(2) The new law applies to milk contractors, including dairy plant operators, producer agents and other milk handlers, who procure producer milk in this state. Under the new law, milk contractors must be licensed by the Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection (DATCP). Milk contractors must pay license fees and do one or more of the following:

(a) Contribute to Wisconsin's agricultural producer security fund, to help secure milk payments to milk producers.

(b) File security with DATCP.

(c) File financial statements with DATCP, showing that the contractor meets minimum financial standards specified in ch. 126, Stats.

(3) The new law regulates producer agents (who market milk and collect payment for milk producers, without taking title to the milk), but treats them differently than other milk contractors. Producer agents may have lower fund participation requirements, and may file smaller amounts of security, than other milk contractors. The program may provide correspondingly less compensation to producers if a producer agent defaults.

(4) It is important to clarify the following matters before the new law takes effect for milk contractors on May 1, 2002:

(a) The treatment of dairy plant operators who provide custom processing services to milk producers, without marketing or taking title to milk or dairy products.

(b) The treatment of producer agents. Under s. 126.51, Stats., DATCP must adopt rules for milk contractors who wish to qualify as producer agents under the new law.

(c) The treatment of persons who market only processed dairy products for milk producers, without procuring, marketing or processing raw producer milk.

(d) The method by which milk contractors calculate and report milk payment obligations, for the purpose of calculating fund assessments and security requirements under the new law.

(5) Under s. 126.81 (4), Stats., DATCP may require milk contractors to disclose their security and fund contribution status to milk producers. It is important for milk contractors to begin making these disclosures soon after the new law takes effect, so that producers can evaluate the financial risk associated with milk procurement contracts. Disclosures are important, because not all milk contractors are required to participate in the agricultural security fund or file security with DATCP.

(6) It is not possible, by normal rulemaking procedures, to adopt these essential clarifications and disclosure requirements by May 1, 2002. DATCP must, therefore, adopt them by emergency rule. This emergency rule is needed to implement the new law, to protect the financial security of milk producers, to preserve fair competition in the dairy industry, and to avoid unnecessary confusion and expense for dairy businesses.

Rules adopted revising ch. DOC 328, relating to adult field supervision.

The department of corrections finds that an emergency exists and that rules are necessary for preservation of the public peace, safety and welfare. A statement of the facts constituting the emergency is: Pursuant to s. 304.074 (2) Stats., the department has authority to collect “at least $1 per day, if appropriate" from offenders on supervision. However, the current proposed budget reform bill, Assembly Bill 1, directs the department to amend supervision fees and provides, in relevant part, the following:

“...the department of corrections shall promulgate the rules that are required under s. 304.074 (5) of the statutes and that set rates under s. 304.074 (2) of the statutes. The rules shall take effect on July 1, 2002."

“...the rules shall require the department to have a goal of receiving at least $2 per day, if appropriate, from each person who is on probation, parole, or extended supervision and who is not under administrative supervision, as defined in s. 304.74 (1) (a) of the statutes, or minimum supervision, as defined in s. 304.74 (1) (b) of the statutes."

While the language and potential requirements of Assembly Bill 1 doubles the amount the department may collect in supervision fees, the current Administrative Code limits the department's efforts to do so. The current ch. DOC 328 establishes a set fee schedule with a maximum collection of $45 per month.

As proposed, the budget reform bill requires the department to rely upon the collection of an increased amount of supervision fees. If the department remained without administrative rule authority to collect the increased fees on July 1st, the department, and clearly the public, would be significantly impacted by the loss of revenue. The proposed budget has anticipated and relied upon such increase in establishing budgetary guidelines for the department of corrections.

This situation requires the department to effect an emergency rule rather than complying with the notice, hearing, legislative review and publication requirements of the statutes. Complying with the standard promulgation procedures for a permanent rule could easily delay the department's ability to collect the necessary fees by seven months to one year. This delay would have a substantial impact on the department because more than 85% of the department's supplies and services budget will be funded by program revenue generated from supervision fees collected in the next fiscal year. This revenue provides for a variety of essential departmental functions, including rent for approximately 114 probation and parole offices, vehicles that enable probation and parole agents to conduct home visits on offenders, extradition of absconders, and computers that enable agents to conduct such critical functions as pre-sentence investigation reports. If the department were somehow hindered in the attempt to perform these functions it would obviously affect the department's ability to adequately supervise offenders and ultimately result in a breakdown in the department's ability to help protect the public.

This order:

• Raises the department's supervision fee goal to at least $2 per day, if appropriate, from all offenders under supervision by the department.

