DATCP Docket: 22-R-12
Clearinghouse Rule:
Preliminary Rule Draft
July 22, 2025
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION’S PROPOSED ORDER TO ADOPT PERMANENT RULES
PROPOSED ORDER
The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection proposes an order
to repeal ATCP 10.01 (9), (11), (15), (18), (31), (36), (48), (51), (53), (54), (66), (68m), (86), and (114), 10.08 (2) (a) to (s) and (Note), and 10.46 (7) (a) 1. (intro.) (Note), 2. (Note), and 3. (Note); to renumber and amend ATCP 10.41 (5) (d) 1. to 4.; to amend ATCP 10.01 (22) (intro.), (27m), (38), (44), (70) (a), (71) (a) and (c) 1., (90), 10.025 (1), 10.03 (3) and (7), 10.06 (3) (b) and (6) (a) and (b), 10.07 (1) (b) (Note), (5) (c) 3., (f) 9. a. to c., and (h), 10.08 (2) (intro.) and (4), 10.12 (1), 10.14 (1), 10.22 (9) (b), 10.27 (1) to (3), 10.29 (1), 10.35 (5) (a), 10.37 (1) (a) 2. and (3) (g), 10.41 (5) (a) to (c), 10.46 (7) (a) 1. (intro.), 2., and 3., and (c), and (14) (a), 10.47 (3) (b) 4., 10.49 (1m), 10.51 (2m), 10.52 (4) (ag), 10.61 (7) (a) 1. and 2., and (13) (a), 10.62 (4) (a) 2., 10.68 (2m), 10.73 (2m), 10.74 (1m), 10 Appendix A, and 10 Appendix B; to repeal and recreate ATCP 10.01 (70) (a) (Note); and to create ATCP 10.01 (71) (a) 1. and 2. and (c) 4., 10.03 (2m), 10.41 (5) (d) 1. and (8), and 10.46 (7) (a) 1e., 1m., 1s., 3g., and 3r., relating to animal disease and movement, including fees, and affecting small businesses.
_Toc20021611Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Statutes Interpreted: Wis. Stat. §§ 93.06 (1g), (1m), and (1p), 95.001 (2), 95.19 (3), 95.195 (4), 95.20, 95.22 (2), 95.32 (5), 95.45 (4) (c), 95.55 (3), 95.55 (6), 95.57 (2), 95.60 (5) and (5m), and 95.715 (2) (d) Statutory Authority: Wis. Stat. §§ 93.06 (1g), (1m), and (1p), 95.001 (2), 95.19 (3), 95.195 (4), 95.20, 95.22 (2), 95.32 (5), 95.45 (4) (c), 95.55 (3), 95.55 (6), 95.57 (2), 95.60 (5) and (5m), and 95.715 (2) (d) Explanation of Agency Authority
Wis. Stat. § 93.06 (1g) authorizes the Department to charge a fee for certificates of veterinary inspection forms. Wis. Stat. § 93.06 (1m) authorizes the Department to charge uniform fees for service inspections of farm products. Wis. Stat. § 93.06 (1p) authorizes the Department to charge a fee for service testing related to Department programs. Wis. Stat. § 95.001 (2) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules related to the definition of “contagious or infectious diseases”. Wis. Stat. § 95.19 (3) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules related to diseased animals. Wis. Stat. § 95.195 (4) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules related to diseases and implied warranty in sale of animals. Wis. Stat. § 95.20 authorizes the Department to prohibit or regulate the import or movement of animals. Wis. Stat. § 95.22 (2) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules related to reporting animal diseases. Wis. Stat. § 95.32 (5) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules related to appraised value. Wis. Stat. § 95.45 (4) (c) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules related to certificates of veterinary inspection. Wis. Stat. § 95.55 (3) authorizes the Department to charge farm-raised deer registration fees and reinspection fees. Wis. Stat. § 95.55 (6) authorizes the Department to promulgate rules regarding farm-raised deer. Wis. Stat. § 95.57 (2) authorizes the Department to charge a fee for persons participating in the national poultry improvement plan. Wis. Stat. § 95.60 (5) authorizes the Department to charge fees for permits, certificates, registration, and inspections related to fish farms. Wis. Stat. § 95.60 (5m) authorizes the Department to charge a fee for the reinspection of fish farms. Wis. Stat. § 95.715 (2) (d) authorizes the Department to charge a fee for feed lot permits. Related Statutes and Rules
_Hlk185502214Wis. Stat. ch. 93 relating to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Wis. Stat. ch. 95 relating to animal health, and Wis. Admin. Code ch. ATCP 12 relating to animal markets, dealers, and truckers. Plain Language Analysis
Fees
The proposed rule modifies and increases fees for certificate of veterinary inspection (CVI) forms, intermediate handling facilities, disease certifications, equine quarantine stations, feed lots, medical separation, the national poultry improvement plan (NPIP), farm-raised deer, and fish farms. The proposed rule would also eliminate the current fee for equine infectious anemia retests.
