2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background, and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Wisconsin ranks second nationally in milk production and operates the nation's largest state dairy inspection program. Wisconsin has by far the largest number of dairy farms operated by licensed dairy producers; the milk from each of these farms is shipped to one of the 400+ licensed dairy plants in the state, or to a licensed dairy plant in another state. Milk must be collected from each farm in a licensed bulk milk tanker, and a licensed bulk milk weigher sampler must properly record the amount of milk collected and sample the milk on each farm for testing.
Current Wisconsin regulations in ch.
ATCP 82 require that all milk present in a bulk tank must be collected when a collection is made, i.e. partial collection is forbidden. The original intent of this regulation was to ensure that a dairy producer's bulk tank(s) was regularly cleaned and sanitized, and to ensure that collection-to-collection transfers of illegal drug residues did not occur, which could result in increased financial losses to dairy producers forced to dump multiple loads of milk.
Despite the worthwhile intentions which led to it being written, the requirement prohibiting partial collection of milk from a bulk tank is outdated. Farm sanitation methods have improved since Wisconsin's rule was first adopted. Frequent testing allows dairy plants to quickly address problems related to bulk tank cleanliness. As the number of dairy farms has decreased, farms have become larger, and per cow milk production has risen, many farms have purchased larger bulk tanks, creating new challenges for managing milk collection. For example, some farms now have bulk milk tanks that hold 7,000 or more gallons of milk, while other farms may have several smaller tanks. A typical milk truck carries approximately 6,000 gallons of milk. Allowing partial collection of milk from bulk tanks will give dairy plants the tools they need to more efficiently manage milk collection from these farms and avoid loading trucks beyond legal capacity. In the long run, increased flexibility for collection of milk could result in fewer trips required to haul milk, with associated fuel savings, and less wear and tear on roadways.
The PMO allows partial collection of milk provided that the bulk tank is emptied, cleaned and sanitized within at least 72 hours. The PMO also requires an acceptable temperature-recording device to be installed and operating on any bulk tank from which partial collections are made. The bulk milk weigher sampler, and regulatory personnel are required to observe temperature records to be sure that loss of temperature control, which can lead to unacceptable bacterial growth, did not occur following a partial collection. In absence of a temperature-recording device, partial pickups are permitted under the PMO as long as the bulk tank is emptied completely, cleaned and sanitized prior to the next milking. This proposed rule adopts these PMO standards.
Approximately 4,000 bulk milk tankers from Wisconsin and other states deliver milk to Wisconsin dairy plants. By regulation each of these trucks must be licensed in Wisconsin and, if carrying Grade “A" milk, hold a Grade “A" permit. It is logistically challenging to license all of these tankers, particularly those which are infrequently in Wisconsin. The department will consider removing the licensing requirement and fee while accepting Grade “A" permits issued by any state and instituting a Grade “A" permit inspection fee for bulk milk tankers based in Wisconsin. This change would benefit the milk hauling industry and allow re-assignment of department sanitarians to other tasks. The department will also consider removing a confusing exemption of tanker Grade “A" permit requirements for employees of an already permit-holding bulk milk tanker owner. Removal of this exemption will bring Wisconsin requirements in line with the PMO and create a level playing field for milk haulers.
The department currently licenses about 3,700 bulk milk weigher samplers, who measure the weight of milk collected and obtain a representative sample of each producer's milk for mandatory testing. The PMO requires a biennial field examination of each bulk milk weigher sampler before license renewal to ensure that s/he is using proper sample collection technique. Wisconsin regulations make the field examination optional. In order to improve consistency with the PMO, the department will consider changing the current bulk milk weigher sampler examination regulations, along with the re-inspection procedure used to evaluate bulk milk weigher samplers who have been found to be in violation of Wisconsin food safety law.
The department will also consider updating requirements for washing and sanitizing of bulk milk tankers and associated hoses and pumps, thermometer calibration, rinsing of bulk tank volume measurement rods, supplies required for milk collection and sampling, and sealing of the bulk milk tanker access port. These updates will improve consistency between Wisconsin rules and the PMO, while reflecting current industry standard practices.
Policy alternatives
If the department does not alter the current rules, Wisconsin dairy plants will lack the flexibility dairy plants have in other states that adopt the PMO standard and allow plants to collect partial loads of milk. Dairy plant operators will be prevented from managing their milk hauling practices in the most cost efficient and profitable manner and will be required to continue to empty bulk tanks each time they make a pickup, even if that means trucks are not filled to capacity or over-capacity milk is dumped. Not changing this policy has the potential to negatively impact dairy plant and producer costs, causing companies to incur unnecessary fuel and other costs associated with hauling milk, putting them at an economic disadvantage to dairy producers in other states that have adopted the PMO standard. These unnecessary trips also may damage Wisconsin roads. In addition, failure to update requirements, such as those related to tanker permits, bulk milk weigher sampler examination and re-inspection, and washing and sanitizing of bulk milk tankers and associated hoses and pumps, decreases the department's flexibility in assigning work while increasing the likelihood of obtaining an unacceptable score when the department's milk regulatory program is evaluated for PMO-compliance by the FDA.
