On November 1, 2005, DATCP referred its final draft rule to the Legislature, for standing committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance and the Assembly Committee on Agriculture.

On December 9, 2005, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance asked DATCP to consider modifications to the rule (the committee did not specify the modifications requested). On December 21, 2005, the Assembly Committee on Agriculture also asked DATCP to consider modifications to the rule. The Assembly Committee attached a motion identifying, in general terms, the modifications requested (the Assembly Committee also attached lists of modifications requested by individual members of the committee).

DATCP carefully considered all of the requested modifications, including those requested by individual committee members, and made significant modifications to the final draft rule. The DATCP Board approved the requested modifications on February 8, 2006. DATCP forwarded the proposed modifications to the Senate and Assembly review committees on February 9, 2006. Neither committee requested any further modifications, or took further action on the rule. The legislative committee review period has now expired.

An order affecting chs. ATCP 99, 100 and 101, relating to agricultural producer security. Effective 5-1-06.

Rule Description

This rule amends current rules related to the agricultural producer security program under ch. 126, Stats. The program is designed to protect agricultural producers from catastrophic financial defaults by grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors (collectively referred to as “contractors") who procure agricultural commodities from producers.

This rule does all of the following:

• It permits a licensed contractor to file voluntary security for the benefit of producers if the contractor's estimated default exposure exceeds the maximum amount payable from the Wisconsin agricultural producer security fund. A contractor who files voluntary security may pay lower fund assessments and make more favorable disclosures to producers. A voluntary security filing does not relieve a contractor of any other duty to file security or pay fund assessments.

• It changes and simplifies the disclosures that contractors must give to producers.

• It clarifies current grain warehouse keeper record keeping requirements.

Businesses Affected

This rule affects grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors that procure agricultural commodities from agricultural producers. Many of these businesses are small businesses, but others are very large. This rule benefits agricultural producers (many of whom are small businesses), by improving security protection for those producers.

Effects on Business

This rule will have a minimal impact on most grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors. It gives some contractors the option of filing additional security (it does not change or add to current mandatory filing requirements).

Contractors who file voluntary security may benefit from reduced fund assessments and more favorable disclosures to producers. The security provisions in this rule affect very large contractors, and do not affect small contractors.

This rule changes and simplifies current contractor disclosures to producers. In some cases, current disclosures overstate the amount of security coverage afforded to producers. Some contractors may incur one-time costs to change their disclosure forms, but this will not be a major expense for affected contractors.

This rule clarifies current grain warehouse record keeping requirements, but does not add major new record keeping requirements. The changes will not have a major impact on affected contractors.

Effects on Small Business

This rule will not have significant impact on “small business," except that it will have a positive impact on agricultural producers. Producers will receive more accurate information from contractors, and in some cases will receive more complete security protection. Because this rule has no significant adverse effects on small business, and has a positive impact on agricultural producers, there is no need to provide any special accommodation for small business.

Conclusion

This rule will benefit agricultural producers, and will not have a significant adverse effect on other businesses. This rule will not have a significant effect on small business, except that it will benefit agricultural producers. Compliance with this rule will not require additional professional services, and will not entail significant costs. While some (large) businesses may entail significant costs for security filings, that cost is voluntary and may be offset by other benefits.

On December 15, 2005, DATCP transmitted the above rule for legislative committee review. The rule was assigned to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance and to the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. The Assembly Committee on Agriculture took no action on the rule during the review period.

The Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Insurance requested a meeting with DATCP on the rule. Based on discussions with the Senate Committee Chair, DATCP agreed to add notes clarifying the rule definition of “affiliate." These notes do not change the intent of the rule, but help to clarify that intent. Based on DATCP's agreement to add the notes, the Senate Committee took no action on the rule during its review period.

This rule will benefit agricultural producers, and will not have a significant adverse effect on other businesses. This rule will not have a significant effect on small business, except that it will benefit agricultural producers. Compliance with this rule will not require additional professional services, and will not entail significant costs. While some (large) businesses may entail significant costs for security filings, that cost is voluntary and may be offset by other benefits.

An order affecting ch. EAB 4, relating to student protection fees paid by schools subject to the approval of the EAB. Effective 5-1-06.

The potential impact of this rule on small businesses is limited to the extent that such businesses meet the statutory definition of a school and are subject to the EAB approval. The EAB currently approves 140 for-profit and non-profit postsecondary schools. These schools consist of technical, career, distance-learning and degree-granting institutions that offer more than 600 degree and non-degree programs to over 30,000 Wisconsin adults annually. Typical programs includes truck driving, massage therapy, home inspection, teacher licensure, IT certifications, CAD drafting, as well a traditional bachelor and master degrees.

No comments were received.

An order affecting ch. Ins 8, relating to the small employer uniform employee application for group health insurance. Effective 5-1-06.

The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses and therefore a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

No comments were received.

An order affecting ch. NR 10, relating to deer hunting season at Straight Lake State Park. Effective 5-1-06.

the proposed rule creates a deer hunting season at Straight Lake state park and is applicable to individual sportspersons and imposes no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. Therefore, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

The proposed rules were reviewed by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Transportation and the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources. The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a public hearing on January 18, 2006. There were no comments or requests for modifications received by the department.

An order affecting ch. TCS 17, relating to training program grants. Effective 5-1-06.

Small businesses may access training or education through the training program grants, but there is no mandated participation in the program.

No comments were received.

An order affecting ch. Trans 102, relating to the time period within which a person moving to Wisconsin may operate a motor vehicle under a driver license from his or her previous state of residence. Effective 5-1-06.

This proposed rule would have no effect on small business. It applies only to individuals moving to Wisconsin from other jurisdictions. The department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at: andrew.ruiz@dot.state.wi.us or by calling (414) 438-4585.

No comments were received.

An order affecting ch. DWD 100, relating to unemployment insurance availability. Effective 5-1-06.

The rule affects small businesses as defined in s. 227.114, Stats., but will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. The impact on a particular employer will depend, in part, on the employer's experience with the unemployment insurance system.

The Senate Committee on Job Creation, Economic Development and Consumer Affairs held a hearing on February 7, 2006. There were no comments.

An order affecting ch. DWD 278, relating to garnishment. Effective 5-1-06.

The rule does not affect small businesses as defined in s. 227.114, Stats.

No comments were received.