At the present time, the USDA has only designated one state, Michigan, as non-modified accredited. If the small business operator imports bovine animals, goats or cervids from Michigan, the operator will need to assure that the animal originates from a herd which has tested negative for tuberculosis within the past 12 months and that the animal has tested negative within the past 60 days (90 days for cervids). This places a burden on the business operator but it does not completely prohibit import of animals from Michigan. The burden of assuring that the animals have been properly tested is minimal compared to the burden that would be experienced by Wisconsin's animal agriculture industry if bovine tuberculosis is introduced to Wisconsin by an animal imported from a non-modified accredited state.

This rule requires persons, including small business operators, who import animals from non-modified accredited states to have the animals retested for tuberculosis after being imported. The imported animals must be kept segregated from other animals until the retest is completed. These requirements add costs for the importer, but the costs that would be incurred if infected animals are imported without these precautions are substantially higher. And, the importer has the ability to avoid these costs entirely by importing animals from other states of origin rather than from a non-modified accredited state.

The State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed rule relating to reimbursement of Johne's Disease testing costs. The hearings will be held at the times and places shown below. The public is invited to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearings, the hearing record will remain open until December 8, 2000, for additional written comments.

A copy of this rule may be obtained free of charge, from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Animal Health, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison WI 53708, or by calling (608) 224-4883. Copies will also be available at the hearings.

An interpreter for the hearing impaired will be available on request for these hearings. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by Friday, November 17, 2000, by writing to Lynn Miller, Division of Animal Health, P.O. Box 8911, Madison WI 53708-8911, telephone (608) 224-4883. Alternatively, you may contact the Department TDD at (608) 224-5058. Handicap access is available at the hearings.

Two hearings are scheduled:

Statutory Authority:   ss. 93.07 (1) and 95.197 (2)

Statute Interpreted:   s. 95.197

Johne's disease (paratuberculosis) is a serious disease of cattle. The 1999-2001 biennial budget act (1999 Wis. Act 9) established a grant program to help cattle owners pay for Johne's disease testing. The department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection (DATCP) administers the grant program. This rule establishes standards for the grant program, as required by the biennial budget act.

Under s. 95.197, Stats., and current DATCP rules, a seller warrants that cattle are free of Johne's disease at the time of sale unless the seller discloses to the prospective buyer the current Johne's disease herd classification of the source herd. Every herd of cattle has a Johne's disease herd classification.

A herd is automatically classified “maximum risk for Johne's disease" unless DATCP assigns a different herd classification based on an annual herd test. DATCP may assign one of several herd classification, based on annual herd test results. An annual herd test is voluntary. A herd owner may arrange and pay for an annual herd test, and may ask the department to classify the herd based on the test results.

The biennial budget act (1999 Wis. Act 9) provided $100,000 in grant funds FY 2000-01 to help cattle owners pay for annual Johne's disease herd tests. Under this rule, a herd owner who asks the department to classify a herd based on an annual herd test may apply for reimbursement of laboratory costs associated with the annual test. When DATCP classifies the herd, it will tell the herd owner how to apply for reimbursement.

To obtain reimbursement, a herd owner must file a claim by February 1 of the year following the year in which the herd owner tests the herd. The herd owner must submit copies of bills that establish the amount of laboratory costs charged to the herd owner. DATCP will distribute available funds by June 30 (following the February 1 annual application deadline).

DATCP may reimburse all or part of an applicant's claim, depending on available funding. If allowed claims exceed available funding, DATCP will pay each herd owner a pro rata share based on the amount of each herd owner's allowed claim. A herd owner may not resubmit the unpaid portion of a claim in a subsequent year.

The Department estimates that 2400 herds will be classified over a 12 month period and that 80% of the herd owners will file a reimbursement claim. If each claim requires 20 minutes to review and enter data for payment, the cost for salary and fringe will be $12,600. We estimate postage will cost $600 per year. The department will absorb these costs in the existing budget by reprioritizing staff assignments and expenses.

This estimate covers costs for the first year of the program only. Herd participation is expected to increase approximately 20 to 50% each year. This will also increase costs incurred by the department at a similar rate. At some point in time, the department may not be able to absorb the costs.

