F. Codify alternative avenues for use of state facilities, including the “spontaneous event" exception developed as part of the facilities use manual, and the creation of a lesser category of “notice" use, which, could be superseded by a permitted event or by DOA-led tour groups.
G. Further clarify the distinction between an exhibit and signs and the like which are incidental to events.
H.
Further clarify that a person who creates a hazardous condition and refuses to cease doing so may be cited for such conduct under Wis. Admin. Code s.
Adm 2.14 (2) (zd).
I. Further clarify that even common materials can pose a hazard when used or deployed in a hazardous manner.
J. Further clarify that materials deployed in a hazardous manner may be disposed of by WSCP.
K.
Further clarify the appropriate interpretation of Wis. Admin. Code s.
Adm 2.14 (2) (v) by sub-dividing the text.
L. Codification of the ability of the Department to set specific decibel limits for events after considering the place where the event is occurring, the time the event is occurring, and the needs of other normal uses of the place; in the alternative, codification of specific decibel limits.
M. Codification of factors to be considered in setting limits on the number of persons who may attend events in or on state buildings or facilities, or in the alternative, codification of specific numerical limits by location, date, time, and other uses affected.
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
Policies relevant to the rule are existing policies as found in Wis. Stats. ss.
16.84 and
16.845, Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Adm 2, and the historical interpretations of the law as found in WSFAP. Alternatives to codifying historical practice and further clarifying the existing administrative code include: a) terminating the use of the Wisconsin State Capitol as a designated public forum; b) restricting the manners of use of the designated public forum; or c) disposing of the permitting system in favor of a “voluntary permit system."
Terminating the use of the Wisconsin State Capitol building as a designated public forum is an alternative. The United States Capitol building and a substantial number of other state capitol buildings are not public forums. Employing this alternative is not desirable since the vast majority of users have demonstrated that they are capable of holding events or displaying exhibits without undue interference with the functions of the Legislature or the Department. Similarly, restricting the manner of use (e.g., prohibiting rallies and the like) in the Wisconsin State Capitol building is an alternative that is not recommended for the same reasons.
Allowing the free use of the Capitol building without need for a permit is not practicable. There is no known legal or factual precedent for this type of arrangement in any other state capitol buildings. More importantly, the potential for conflict between user groups is too high to make such an approach a realistic or practical alternative, as demonstrated by the issues cited in the finding of emergency.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule, Including the Statutory Citation and Language
The Department is the managing authority of numerous state properties, and is required to, “Have charge of, operate and maintain
… the state capitol building
… and such other state properties as are designated by law." Wis. Stats. s.
16.84 (1). “The department shall promulgate under ch.
227, and shall enforce or have enforced, rules of conduct for property leased or managed by the department." Wis. Stats. s.
16.846 (1). Additionally, “the managing authority of any facility owned by the state
… may permit its use for free discussion of public questions, or for civic, social or recreational activities." Wis. Stats. s.
16.845 (1). Further, “Whoever does or attempts an act for which a permit is required under this section without first obtaining a permit may be fined
… or imprisoned
… or both."
Id.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
Excluding time spent reviewing existing rules, historical information, and other sources in the preparation of this scope statement, we estimate that completion of the Final Draft of this emergency rule will require an additional 80 hours of staff time.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
This proposed emergency rule will clarify and protect the rights of all of the hundreds of user groups who obtain permits to use State facilities each year, as well as the Legislature, Supreme Court, the Attorney General's Office, and the numerous citizens and school groups who visit or work in our State Capitol and other State facilities.
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
Existing federal regulations allow no permitted activities inside the U.S. Capitol building. Existing federal regulations require permits of activities on the exterior grounds of the U.S. Capitol whenever 20 or more persons are involved. Existing federal regulations concerning other facilities vary widely by the nature and location of the facility.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule. Also, Please Note if the Rule is Likely to have an Economic Impact on Small Businesses
None.
