Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

There are no new reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures necessary for compliance with the rules.

Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.

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

Rules have a significant economic impact on small businesses?

No.

Environmental Analysis

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

Summary

The rules implement mandates imposed by 2007 Wisconsin Act 205 regarding the installation and maintenance of carbon monoxide alarms in buildings accommodating residential type occupancies where people sleep or lodge, excluding hospitals and nursing homes. The rules will not increase the department's revenue or cost with respect to administration or enforcement over that imposed by the Act.

The Act and the rules affect the owners of commercial buildings where people sleep or lodge and tourist room houses (rental cabins) where fuel burning appliances are installed. The types of commercial buildings affected include apartment buildings, condominiums, hotels, motels, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, convents, seminaries, community based residential facilities, home shelters and tourist rooming houses (rental cabins). The department does not believe that the rules will increase the effect on owners over that imposed by the Act. Battery or plug-in type carbon monoxide detectors typically range in cost from $25 to $50. New construction installation costs for a hard-wired type carbon monoxide alarm with battery backup ranges in cost from $65 to $85 and $90 to $110 if interconnection is involved. Combination carbon monoxide alarms and smoke alarms are also available. The use of combination carbon monoxide alarms and smoke alarms should result in installation and labor cost savings over that for separate systems.

State fiscal effect

None.

Local fiscal effect

None.

Fund sources affected

PRO

Long-range fiscal implications

No long-range fiscal implications are anticipated.

Submission of Written Comments

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. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until October 24, 2008, 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. Written comments should be submitted to James Quast, at the Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at jim.quast@ wisconsin.gov.

Copies of Proposed Rule

The proposed rules and an analysis of the proposed rules are available on the Internet at the Safety and Buildings Division Web site at www.commerce.wi.gov/SB/. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Roberta Ward, at the Department of Commerce, Program Development Bureau, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at [e-mail], or at telephone [phone] or [phone] (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.

Agency Contact Person

James Quast, Program Manager, [phone] or email [e-mail].

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

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

rulemaking_notices CR 08-091 CR 08-091

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 26.30 (6m) and 227.11 (2), Stats., interpreting ss. 26.30, 28.01 and 28.07, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to Chapter NR 47, subch. IX, relating to the gypsy moth suppression program.

Hearing Information

The hearings will be held on:

October 14, 2008 Tuesday - 7:00 p.m.	Video conference participation will be available at:
	Old Library 1122, UW-Eau Claire 105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire
	Room IS1034, UW-Green Bay 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay
	Room 227, Pyle Center 702 Langdon Street, Madison

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Dr. Andrea Diss-Torrance at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources

Statutes interpreted

Sections 26.30, 28.01 and 28.07, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 26.30 (6m) and 227.11 (2), Stats.

Plain language analysis of rule

The purpose of this rule is to revise the existing procedures for participation by landowners through counties in a voluntary, cooperative state suppression program for outbreaks in Wisconsin of a foreign pest, the gypsy moth. The suppression program includes an aerial insecticide treatment program (administered in partnership with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection) and administration of federal cost sharing for participants in that treatment program.

Gypsy moth is not native to Wisconsin but has become established in many counties of the state. Where this pest is established, it goes through periodic outbreaks in which the population of gypsy moth explodes and forests can be stripped of leaves in late June. The stress of heavy defoliation can cause the death of some trees and leaves surviving trees weak allowing attack by other pests and diseases. When outbreaks occur, the public typically becomes concerned and looks for ways to reduce the population of gypsy moth to tolerable levels. Treatments to kill large numbers of the pest can be expensive, at times damaging to our native insects and other animals, or even dangerous to the landowner when pesticides are not used according to directions. The department- organized suppression program provides the public with a safe, effective and affordable means to prevent damage to their trees.

The suppression program is offered to landowners through counties. Participating counties provide a coordinator who serves as the contact for the public. The existing rule defines the tasks that will be performed by the participating counties, how to apply for the program, criteria of eligible areas for treatment and cost sharing under the program and eligible costs that can be shared in the federal cost sharing program. This revision of that rule will change the eligibility requirements of the state program to comply with those of the federal program. The revision also includes housekeeping changes which will improve the program's efficiency and accommodate the needs of the participating counties.

Comparison with federal regulations

The USDA Forest Service under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (appendix A) as amended (P.L. 95-313) and the 1990 Farm Bill offers a cost sharing program to states for the suppression of gypsy moth outbreaks. Their objective is to assist state agencies in protecting forest resources by preventing defoliation in residential, recreational and timber production lands. Cost share is made available to state cooperators who have established an acceptable integrated pest management strategy for the gypsy moth as determined by the Forest Service. The cost share from the Forest Service can be used to pay for the treatment and preparatory work for the treatment including monitoring, administration, and public notification. The current maximum federal share of project costs is 50%. The Forest Service cost-share rate, however, may be adjusted downwards to meet annual federal budget limitations. The Forest Service requires that the treatments that receive cost sharing be voluntary and are eligible by the minimum criteria decided by the Forest Service.

Comparison of rules in adjacent states

Of the adjacent states, only Michigan has a suppression program for gypsy moth. The Department of Agriculture takes it's authority to run the suppression program from the Insect Pest and Plant Disease Act 189 of 1931. There are no legislative rules governing the Michigan suppression program, however. Like Wisconsin's program, Michigan receives cost sharing from the USDA Forest Service so requirements described above apply to both. The two states suppression programs are similar in many ways though in Wisconsin all land uses are allowed to apply to the program and there is no prioritization of treatment for different land uses as there is in the Michigan program.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Not applicable to this rule as it is not regulatory.

Small Business Impact

Pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail]. wi.us or by calling [phone].

Environmental Analysis

The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

Fiscal Estimate

Summary

State fiscal effect. Counties that administer the application for the Department-owned properties have the option of charging the Department for this service. Therefore, allowing for direct application to the suppression program will enable the Department to avoid charges that it would ordinarily have to pay to a county for administering the application, resulting in an indeterminate reduction in Department costs.

Local fiscal effect. To the extent that a county has no other applicants to the suppression program other than Department-owned properties, this rule change will save some counties the expense of providing the administrative services, resulting in an indeterminate reduction in county costs.

Anticipated costs to private sector. The program is a voluntary one and is only done at resident's request or agreement so we do not expect any involuntary expenses. We expect that this program will provide cost savings for private businesses facing losses from damage to their property by gypsy moth. Private businesses may apply to the suppression program for treatment as can any other resident or community. The program provides access to a cost-effective aerial spray treatment that may not be available in that area and also provides cost sharing from the federal government reducing costs for participants.

Assumptions used in arriving at fiscal estimate. The proposed rule allows Department-owned properties to apply directly to the gypsy moth suppression program instead of requiring them to apply through a county.

State fiscal effect

Indeterminate - decrease costs.

Local fiscal effect

Indeterminate - decrease permission costs.

Units of local government affected

Counties

Fund sources affected

SEG

Submission of Written Comments, Copies of Proposed Rule, Agency Contact Person

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Dr. Andrea Diss-Torrance, Bureau of Forest Science, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until October 17, 2008. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Dr. Diss-Torrance.