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
93.07 Department duties. It shall be the duty of the department:
(1) Regulations. To make and enforce such regulations, not inconsistent with law, as it may deem necessary for the exercise and discharge of all the powers and duties of the department, and to adopt such measures and make such regulations as are necessary and proper for the enforcement by the state of chs.
93 to
100, which regulations shall have the force of law.
97.09 Rules.
(4) The department may, by rule, establish and enforce standards governing the production, processing, packaging, labeling, transportation, storage, handling, display, sale, including retail sale, and distribution of foods that are needed to protect the public from the sale of adulterated or misbranded foods.
97.21 Milk haulers and milk distributors.
(6) Rule making. The department may promulgate rules to establish amounts of fees required under sub. (4) or to regulate bulk milk tanker operators and milk distributors. The rules may include standards for the construction, maintenance and sanitary operation of bulk milk tankers, milk distribution vehicles and milk distribution facilities; the design, installation, cleaning and maintenance of equipment and utensils; personnel sanitation; storage and handling of milk and fluid milk products; identification of bulk milk tankers and milk distribution vehicles; and record keeping.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
DATCP estimates that it will use approximately 0.10 FTE staff to develop this rule. That includes time required for investigation and analysis, rule drafting, preparing related documents, coordinating advisory committee meetings, holding public hearings, and communicating with affected persons and groups. DATCP will use existing staff to develop this rule.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
Dairy producers will gain increased flexibility regarding volume of bulk milk tanks they purchase to store increased milk volumes. For example, a producer may choose to install a second, smaller bulk tank (to reduce capital equipment costs) because the milk hauler could collect a truckload from the larger tank on the existing schedule and less often collect a partial load from the larger tank plus the additional milk accumulated in the smaller tank. Under the proposed rule, milk haulers will also gain increased flexibility in scheduling collections. For example, fewer milk tanker trips could be necessary for a producer who has two bulk tanks, one of which is completely emptied on the existing schedule and the other one which is used to “top up" a tanker for two consecutive days and is then emptied completely into a second tanker every third day. Reducing the number of milk tanker trips in situations like this could reduce damage to roadways and hauling costs for the dairy plant. Dairy producers and milk haulers would also benefit in the situation where the amount of milk in the farm bulk tank exceeds the remaining capacity of a milk tanker. Currently, the excess milk must be dumped. Under the proposed rule, the milk tanker could be filled to its limit, and the remaining milk held over for an additional collection by a truck with appropriate capacity. Dairy plant operators and milk haulers would benefit from Wisconsin recognizing other states' Grade “A" milk tanker permits. More consistent evaluation of bulk milk weigher samplers would reduce the likelihood of measurement error or invalid milk quality testing results – outcomes that could benefit dairy producers and dairy plant operators alike.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
The proposed rule would adopt federal PMO regulations related to partial collection of milk from bulk tanks. The federal guidelines in the PMO allow partial collection of milk. Wisconsin's regulations are more stringent than the PMO and do not allow for partial collection of milk from bulk tanks. Several other provisions of the PMO would be adopted, thus decreasing the likelihood of inconsistencies in milk regulation between states. Although compliance with the PMO is technically a voluntary effort by state regulatory agencies, Wisconsin is periodically evaluated by the FDA for compliance with PMO standards. Failure to pass the FDA audit would jeopardize the state's interstate and international dairy industry.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact
This rule change is anticipated to have no negative impact, but a positive economic impact for Wisconsin's dairy industry. It will make Wisconsin's regulations regarding partial collection of milk from bulk tanks, and other milk hauling procedures, consistent with practices in other states, including those elsewhere in the Upper Midwest. It will allow dairy plants to manage their milk hauling practices more efficiently and profitably. Although the proposed rule will allow partial collection of bulk milk, it is not anticipated to be a widespread practice, but one tool that a dairy plant may use to manage milk hauling practices. The rule may reduce milk tanker licensing costs to industry. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility taxpayers.
Contact Person
Steve Ingham, Division of Food Safety Administrator, DATCP; Phone (608) 224-4701.
Government Accountability Board
This statement of Scope was approved by the governor on June 13, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The Government Accountability Board's rule on ballot security, under ss.
7.23 and
7.51, Stats., has become outdated because of advances in technology and because of heightened administrative and public concerns about ballot security in light of recent security and chain-of-custody problems in elections both in Wisconsin and in other states. To address those concerns and to update ballot security procedures in Wisconsin, the Board proposes to repeal and re-create chapter GAB 5, the ballot security rule.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Existing policy
Chapter
GAB 5 was originally published in 1992 and has not been amended except for renumbering and a correction in 2008. (Registers April 2008 No. 628 and June 2008 No. 630). Numerous statutory amendments have been made since 1992 for which ch.