Most fees in this rule were last increased in 2008 and 2009 (CR 07-61). Over time, standard costs have continued to increase. The associated program revenue appropriation (appropriated by Wis. Stat. § 20.115 (2) (ha)) no longer has adequate revenue to recover costs. DATCP is not able to reduce expenditures to the level of current revenues without resulting in a failure to fulfill statutory requirements under Wis. Stat. chs. 93 and 95. The following table shows the current and proposed fee amounts.
[See PDF for image]
[See PDF for image]
[See PDF for image]
_Hlk195254752The proposed fees would ensure recovery of annual program costs and would gradually eliminate the projected negative cash balance over a period of years. Without the proposed fee increase, the appropriation would operate in a negative cash balance until a different change occurs, such as the creation of an alternative funding source or a statutory change. The Department would report the negative cash balance to the Joint Committee on Finance. Subchapter I and Appendices
The proposed rule modifies ATCP 10 subchapter I and the appendices for improvements and updates.
Definitions are amended for updates and clarity. Unnecessary definitions for terms that are not used in chapter ATCP 10 are repealed. The definition of official individual identification for bovines is updated to reflect current USDA requirements. The definition of official individual identification for equines is updated to allow more flexibility.
Minor language changes are made throughout subchapter I for updates and clarity. For example, “chief livestock health official” is updated to “state animal health official” to reflect the term used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other states.
Language is added to s. ATCP 10.03 regarding recording official individual identification related to disease reporting, to mirror current language under s. ATCP 10.04 regarding recording official individual identification related to disease tests. Official back tags are added to the records requirements for intermediate livestock handling facilities, because not all cattle are required to have official individual identification and may instead have an official back tag. Language is added to movement permit applications to allow the class of animals to be used as an alternative to the breed.
The list of diseases under s. ATCP 10.08 is amended to instead refer to Appendix A. Appendix A lists the diseases that must be reported to the department within one day, and contains only those diseases that are severe enough to necessitate the movement restrictions and permitting provisions under s. ATCP 10.08. Appendix A and Appendix B, regarding diseases reported within one or ten days respectively, are amended to add and remove diseases, update disease naming conventions, and provide clarification.
Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed
Federal Statutes and Regulations
The United States Department of Agriculture administers federal regulations related to the interstate movement of animals, particularly with respect to certain major diseases. States regulate intrastate movement and imports into the state. The fees and rules included in this rule draft do not duplicate or conflict with any federal fees or regulations.
Summary of Comments Received during Preliminary Comment Period
and at Public Hearing on Statement of Scope
The Department held a preliminary public hearing and comment period on the statement of scope on March 28, 2024, with comments accepted through April 1, 2024. In addition to publication in the Administrative Register, the Department also sent an email notice to licensees on March 18, 2024. The public hearing was a hybrid, combining in-person attendance at the DATCP building and remotely via zoom, with both internet access and telephone access.
There were 14 attendees at the hearing. Of these, 8 provided comments and 6 registered for information only and did not provide comments. There were 2 written comments received. In total, there were 9 individual commenters.
Comments discussed the following:
•- Regarding fees, commenters stated the following: •o 5 commenters stated that they do not oppose increases to fees at this time, providing the increases are reasonable. •o 1 commenter stated concern about increases in fees for each level of fish farm. •o 1 commenter asked the Department to consider making a license fee exemption for closed loop aquaponics gardens for personal consumption. •o 1 commenter asked why the Department has not used the biennial budget process rather than fee increases. The commenter also stated that the title of the scope does not include the word fees, that the new fees are not listed in the proposal, and asked for additional information as to what the proposed changes would be prior to the DATCP Board approving the scope. •- Regarding the fish farm program, commenters stated the following: •o 1 commenter asked that DATCP stays in charge of fish farms and does not delegate out its authority. The commenter also stated that any diseases to be added or removed should be discussed with the fish farms with plenty of time ahead to adjust. The commenter also stated that there are misunderstandings regarding bait licenses and that there should be a statement clarifying that a fish farm registration is also required and that health procedures need to be followed. •o 1 commenter requested clarification on the section with the import and movement of animals, and what oversight would be from industry. The commenter stated concern that this could be weaponized against a particular farmer. •o 1 commenter requested clarification on how a closed containment facility interacts with regulations. The commenter also would like to understand the importation process and requirements, and how the state differentiates from federal requirements under Title 50, or if federal requirements are substantial enough. •- Regarding the farm-raised deer program, commenters stated the following: •o 1 commenter asked why DNR does not share immediate reportable CWD detection in all deer to DATCP to better inform farm-raised deer keepers. The commenter also asked what DATCP can do to have DNR do something to contain CWD in the state in the wild deer population.
