Scope statements
Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors Examining Board
Subject
Define the requirements for licensure as an architect. Current statutes and administrative rules do not permit the use of an architect-related title prior to formal licensure.
Objective of the Rule. The proposed rule would allow a person in the process of acquiring supervised experience as an architect to use the title “architectural intern."
Policy analysis
The proposed rules would not modify the registration requirements for architects, but would permit use of the term “architectural intern" while a potential licensee is in the process of gaining the required experience.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
100 hours.
Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors Examining Board
Subject
Temporary permit for the practice of land surveying to applicants who hold a valid land surveying license in another state. Current laws and rules do not specify an expiration date for the temporary permit.
Objective of the Rule. To clarify the expiration date of the temporary permit to be the date the applicant is notified that he or she passed or failed the state jurisdictional examination. If the applicant did not appear to be tested, the temporary permit would expire on the date of the next scheduled state jurisdictional examination.
Policy Analysis
The proposed rules would consist of three sections. The first section would identify the requirements for obtaining a temporary permit. The second section would describe the conditions under which the temporary permit would expire. And the third section would provide for the board to grant an extension of the temporary permit under certain conditions.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
100 hours.
Corrections
Subject
Rule amendment to update ch.
DOC 309, relating to resources for inmates.
Objective of the Rule. The portion of these administrative rules relating specifically to inmate accounts and compensation have not been updated since their creation in 1981. With over 20 years experience working with the rules, the department proposes to update the rules to reflect current law as well as current needs of the department.
Policy Analysis
This proposed rule would examine new procedures for the department in processing inmate funds and/or accounts. Prison populations have increased dramatically since these rules were adopted and, therefore, the procedures used today and the policies implemented in these rules may not be functional, practical or efficient in today's prisons. In addition, statutory requirements such as a DNA analysis surcharge have become effective since the origination of this rule. Also, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act affects such areas of this rule as legal loans to inmates and proper use of release accounts. The proposed rule would make necessary changes in light of statutory updates as well as changes upon evaluation of the rule's current effectiveness.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
It is anticipated that 80 hours of staff time may be necessary to review and revise the administrative rule, including drafting, cost estimates, public hearings and complying with rule making requirements. Other than staff time, it is anticipated that the resources to develop the rule will be minimal.
Corrections
Subject
Rule amendment to update ch.
DOC 313, relating to prison industries.
Objective of the Rule. The administrative rules relating to the prison industries was last updated in 1994. Recent amendments to Wisconsin Statutes and Federal Rules enacted after 1994 require the department to update this rule in order to comply with current law.
Policy Analysis
DOC 313 relates to prison industries in Wisconsin. The rule includes establishment of a prison industry, regulation of inmate employees including performance evaluation, work rules, discipline, termination, and compensation. The department plans to review and revise these existing rules to ensure that they conform to existing law, technology, and terminology. The proposed rule will provide clarification that inmate employees shall be eligible for leave to attend GED or HSED examinations or preparation courses. This change is necessary to comply with the Prison Industries Educational Prerequisites Policy that was modified to require inmates have a GED, HSED or High School Diploma in order to be hired into or promoted to a Range 5 pay. This policy should provide an incentive for inmates to secure a diploma. In addition, the department was given statutory authorization to enter into contracts with private companies to recycle paint or mattresses. This change needs to be referenced in the administrative rule. Lastly, new Prison Industry Enhancement guidelines, enacted by the Federal Bureau of Justice Assistance, change the requirements for determining comparable wages.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
It is anticipated that 30 hours of staff time may be necessary to review and revise the administrative rule, including drafting, cost estimates, public hearings and complying with rule making requirements. Other than staff time, it is anticipated that the resources to develop the rule will be minimal.
Natural Resources
Subject
Small game and expanded turkey hunting opportunities in state parks
Policy Analysis
There has been an interest in recent years to expand hunting opportunities in state parks. The Department will propose rules initiating a restricted small game hunting framework in selected parks, as well as evaluation criteria that will be used to review the proposed pilot at the end of a 3-year trial period. Policy issues that will arise include the use of park properties for hunting and possible conflicts that may arise with other of the park's non-consumptive users. Other issues include administration of seasons, determination of and agreement on effective evaluation criteria, and requirements of property managers and other department personnel.
Statutory authority
Sections. 29.089 (3) and 29.014, Stats.
Staff time required
Approximately 110 hours will be needed
Public Service Commission
Amendment to Scope Statement originally published December 14, 1999, p. 17. In Section A, Objective of the rules, the first sentence of the third full paragraph of the original statement of scope is withdrawn. In lieu thereof, insert the following sentence.
Insofar as they are relevant to implementation and enforcement of the identified statutes at issue and appropriate substantive rules interpreting those statutes, requirements respecting filing, reporting and record keeping will be also be examined for potential adoption.
Subject:
Ch.
PSC 177 - Relating to incumbent local exchange carrier affiliate rules.
Description of policy issues:
Objective of the rules: The objective of these rules is to protect competition through the prohibition of certain types of conduct or arrangements which give preference, discriminate, or provide cross-subsidies between an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) and any affiliate operating in competitive markets. “Affiliates" for purposes of this rulemaking will also include any nonregulated lines of business operated by the ILEC itself, such as inside wire provisioning or Internet access service. The purpose of the rules is to identify conduct or arrangements that are
per se preferential, discriminatory, or cross-subsidizing, or which, in certain factual situations, may become preferential, discriminatory, or subsidizing. The objective of the rules is to offer useful interpretation of certain provisions of ch.