GAB 5 applies. For example, current ch.
GAB 5 is silent as to the security of present-day electronic voting systems.
Proposed policy
Recreated Chapter
GAB 5 will address the statutory changes that have occurred since 1992 and create security instructions for the safeguarding of electronic tabulating voting equipment memory devices for periods before, during, and after elections. The rule also provides flexibility for counties to request approval to implement alternative security procedures.
Alternatives
A)
Do Nothing — leave ch.
GAB 5 as it is.
1)
Pros: This alternative means that no rule revision is necessary and staff resources will not be diverted from other tasks and duties needing the attention of the GAB.
2)
Cons: The absence of rule revision in this instance will perpetuate the already out of date security measures and instructions provided in ch.
GAB 5 which are largely due to technological innovations. As the pace of technology ever quickens and ch.
GAB 5 lags behind even further, the actual and perceived problems of ballot security will only become more egregious.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
7.23, Stats., establishes timelines for the destruction of election materials. Section
7.51, Stats., establishes requirements for securing ballots and electronic voting equipment and documenting their chain of custody.
Section
5.05 (1) (f), Stats., expressly authorizes the Board to promulgate rules under ch.
227, Stats., for the purpose of interpreting or implementing the laws regulating the conduct of elections or election campaigns or ensuring their proper administration.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., expressly authorizes the Board to promulgate rules to interpret the provisions of statutes the Board enforces or administers.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
20 hours.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
This rule will affect county and municipal election officials.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Federal law does not apply to the preparation, printing, or security of ballots. Federal law does require that materials, including ballots, relating to any election in which a federal office is on the ballot, must be preserved for not fewer than 22 months.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The anticipated economic impact from the implementation of the proposed order is minimal to none. There may be some minimal economic impact on local officials, but will not affect small businesses.
Contact Person
Safety and Professional Services
Professional Services, Chs.
1-
299
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on June 10, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Firearms and other dangerous weapons for private security personnel, private detectives, and private investigators or special investigators.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule revision is to update this chapter so that the chapter no longer conflicts with
2011 Wisconsin Act 35 (Wisconsin's Concealed Carry Law).
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
This chapter currently establishes (1) qualifications and other requirements that apply to private security personnel, private detectives, and private investigators or special investigators, who carry firearms or other dangerous weapons or who transport loaded firearms — and to the employers of those individuals; (2) qualifications and other requirements that apply to instructors who certify the firearms proficiency of the individuals who carry firearms; and (3) qualifications and other requirements that apply to entities which train and certify those firearms instructors. The Department enforces compliance with these qualifications and requirements primarily through (1) issuance and annual renewal of a firearms permit for each individual who carries a firearm; and (2) issuance and biennial renewal of a firearms-proficiency-certifier approval for each firearms instructor.
The rule revision under this Scope Statement is primarily expected to exempt all of the requirements in this chapter from applying to anyone who carries a concealed weapon in accordance with a permit issued under section
175.60 of the Statutes and Chapters
Jus 17 and
18.
Alternatives to this revision include continuing to apply all of this chapter's requirements that currently determine
who can carry a firearm — but updating the requirements that determine
how these individuals can carry a firearm; that is, whether the firearm can be concealed rather than carried openly. This alternative would include modifying the current restrictions against concealed carry so that they no longer conflict with
2011 Act 35. The alternatives also include updating the chapter wherever needed so that it is consistent with contemporary industry and regulatory practices.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
227.11 (2) (a) of the Statutes authorizes the Department to “promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered" by the Department, if the rule is considered necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Section
440.26 (2) (c) of the Statutes states “the Department shall prescribe, by rule, such qualifications as it deems appropriate" relating to the professional competence of private security personnel, private detectives, and private investigators or special investigators. To fulfill this duty, the Department has codified the qualifications described in section 3 above, along with qualifications that apply independent of whether a firearm is carried.
Section
440.26 (3m) of the Statutes states the “Department shall promulgate rules relating to the carrying of dangerous weapons by a person who holds a license or permit issued under [section 440.26] or who is employed by a person licensed under [section
440.26]." Section
440.26 (3m), Stats., also requires these rules to allow carrying concealed weapons in the manner permitted under section
175.60 of the Statutes.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The Department estimates approximately 100 hours will be needed to perform the review and develop the proposed rule revisions. This time includes meeting with stakeholders, drafting the rule revisions, and processing the revisions through public hearings, legislative review, and adoption. The Department will assign existing staff to perform the review and develop the rule revisions, and no other resources will be needed.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
