Wisconsin Legislature: Text

DATCP is not adding to or changing any of the current Atrazine Prohibition Areas on any of the maps in Appendix A. Maps presently being used contain surface features that require updating, such as new roadways, modified street names, and other features that are mapped. Moreover, current mapping software allows for reliance of data from numerous sources to provide for improved accuracy in mapping. The maps in this rule have been created within the last year and provide more accurate, up-to-date maps of the same Atrazine Prohibition Areas than are presently in ATCP 30 Appendix A.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA") and implementing regulations, pesticides and pesticide labels (submitted by pesticide manufacturers) must be approved and registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA"). Pesticide labels are required to provide detailed information stating how to use the pesticide products in a safe and legal manner. Pesticide labels must carry a statement indicating that it is a violation of law to use the product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Under FIFRA, states are permitted to have stricter requirements regarding pesticide use than those on the federally approved label.

Atrazine product labels approved by EPA under FIFRA establish an application rate of use (“label rate") depending on factors such as crop type, timing of crop emergence, and erodibility of soils. Some approved atrazine labels indicate that atrazine has been found in groundwater and advise the user to avoid applying atrazine to sandy and loamy sand soils where groundwater is close to the surface and soils are very permeable. EPA classifies products containing atrazine as “restricted use" pesticides due to ground and surface water concerns.

EPA does not require the establishment of prohibition areas for atrazine in its regulations. Wisconsin establishes and maps prohibition areas based on groundwater data that documents atrazine presence in groundwater above state groundwater enforcement standards.

Surrounding states regulations

Wisconsin's maximum atrazine application rates are set by administrative rule at about half the rates normally allowed under the federal label. Neighboring states are not required to map Atrazine Prohibition Areas in its regulations. Neighboring states' regulations relating to atrazine prohibitions are as follows:

• Iowa restricts atrazine application rates to half the federal label rate in 23 counties (7 with county-wide restrictions and 16 with restrictions in some townships).

• Minnesota has a program of voluntary use limitations when surface water or groundwater contamination exceeds a level of concern. This program suggests pesticide use restrictions or “best management practices" will reduce surface water or groundwater contamination.

• Illinois and Michigan have no atrazine regulations.

Business Impact

This rule will have a positive impact on the Wisconsin agricultural community because the rule revises maps that are becoming outdated due to the passage of time. Using updated maps that contain correct street names, new roadways, and other mapped features will reduce confusion for users of atrazine and make it easier to prevent the inadvertent applications of that pesticide where it is prohibited due to its detection in groundwater.

Accommodations for small businesses

This rule does not have any significant adverse impact on small business, so there is no special accommodation for small business needed under this rule.

Small business regulatory coordinator

DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator is Keeley Moll, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, Keeley.Moll@wisconsin.gov, (608) 224-5039.

Conclusion

This rule will assist the agricultural community, including many small businesses, by providing improved, updated maps to maintain an established pesticide use program. This rule will have no adverse impact on affected businesses. Because this rule has no significant adverse impact on small business, it is not subject to the small business delayed effective date under s. 227.22 (2) (e), Stats.

Fiscal and Economic Impact

There will be no additional costs or economic impact to any other state agencies, local governments, or the private sector.

Environmental Impact

This rule will not have any adverse environmental impacts.

DATCP Contact

Questions and comments (including hearing comments) related to this rule may be directed to:

Rick Graham

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

P.O. Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911

Telephone: (608) 224-4502

E-Mail: Rick.Graham@wisconsin.gov

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original Updated Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Ch. ATCP 30, Pesticide Product Restrictions Appendix A (“Atrazine Prohibition Areas")
Subject
Updating the Maps in Ch. ATCP 30 Appendix A Using Computerized Mapping Technology
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO PRS X SEG SEG-S			20.115 (7) (r), Stats.
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Chapter ATCP 30 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code describes prohibitions on pesticide use. Appendix A to ch. ATCP 30 consists of maps that show Atrazine Prohibition Areas where atrazine currently may not be applied as a pesticide, primarily due to the fact that groundwater samples tested in those areas have attained or exceeded a regulatory standard under ch. NR 140, Wis. Adm. Code. DATCP is not adding to or changing any of the current Atrazine Prohibition Areas on any of the maps in Appendix A. This rule merely replaces existing (in many cases outdated) maps with updated maps that have been created in the past year using computerized mapping technology. Because the maps in this proposed rule are current and more accurate (containing changes such as roadways that have been added since the existing maps were made, modified street names, and adjustments to other surface features shown on maps), the possibility of inadvertently using atrazine within an Atrazine Prohibition Area is less likely to occur.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
There will be no economic or fiscal impact.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
An alternative to the rule is to do nothing. Implementing the rule will decrease the possibility of atrazine users inadvertently using atrazine within an Atrazine Prohibition Area.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
None.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Atrazine product labels approved by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (and implementing regulations) identify the legal application rate of product use (“label rate"), depending on factors such as crop type, timing of crop emergence, and erodibility of soils. EPA does not require the establishment of prohibition areas for atrazine in its regulations. Wisconsin's maximum atrazine application rates are set by administrative rule at about half the rates normally allowed under the federal label. Wisconsin restricts atrazine use based on the actual testing and finding of groundwater contamination in an area and then maps the areas where atrazine is prohibited. Maps are shown in Appendix A of ch. ATCP 30 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
None of the surrounding states generates maps relating to atrazine prohibitions in its administrative rules. Relating to atrazine prohibitions: Iowa restricts atrazine application rates to half the federal label rate in 23 counties; Illinois and Michigan do not have state regulations concerning atrazine; and Minnesota has a voluntary use limitation program when surface water or groundwater contamination exceeds a level of concern.