196, Stats., at the transactional or operational level:
• Section
196.204, Stats., bars cross-subsidies to competitive market operations;
• Section
196.219 (3) (h), Stats., bars ILEC preference or discrimination in favor of an ILEC affiliate or the affiliate's retail department in the provisioning of ILEC services, products, or facilities;
• Section
196.37 (2), Stats., bars, among other things, unreasonable or preferential ILEC conduct;
• Section
196.604, Stats., prohibits any person, which could include an ILEC affiliate, from seeking any advantage from a utility; and
• Section
196.60 (1) and
(3), Stats., which require a utility to treat equally persons who are similarly situated.
Preference, discrimination, and cross-subsidization as banned by the statutes inherently requires examination of the particulars of any situation to determine whether a party is unreasonably favored or another is unfairly harmed. Various types of transactions or operational arrangements may be prohibited categorically, others prohibited only in certain situations. Known transactional or operational areas of inquiry include pricing, bundling, network design, customer information, service provisioning, cost allocations, intangibles, and various other services. Other areas will no doubt develop or be identified in the course of the rulemaking.
While some overlap may occur, the focus of this rulemaking is on substantive prohibitions or requirements directly affecting ILEC operations and transactions, not general reporting requirements for affiliated interest contracts or arrangements falling within the scope of docket 1-AC-147. This rulemaking will not develop specific technical standards for the outputs for ILEC operational support systems (OSS), but may examine whether preference or discrimination could occur between affiliated and nonaffiliated recipients of the designed system outputs.
B. Existing policies relevant to the proposed rules:
Existing federal rules need to be harmonized with general state statutory requirements. The need for these rules has grown, first with the passage of Wisconsin's “Information Superhighway Act,"
1993 Wis. Act 496, and continuing with the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) codified at various points in 47 U.S.C. §§ 151
et seq. (1996 Act). The latter act established interconnection procedures to introduce competition into local exchange telecommunications markets. Some of the competitors seeking entry are affiliates of the ILECs that are required to interconnect to all qualified companies. Sections 251 and 252 of the 1996 Act have several provisions requiring nondiscriminatory conduct on the part of an ILEC with respect to those new competitors, affiliate and nonaffiliate alike. Federal Communications Commission rules implementing these sections need to be harmonized with state statutory requirements respecting the same subject matter.
The Commission has no existing permanent policies directly implementing the above statutes in terms of common transactions or operations occurring between ILECs and their respective affiliates. The Commission does have interim policies in the form of conditions imposed upon the certification of an alternative telecommunications utility, usually a reseller or competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC), that is affiliated with an ILEC. These interim conditions have been imposed on some 40 affiliated providers since 1994, and were developed by staff and adopted by the Commission on an ad hoc basis. These conditions need to be replaced by permanent rules that, at an operational and transactional level, better balance the statutory prohibitions against discriminations and preferences with the allowance of a reasonable opportunity for an ILEC to provide goods and services to its affiliates based on the benefits of the ILEC's economies of scope and scale.
C. New policies proposed:
The proposed rulemaking does not seek to enact any new policies, but rather to implement the existing statutory prohibitions by identifying with reasonable specificity types of transactions or operational relationships falling within the statutes noted above. While some subject matter areas have been identified, several new discrimination, or subsidy-related, matters are likely to be found within the scope of the rulemaking because of the breadth of the telecommunications industry, the technical complexity and novelty of inter-carrier relationships, and the added requirements derived from the 1996 Act.
D. Analysis of alternatives:
To a limited extent alternatives have been “analyzed" as to both procedure and substance through the comment and generic order process in docket 05-TI-158. The Commission's March 1999 order adopted certain rebuttable presumptions that would have been used in complaint or other proceedings alleging ILEC discrimination in favor of an affiliate. Parts of the industry opposed these presumptions as burdensome and violative of the requirement in s.
196.219 (3) (h), Stats., that the Commission conduct rulemakings to implement that anti-discrimination section. Other parts of the industry, such as interexchange carriers and many independent CLECs, favored the order. Opponents of the order sued. The Commission reconsidered its position and rescinded its final order in docket 05-TI-158, effective July 26, 1999.
The Commission now believes, that in light of s.
196.219 (3) (h), Stats., and surrounding circumstances, the more efficient course of action is a rulemaking proceeding. Extensive litigation would actually slow the development of competition due to a lack of finality as to key competitive ground rules. Moreover, use of complaint or investigation proceedings to develop policy would be reactive, expensive, and provide only minimal guidance. Case-by-case development of policy would tend to slow the development of competitive telecommunication markets as sought by
1993 Wis. Act 496.
Statutory authority:
The Commission has authority in the statutory sections noted in “
A. Objective of the rules" above, and in ss.
196.02 (3) and
227.11 (2), Stats.
Time estimates for rule development:
The Commission estimates that 12 months will be taken up with industry consultations and workshops, drafting, notice and hearing, and final rule promulgation. The process will take at a minimum 350 staff hours.
Other resources necessary to develop the rules:
No additional staff or other agency resources are anticipated for this rulemaking.
Contact information:
If you have specific questions or comments regarding the proposed rulemaking, please contact:
Peter R. Jahn, Case Coordinator
Telephone (608) 267-2338
Regulation and Licensing
Subject
Real estate education requirements.
Objective of the Rule. To amend existing rules in order to revise the contents of the pre-license education for brokers and salespersons, and to fine-tune any other provisions in Ch.
RL 25, Wis. Adm. Code, that need fine-tuning.
Policy Analysis
Section
452.09 (2), Stats., broadly describes the education requirements for a real estate salesperson's license and a real estate broker's license. Ch.
RL 25, Wis. Adm. Code, specifies the policies relating to the approval of schools and courses offered by them, the approval of instructors, and the contents of pre-license education courses.