9. Contact Person
Andrew Hitt, Assistant Deputy Secretary
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
(608) 266-1741
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Drug residues in animals for human food, and affecting small business.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
The department proposes a rule revision for ch.
ATCP 55, Wis. Adm. Code, specifying corrective actions to be enforced against livestock producers registered under Wisconsin's livestock premises regulations who, on two or more occasions during any calendar year, submit animals, which test positive for any drug residue, to be slaughtered at a state- or federally-inspected meat establishment for human consumption.
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
Medications are important for maintaining healthy livestock. However, if not carefully managed, drug residues may remain in animals submitted for slaughter. Residues of medications, particularly antibiotics and anti-inflammatory agents, in meat can pose a direct health risk to people who consume the meat. For example, some people may have an allergic reaction if exposed to penicillin. The drug flunixin may cause gastrointestinal and kidney problems. Drug residues may disrupt normal meat fermentation processes, such as is needed to make summer sausage, and increase the risk that disease-causing bacteria will grow during processing.
Meat establishment operators are expected by the United States Department of Agriculture — Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) to check the published Residue Repeat Violators list. The list identifies livestock producers whose animals have had two or more positive drug residue test results in the past year. Meat establishment operators are also expected to take appropriate measures before accepting animals from these producers. Regulatory action, if it is taken by USDA, is taken against the establishment operator. However, there is no state regulatory corrective action that can be enforced against these repeat offenders. Recent federal data suggest that dairy cattle are responsible for a high proportion of repeat tissue drug residue offenses. As a leading producer of dairy cattle, the reputation of Wisconsin's agriculture is jeopardized by Wisconsin producers who repeatedly violate prohibitions against drug residue in livestock and meat products.
Currently ch.
ATCP 55 (Meat and meat food products) addresses the production of meat and meat food products starting with the submission of an animal for slaughter for human consumption and, by reference, adopts United States Department of Agriculture regulations prohibiting the slaughter of “downer" cattle (non-ambulatory) for human food or feed destined for bovine animals. Chapter
ATCP 57 (Inedible animal by-products) deals generally with the slaughter of animals not for human consumption and the collection and processing of inedible byproducts of animal slaughter. Chapter
12 (Animal markets, dealers and truckers) addresses the handling of downer animals and requires that these animals be slaughtered for rendering or euthanized.
The department proposes consulting with industry to determine whether to implement mandatory education-based corrective action, involving the livestock producer and his/her veterinarian, to be enforced the first time a producer is determined to be a repeat residue violator. The department also proposes consideration of more stringent corrective actions, which would be determined after consultation with industry, to be enforced following violations that occur after the initial corrective action is completed.
Policy alternatives
If the department does not alter the current rules, the department will lack a clearly stated rapid enforcement step for tissue drug-residue repeat violations. Federal action against residue repeat violators is generally not taken unless the US Food and Drug Administration investigates, issues a warning letter, and upon further violations, obtains an injunction against the livestock producer. Warning letters and injunctions are seldom issued by the FDA on the basis of tissue drug-residue repeat violations. Instances of tissue drug-residue repeat violation could reduce consumer confidence in the safety of Wisconsin's meat products and place the reputation of Wisconsin's livestock industry in jeopardy.
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, Stats., 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.
97.42 Compulsory inspection of animals, poultry and carcasses.
(4) Rules. The department may issue reasonable rules requiring or prescribing any of the following:
(a) The inspection before and after slaughter of all animals and poultry killed or dressed for human consumption at any establishment.
95.38 Altering records; tampering with ear tags.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to in any manner change any test record, falsely record any test, misrepresent the identification of any animal or any other material fact on any test record, certificate of veterinary inspection, vaccination record, claim for indemnity, or any disease control report or application to the department. It shall be unlawful for any person to induce or to conspire with another, either directly or indirectly, to do any of the said prohibited acts.
(2) No person is permitted to in any way tamper with, insert or remove from the ear of any animal any ear tag or registration mark which is or may be used for identification in disease control work except upon authorization from the department.