• Eliminates the distinction between offenders supervised by the department on administrative and minimum supervision and offenders who are deemed medium, maximum and high risk as it relates to supervision fees. All offenders under supervision by the department will pay, based on their ability, according to one supervision-fee scale.

The Elections Board finds that an emergency exists in the implementation of the requirement of s. 11.21 (16), Stats., that each registrant for whom the board serves as filing officer and who or which accepts contributions in a total amount or value of $20,000 or more during a campaign period, shall file each required campaign finance report in an electronic format, and finds that the attached rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or welfare. A statement of the facts constituting the emergency is as follows:

With the close of the legislature's 2001-02 biennial session, it is now apparent that the Board will not receive an additional appropriation to develop a software program that enables registrants to file reports that integrates with the agency's information management system. Implementing an alternate means to permit registrants to comply with s. 11.21 (16), Stats., is necessary for use of campaign finance reports filed in 2002 and thereafter. Filings in electronic format will improve the welfare of Wisconsin's citizens by making campaign finance information more readily available to citizens, candidates, journalists and advocacy groups. Filing reports electronically is the only viable means of ensuring that the public has the information necessary to participate in the selection of our governmental leaders.

Section 149.143 (4), Stats., permits the Department to promulgate rules required under s. 149.143 (2) and (3), Stats., by using emergency rulemaking procedures, except that the Department is specifically exempted from the requirement under s. 227.24 (1) and (3), Stats., that it make a finding of emergency. Department staff consulted with the Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan (HIRSP) Board of Governors on April 17, 2002 on the rules, as required by s. 149.20, Stats.

Statutory authority: ss. 601.41 (3), 655.004, 655.27 (3) (b), and 655.61, Stats.

The State of Wisconsin in 1981 established a Health Insurance Risk-Sharing Plan (HIRSP) for the purpose of making health insurance coverage available to medically uninsured residents of the state. HIRSP offers different types of medical care coverage plans for residents.

One type of medical coverage provided by HIRSP is the Major Medical Plan. This type of coverage is called Plan 1. Eighty-eight percent of the 13,645 HIRSP policies in effect in March 2002, were of the Plan 1 type. Plan 1 has Option A ($1,000 deductible) or Option B ($2,500 deductible). The rate increases for Plan 1 contained in this rulemaking order increase an average of 25.4%. This produces policyholder premiums that are equivalent to 150% of the industry standard, the minimum allowed by statute. Rate increases for specific policyholders range from 19.2% to 27.8%, depending on a policyholder's age, gender, household income, deductible and zone of residence within Wisconsin. These rate increases reflect general and industry-wide premium increases and take into account the increase in costs associated with Plan 1 claims. For example, recent annual industry standard premium rates have increased by approximately 35%. HIRSP costs have risen by a smaller amount, hence the smaller rate increases for HIRSP, relative to the industry standard. According to state law, HIRSP premiums must fund 60% of plan costs and cannot be less than 150% of the amount an individual would be charged for a comparable policy in the private market.

A second type of medical coverage provided by HIRSP is for persons eligible for Medicare. This type of coverage is called Plan 2. Plan 2 has a $500 deductible. Twelve percent of the 13,645 HIRSP policies in effect in March 2002, were of the Plan 2 type. The rate increases for Plan 2 contained in this rulemaking order increase an average of 30.8%. Rate increases for specific policyholders range from 23.3% to 33.5%, depending on a policyholder's age, gender, household income and zone of residence within Wisconsin. These rate increases reflect general and industry-wide cost increases and adjust premiums to a level in accordance with the authority and requirements set out in s. 149.14 (5m), Stats.

The Department through this rulemaking order proposes to amend ch. HFS 119 in order to update HIRSP premium rates in accordance with the authority and requirements set out in s. 149.143 (2) (a), Stats. The Department is required to set premium rates by rule. HIRSP premium rates must be calculated in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles.

The Department through this rulemaking order is also increasing total HIRSP insurer assessments and reducing provider payment rates, in accordance with the authority and requirements set out in s. 149.143 (2) (a) 3. and 4., Stats. With the approval of the HIRSP Board of Governors and as required by statute, the Department reconciled total costs for the HIRSP program for calendar year 2001. The Board of Governors approved a methodology that reconciles the most recent calendar year actual HIRSP program costs, policyholder premiums, insurance assessments and health care provider contributions collected with the statutorily required funding formula.