This rule will help cattle owners by reimbursing Johne's disease testing costs. The department has minimized procedural requirements related to reimbursement application, so that it will be easy for herd owners to apply. The department has included only those requirements that are necessary to ensure financial accountability in the distribution of public funds. This rule gives herd owners a substantial amount of time to apply for reimbursement. Hear owners must simply document the laboratory costs for which they seek reimbursement. DATCP will give herd owners information on how to apply.

This rule establishes standards for the grant program created by 1999 Wis. Act 9 to assist cattle owners in paying for Johne's disease testing. It will affect cattle owners who wish to obtain reimbursement for a portion of the costs incurred to test their herds for Johne's disease.

When a herd owner has his herd tested for Johne's disease and requests that the herd be classified on the basis of that test, the department will advise the herd owner that he or she is eligible to participate in the grant program. To participate in the grant program, the herd owner must file a claim no later than February 1 of the year following the calendar year in which the herd was tested. The owner must provide copies of bills from either the veterinarian or the laboratory to establish amount of laboratory costs incurred.

This claim filing process is the least onerous possible that is consistent with the state's need to audit and assure that grants are only given in appropriate amounts to eligible owners. The rule permits filing the claim anytime between the date their herd is classified and February 1 of the year after the testing is conducted. This allows significant flexibility for the animal owner.

It is not anticipated that the animal owner will need any significant professional skills to complete the claim form and become eligible for a grant under this rule.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 101.02 (1), 101.63 (1), 101.64 (3), 101.651, 101.72 and 101.74, Stats., the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on proposed rules relating to Uniform Dwelling Code Inspection Agencies.

The public hearing will be held as follows:

Date & Time	Location
December 12, 2000 Tuesday 9:00 A.M.	Room 3B Thompson Commerce Center 201 W. Washington Avenue Madison, WI

Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearings 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 Friday, December 22, 2000, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend a hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at a hearing.

These hearings are held in accessible facilities. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call (608) 266-8741 or TTY at (608) 264-8777 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon request by a person with a disability.

A copy of the proposed rules may be obtained without cost from Audrey Fries, Department of Commerce, Program Development Bureau, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, Wisconsin 53701, telephone (608) 266-9375 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearings.

Statutory Authority: ss. 101.02 (1), 101.63 (1), 101.64 (3), 101.72 and 101.74

Statute Interpreted: s. 101.651 (2m)

The last budget bill, 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, created s. 101.651 (2m), Stats., which requires municipalities with less than 2,500 population to adopt and enforce the Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) unless they take certain specified steps. However, there is no time limit specified for these steps to be taken. Section 101.651 (3) (b), Stats., was created at the same time which requires the department to enforce the UDC and to provide inspection services in those municipalities that have not otherwise provided for enforcement and inspection services under 101.651 (2m) (intro.) and (a), Stats., or that have not adopted an ordinance forgoing all enforcement and inspection as allowed under s. 101.651 (2m) (b), Stats.

The department plans to enforce the UDC and provide inspection services in those municipalities through the use of UDC Inspection Agencies registered with the department. The UDC Inspection Agency would be responsible for the issuance of building permits and UDC seals, and the performance of plan reviews and dwelling inspections. The dwelling owner would be responsible for hiring the UDC Inspection Agency to enforce the UDC for that dwelling.

Treatment sections 5 to 9 of this rule have an earlier effective date than the remainder of the sections to allow the department to register these agencies prior to requiring a homeowner to use them to inspect his or her dwelling.

1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.

Homebuilders who have previously done business only in non-enforcing municipalities will now be subject to permitting, plan review, and inspection activities.

Independent inspection firms will be affected. There will be a greater demand for their services.

2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.

Homebuilders who have previously done business only in non-enforcing municipalities will have to comply with rules for obtaining permits and for complying with plan review requirements.

A larger number of inspectors will have to obtain seals from the department or municipality and will be required to forward completed permit applications to the department.

The procedures and records of the UDC Inspection Agencies will be subject to audit by the department.

3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.

There should be no additional professional skills needed to comply with these rules.

Notice is hereby given that 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.

1999 Wisconsin Act 9 expanded the Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) permit and inspection program to apply mandatorily to cities, villages and towns with populations of 2,500 or less. Effective May 1, 2000, the Department of Commerce is required to provide a UDC permit and inspection program for newly constructed homes in municipalities with populations of 2,500 or less in which the county or the municipality does not take action. Cities, villages and towns with populations of 2,500 or less are able to opt out of the county or state permit and inspection program by resolution of the governing board filed with the Department.