(3) The department may adopt rules that are necessary to administer this section.
95.67 Proper use of animal care and disease control products. No person may use chemical, biological or disease control products in the treatment or care of food producing animals without substantially complying with instructions, warnings and directions for use on the product label. No animal or food product including milk of the animal shall be marketed for processing or use as food prior to the time specified on the label of a product used in the treatment or care of the animal. This section applies neither to licensed veterinarians who prescribe or administer drugs in conformity with federal restrictions nor to persons using drugs in a manner prescribed by a licensed veterinarian. This section shall not prevent a farmer from administering animal disease control products to livestock in compliance with instructions on the product label.
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 stakeholder meetings, holding public hearings, and otherwise 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
Consumers, meat establishment operators, and livestock producers will all benefit from the department having progressive enforcement capabilities for repeat tissue drug-residue violations.
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
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations require meat and poultry processors to adopt Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems. HACCP is an approach for preventing food safety hazards that involves identifying key food processing steps essential for ensuring safety. Plants must develop a plan to monitor and document that each of these key steps is functioning properly and minimizing food safety risks. As part of their HACCP plan, federally-inspected plants are required by
9 CFR 417.2 (a) (3) (v) to identify preventive measures for food safety hazards that could arise from drug residues. Drug residues include veterinary drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants.
One approach for minimizing drug residue risks is for producers to avoid purchasing animals from sources that have had drug residue violations in the past. Since past performance is often the best indicator as to whether an animal may have a drug residue problem, federal plants are expected to consult the federal Residue Repeat Violator List before purchasing animals for slaughter. The National Residue Program (NRP) at FSIS has collected data on drug residues in meat, poultry, and egg products since 1967. Producers who are found to have had more than one residue violation in the previous 12 months under this sampling program are placed on the federal Residue Repeat Violator List.
State meat inspection programs operate under a cooperative agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Under this agreement, state meat inspection programs are required to adopt regulations that are “at least equal to" federal meat and poultry inspection regulations. In addition, Wisconsin is one of three states recently accepted into the Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) program allowing certain selected meat establishments to ship their products in interstate commerce. States in the CIS program must adopt regulations that are the “same as" federal meat inspection regulations.
The proposed rule will ensure Wisconsin's state meat inspection program is consistent with federal regulations and expectations for minimizing the risk of drug residue violations at state-inspected meat plants. It will enhance the effectiveness of these procedures by adding an additional educational corrective action that would be implemented well before federal regulatory action is needed.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact
This rule change is anticipated to have no impact on the vast majority of livestock producers who follow existing regulations and have a strong working relationship with their veterinarian. There will be a minor short-term negative economic impact on livestock producers who must attend a workshop and improve documentation of animal medications as a result of the proposed rule. To the extent that the proposed rule prevents drug residue problems and condemnation of carcasses, there will be a positive long-term economic impact. The rule will not modify fees or have an economic impact on local governmental units or public utility taxpayers.
8. Contact Person
Steve Ingham, Division of Food Safety Administrator, DATCP
Phone: (608) 224-4701
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
This statement of scope was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2013.
Rule No.
Chapter
ATCP 142, Wis. Adm. Code (Existing).
Relating to
The Cranberry Marketing Order.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
This proposed rule would increase the maximum amount the Cranberry Marketing Order Board may assess cranberry growers to enable the Board to more effectively achieve the purposes of ch.
96, Stats., (the Agricultural Marketing Act) and particularly to more effectively maintain and expand the sale of cranberries.
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
History and background
The Cranberry Marketing Order that currently exists was adopted in 1983. It provides for a maximum annual assessment for each cranberry producer covered by the order of 10 cents per barrel of cranberries produced. The primary purpose of the marketing order is to maintain and expand the sale of cranberries. To that end, funds collected through assessments may be used by the marketing board for marketing research and development, industrial research and education programs that serve to meet the purpose of the marketing order.
Proposed policies
