules.
Statutory Authority
Sections
227.11 (2) (a) (general rulemaking authority); 250.04 (general public health authority); 252.23 (4) (tattooists and tattoo establishments); 252.24 (4) (body piercers and body piercing establishments); 254.47 (4) (campgrounds and recreational and educational camps); 254.74, 254.64, 254.68 (hotels, motels, tourist rooming houses, bed and breakfast establishments, restaurants, vending machine commissaries, vending machines and vending machine locations); 254.71 (6) (certified food operators).
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The DHFS anticipates that approximately 800 hours of staff time will be required to develop the proposed rules. The department will create an advisory committee composed of regulated industry and local public health department representatives to review the fee structure and provide advice on the proposed rules.
Natural Resources
Subject
The rule is relating to the state wildlife grants program.
Policy Analysis
Objective of the rule. The Department requests authorization to begin development of an administrative rule to establish a grant program to help implement the Wildlife Action Plan. The State Wildlife Grants Program, funded through annual Congressional appropriations and administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provides federal money to Wisconsin for cost-effective conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. The Department will provide financial assistance, through State Wildlife Grant funds, for projects that protect Species of Greatest Conservation Need and their habitats, as described in the Wildlife Action Plan.
Description of Policy Issues/Policy Alternatives. United States laws and policies place the primary responsibility for wildlife management in the hands of the states. State fish and wildlife agencies have a long history of success in conserving game species, thanks to the support of hunter and angler license fees and federal excise taxes. But 90 percent of our Nation's wildlife is not hunted or fished. As a result, there is a serious gap in wildlife conservation funding, and thousands of species are falling through the cracks.
State Wildlife Grants help fill that gap by supporting projects that prevent all wildlife from declining to the point of being endangered. Projects supported by this program protect and restore important lands and waters, collect information on what kinds of wildlife are in trouble, and develop partnerships with landowners to protect declining species and habitats on public and private lands. By emphasizing a proactive approach, the State Wildlife Grants Program helps us take action to protect wildlife and habitats before they become too rare and costly to protect.
In order to make the best use of the State Wildlife Grants Program, Congress charged each state and territory with developing a statewide wildlife action plan. These proactive plans identify species and habitats of greatest conservation need and outline the steps needed to conserve all wildlife and vital natural areas for future generations.
The State Wildlife Grants Program saves taxpayer dollars. Taking action to conserve wildlife before it becomes endangered is environmentally sound and fiscally responsible. Once a species declines to the point of potential extinction, recovery efforts become risky and expensive. A non-federal match requirement assures local ownership and leverages state and private funds to support conservation. In an era of tight budgets, the State Wildlife Grants Program represents how limited federal funds can be invested to get the most results for taxpayers.
Entities Affected by the Rule
State Wildlife Grants support projects that prevent wildlife from declining to the point of being endangered. Projects supported by this program protect and restore important lands and waters, collect information on what kinds of wildlife are in trouble, and develop partnerships with landowners to protect declining species and habitats on public and private lands. Therefore, public land managers and private landowners throughout the state will benefit from this program as well as public agencies, non-governmental environmental groups, researchers at universities and colleges and citizen scientists.
Comparison with Federal Regulations
Several grant programs provide opportunities for private landowners to manage their land for rare species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides grants to private landowners through the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and the Private Stewardship Grant Program, which both focus on species listed at the federal level as endangered or threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also funds the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). LIP was authorized by Congress to provide technical and financial assistance to private landowners who are willing to partner with their states to maintain and enhance habitat for “at-risk species". These rare animals and plants, which are identified by each state, include state- and federally-listed species and other species with small and/or declining numbers in the state. The program is intended for management, restoration and protection of private land with habitat for at-risk species. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides funds to private landowners to restore habitat for federal or state listed species or special concern species through the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program. The State Wildlife Grants Program is an opportunity to address the gaps in existing funding and tailor a program unique to Wisconsin.
Statutory Authority
Section
227.11, Stats., and s.
29.604, Stats.; and Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, Public Law 107-63; Title I; Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 U.S. C. 4601-4 through 11.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The Department will need approximately 170 hours of staff time.
Contact Person
Tara Bergeson, Bureau of Endangered Resources (ER/6) GEF 2, Madison WI 53707, (608) 264-6043,
Tara.Bergeson@WI.gov
Revenue
Subject
Section
Tax 2.505, relating to apportionment of apportionable income of interstate professional sports clubs.
Policy Analysis
Existing policies are as set forth in the rules. No new policies are being proposed, other than to reflect law changes and court decisions. If the rules are not changed, they will be incorrect in that they will not reflect current law or current Department policy.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Professional sports clubs that are engaged in business both in and outside of Wisconsin. Also affected will be entities that prepare Wisconsin franchise or income tax returns for these clubs.
Comparison with Federal Regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.