Based on census data, it is anticipated that there will be 11,500 new housing starts annually that are currently not under permit. Commerce estimates that 35 % of these housing starts (4,025 homes per year) will secure UDC permits and have a permit and inspection activity associated with each permit. That means municipalities, counties or Commerce will be providing permit and inspection programs for the new housing starts. Municipalities and counties that provide permit and inspection programs will administer their own programs. Municipalities and counties that do not administer their own programs will have the permit and inspection programs administered by Commerce. It is anticipated that 50 percent of the UDC permits issued (2,000 homes per year) will have permit and inspection programs administered through Commerce.

For those permit and inspection programs that Commerce will be responsible for, Commerce will establish a registration program for UDC inspection agencies. The agencies, which will utilize UDC-certified building inspectors, will review building plans, perform field inspections, issue permits and collect fees. The agencies will fund their costs from the fee. The agents will purchase uniform building permit seals from Commerce at a cost of $25.00 each.

Although it is anticipated that all permit and inspection programs administered through Commerce will be through registered inspection agencies, there will be added duties for Commerce staff. Added duties include consultation, registration administration, education and training, contractor and local government auditing, permit handling, and review of petitions for variance. The recently authorized additional 1.5 FTE positions (1.0 FTE building inspector and 0.5 FTE program assistant) will provide the Division with the ability to meet the demands of the expanded program.

Municipalities and agencies will purchase Uniform Building Permit Seals with every new housing start that secures a UDC permit. It is anticipated that increased revenue generated from the purchase of the Uniform Building Permit Seal, at a fee of $25 each, will cover the projected costs.

There are no long-range fiscal implications anticipated.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 227.11 (2) (a), 302.07, 302.08, 302.11 (2) and 302.04, Stats., the Department of Corrections proposes the following rule relating to security.

The public hearing sites are accessible to people with disabilities.

Some provisions of the department of corrections administrative rule relating to security have not been updated since the rule was created in 1980. With over 20 years of experience working with the rule, the department proposes to update the rule.

DOC 306 governs security standards and practices at state correctional institutions. As technology, science, population and government evolve over time, security standards and practices must adapt to those changes. We ultimately grow wiser and more efficient based on new knowledge and procedures. What was thought routine, necessary or even effective correctional practice in 1980 may not be accurate today.

For example, our prison population has grown from 1,930 in 1976 to more than 18,000 in 2000, and has a projected population of more than 27,000 in the year 2001. This enormous increase in prisoners, along with their increased level of sophistication, has placed a greater burden on correctional staff and has created the possibility for a more hazardous environment. In many ways, Wardens and staff no longer enjoy the luxury of time that once afforded them the ability to maneuver bureaucratic requirements. Correctional staff must now make urgent decisions regarding the best way to ensure staff, inmate and visitor safety and security. These situation and decisions are infinitely different from those of 20 years ago when the current rule was promulgated. The changes in this rule make it possible for inmate rights and needs to be protected without compromising institution security.

•Removes the definitions for “Director of the bureau of correctional health services," “Administrator of the division of program services," “Division of program services," “CN chloroacetophenone and CS-o-chlorobenzyl malononitrile."

•Adds definition of “Authority," and “Issuance of firearms," adds “X-ray" to definition of “body cavity search," and adds “hair, fingernails, saliva, or semen" to definition of “body contents search.

•Changes the terms “Voluntary Confinement" to “Protective Confinement," “chemical agent" to “incapacitating agent," and changes the definition of “Superintendent" to “Warden."

Throughout this rule change, requirements regarding keeping reports, records, and plans are maintained, while the enumerated contents are eliminated. The Department's Internal Management Procedures will dictate what information is necessary and these documents will continue to be kept in a consistent manner. The following is a list of the changes in this rule:

•Maintains requirement for an incident report, but removes language dictating the contents of the report.

•Maintains requirement for a report regarding escape, but removes language detailing information required to be included in the report.

•Maintains requirement for staff to provide report on a visitor search, but deletes enumerated requirements of the report.

•Maintains requirement that the institution keep a record of the use of restraints, but removes language listing what information the record must contain.

•Maintains requirement that a record of search be kept, but deletes language specifying material that must be included in the report.