By statute, the adjustments for the calendar year are to be applied to the next plan year budget beginning July 1, 2002. The total annual contribution to the HIRSP budget provided by an adjustment to the provider payment rates is $24,750,178. The total annual contribution to the HIRSP budget provided by an assessment on insurers is $26,003,305. On April 17, 2002, the HIRSP Board of Governors approved the calendar year 2001 reconciliation process. The Board also approved the HIRSP budget for the plan year July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003.

The Department of Health and Family Services finds that an emergency exists and that the rules are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or welfare. The facts constituting the emergency are as follows:

The Wisconsin Chronic Disease Program (WCDP) is the payer of last resort for working poor persons with medical problems relating to chronic renal disease, cystic fibrosis or hemophilia. The Department administers the WCDP. The WCDP reimburses beneficiaries' dialysis and transplant services, home supplies, lab and x-ray services and kidney donor services for chronic renal disease recipients. Cystic fibrosis recipients are eligible for reimbursement of hospital services, certain physician services, lab and x-ray services, prescription medication and some home supplies. Recipients with hemophilia receive reimbursement for blood derivatives and supplies necessary for home infusion. The program's annual $5 million budget is entirely state funded. About 90% of the budget ($4.5 million) funds the care of chronic renal disease recipients, of which 60% ($2.7 million) is for drugs. Drug costs are increasing at a rate of at least 10% per year. The Wisconsin 2001-03 biennial budget does not provide for increases of this magnitude. Consequently, the WCDP will likely have an estimated shortfall of between $700,000 and $900,000 in the 2001-03 biennium.

To mitigate the projected budgetary shortfall, the Department will be emphasizing generic drugs and implement an expanded drug rebate program. Both of these efforts can be accomplished through Department policy changes. In addition, WCDP drug copayment amounts must be increased. The Department's administrative rules governing WCDP currently limit the drug copayment amounts to the $1 used by the Wisconsin Medicaid Program. To further mitigate the effect of increased drug costs on the WCDP program, the Department is also increasing the WCDP prescription drug copayment amounts to $5 for generic drugs and $10 for brand name drugs. These new copayment amounts resemble those used by commercial health insurers and were determined by the Department in consultation with the Chronic Renal Disease Program Advisory Committee. While the Department is currently in the process of promulgating these amendments to the permanent rules, the Department must implement these changes immediately to preserve the public welfare. Therefore, the Department is issuing these identical amendments as an emergency order.

The proposed rules potentially affect approximately 6,500 individuals with chronic renal disease, 200 individuals with hemophilia and 150 individuals with cystic fibrosis. Approximately 41% of persons enrolled in the program received state-funded benefits in 2000-01. The rest either incurred no expenses that were covered under these programs, or their expenses did not exceed the required deductibles.

Rules adopted revising ch. Ins 17, relating to annual patients compensation fund and mediation fund fees for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002 and relating to the Wisconsin health care insurance plan's primary limits.

The commissioner of insurance (commissioner) finds that an emergency exists and that promulgation of an emergency rule is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety or welfare. The facts constituting the emergency are as follows:

Actuarial and accounting data necessary to establish PCF fees is first available in January of each year. It is not possible to complete the permanent fee rule process in time for the patients compensation fund (fund) to bill health care providers in a timely manner for fees applicable to the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002.

The commissioner expects that the permanent rule corresponding to this emergency rule, clearinghouse No. 02-035, will be filed with the secretary of state in time to take effect September 1, 2002. Because the fund fee provisions of this rule first apply on July 1, 2002, it is necessary to promulgate the rule on an emergency basis. A hearing on the permanent rule, pursuant to published notice thereof, was held on May 3, 2002.

Sections 1 and 2. Defines an archery hunt as it relates to the special chronic wasting disease (CWD) control and management hunts.

Section 3. Defines CWD.

Section 4. Defines the CWD eradication zone.

Section 5. Defines the CWD intensive harvest zone.

Section 6. Defines the CWD management zone.

Section 7. Defines adequate public notice and information as it relates to defining a new CWD eradication zone.

Section 8. Defines a section of land.

Section 9. Defines a shotgun hunt as it relates to the special CWD control and management hunts.

Section 10. Modifies those deer management units participating in the regular deer gun season framework.

Sections 11 and 12. Modifies those state park properties that have a more restrictive deer season harvest limit and season framework.

Section 13. Defines all of the metro deer management units as Zone “M" and eliminates deer management unit 76M from the list of metro units which have a standard deer season framework and harvest limits.

Section 14. Updates exceptions to the regular deer archery season.

Section 15. Updates exceptions to the muzzleloader season.