WEM 6.13 (2) The responsible party appeals process is as follows:
(a) A responsible party shall have 30 days after a final determination by the reviewing entity under s. 166.22 (5) (c) in which to file an appeal with the division.
(b) A responsible party may appeal emergency response costs of a potential release of a hazardous substance for which a hazardous substance is present that exceed $500.
(c) Following an appeal to the division, a responsible party may then request a problem resolution process in which the adjutant general of the department of military affairs reviews the response team claim and issues a decision based on those materials or meets with the parties to negotiate an acceptable resolution.
SECTION 12. WEM 6.13 (note) is amended to read:
Note: A claim for reimbursement form, DMA Form 96 (4/97) and, an expedited reimbursement claim form, DMA Form 59 (4/97), and a Hazardous Materials Incident Response Matrix, DMA Form 1060, can be obtained by contacting the Hazardous Materials Safety/Transportation Coordinator, Wisconsin Emergency Management, 2400 Wright Street, Room 213, P.O. Box 7865, Madison, WI 53707-7865, telephone 608-242-3228. The completed reimbursement claim, Hazardous Materials Incident Response Matrix, and supporting documentations shall be mailed to the Hazardous Materials Safety/Transportation coordinator, Wisconsin Emergency Management, 2400 Wright Street, Room 213, P.O. Box 7865, Madison, WI 53707-7865.
Fiscal Estimate
The statutory authority for ch. WEM 4 has been repealed. The previous version of ch. WEM 4 was determined to be unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the current version has not been enforced since that time. There are no costs associated with the repeal of ch. WEM 4. The amendments to ch. WEM 6 allow for the State of Wisconsin and local and regional emergency response teams to collect emergency response costs from the responsible party in the event of a potential release of a hazardous material. A responsible party is currently responsible for costs associated with the emergency response to a release of a hazardous material. This rule clarifies that necessary response costs include the potential release of a hazardous material. Money collected by the State of Wisconsin under this rule will be deposited into the emergency response supplement. Money collected by response teams would be used to offset their costs. There are several such incidents annually and the ability to collect these costs means that they would be paid by the responsible party if identified and able to pay. It is estimated that costs to respond to a potential release would typically be $500 or less. This could mean a decrease in payments from the emergency response supplement.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The statutory authority for ch. WEM 4 has been repealed. The previous version of ch. WEM 4 was determined to be unconstitutional by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the current version has not been enforced since that time. The repeal of ch. WEB 4 will have no effect on small business.
The amendments to WEM 6 allow for the State of Wisconsin and local and regional emergency response teams to collect emergency response costs from the responsible party in the event of a potential release of a hazardous material. A responsible party is currently responsible for costs associated with the emergency response to a release of a hazardous material. This rule clarifies that necessary response costs include the potential release of a hazardous material. It is estimated that costs to respond to a potential release would typically be $500 or less. To date there have not been more than 3 such incidents annually. This rule change will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Notice of Hearing
Public Defender
[CR 02-109]
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to s. 977.02 (2m) and 977.02 (3) Stats., and interpreting s. 977.07 Stats., the Office of the State Public Defender will hold a public hearing at 315 North Henry Street, 2nd Floor, in the city of Madison, Wisconsin, on the 26th day of August 2002, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. to consider the amendment of a rules, ss. PD 2.08 (3), 3.038 (1) (b), 3.038 (1) (c), 2.01, 2.02, 2.03, 2.08, 3.03, 3.038 (1) (a), 3.039, 3.05, 3.055 and 3.06, related to determinations of indigency. Reasonable accommodations will be made at the hearing for persons with disabilities.
Analysis Prepared by the Office of the State Public Defender
The proposed changes to the administrative code comply with ch. 977, Stats. and serve to clarify and simplify the process of determining the financial eligibility of prospective clients. A number of the amendments replace references to indigency or indigent with eligibility or eligible. Chapter 977 provides a statutory financial eligibility standard for appointment of counsel by the agency, which is different from a constitutional determination of indigency by a court. The purpose of these amendments is to resolve the confusion between the constitutional concept of indigency and the use of the word in the context of state public defender representation. The amendments to s. PD 3.03 (1) (c) and 3.03 (2) are intended to simplify the form and process of eligibility determinations. Simplification of the form and process of eligibility determinations allows more cost-effective use of staff time. The amendments to s. PD 3.03 (1) (c) affect few applicants according to our database of eligibility determinations. In addition, a survey of lending institutions has demonstrated that money is rarely loaned on the basis of vehicles of $10,000 or less in equity. The amendments are consistent with the treatment of non-liquid assets by W2. Likewise, the amendments to s. PD 3.03 (2) remove expenses that are rarely determinative of eligibility. Further, if these debts are reduced to formal court judgments they may be considered under the general category of court-ordered obligations. The amendment to s. PD 3.055 simply clarifies that the state public defender should treat voluntary reduction in hours the same as quitting a job when the action is motivated by the intent to qualify for state public defender assigned counsel. The repeal of s. PD 3.038 (1) (b) conforms the rule to current law and practice. The repeal of s. PD 3.038 (1) (b) reflects the fact that the concept of partially indigent is no longer relevant to adult applicants for state public defender assignment of counsel. The concept of a partially indigent applicant predated the collections program initiated in 1996. Prior to 1996, applicants found indigent paid nothing and applicants found partially indigent were required to pay something towards the cost of representation. Under the current collections program all eligible applicants are subject to the collections program. The amendment to s. PD 3.05 (1) conforms the rule to current law and practice. At one time children entitled to appointment of counsel under the juvenile or mental health laws were required to complete an eligibility evaluation. Current law does not require a determination of eligibility for children entitled to appointment of counsel. The adult applicant for appointment of counsel who lacks the mental capacity to understand the contents of the eligibility evaluation form or the process presents a difficult situation for staff. Unlike the applicant who is unwilling to provide the required information, the mentally ill or developmentally disabled client is usually unable to provide reliable information. It is often possible for staff to obtain reliable information from family or medical staff regarding the person's income and assets. Providing this exception to subsection (1) allows staff to be more efficient in their eligibility determinations.
Statutory authority for rule: s. 977.02 (2m) and (3), Stats.
Statute interpreted: s. 977.07, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
It is anticipated that the rule changes will have no fiscal impact. Copies of the full fiscal estimates are freely available from the contact person.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed amendment would not have a regulatory effect on small businesses.
Contact Person
For copies of the proposed amendment to the rule, or if you have questions, please contact Deborah Smith, Legal Counsel, 315 North Henry Street, Madison, WI 53703-3018; (608) 261-8856.
Written Comments
Written comments regarding this rule may be submitted in addition to or instead of verbal testimony at the public hearing. Such comments should be addressed to the contact person at the address stated above, and must be received by August 26, 2002.
Notice of Hearing
Public Defender
[CR 02-110]
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to s. 977.02 (5), Stats., and interpreting s. 977.08 (3) Stats., the Office of the State Public Defender will hold a public hearing at 315 North Henry Street, 2nd Floor, in the city of Madison, Wisconsin, on the 26st day of August 2002, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. to consider the amendment of a rule, s. PD 1.04 (5), related to the certification for appellate cases. Reasonable accommodations will be made at the hearing for persons with disabilities.
Analysis Prepared by the Office of the State Public Defender
Section 977.02 (5) requires that the State Public Defender Board promulgate rules “establishing procedures to assure that representation of indigent clients by the private bar at the initial stages of cases assigned under this chapter is at the same level as the representation provided by the State Public Defender." Section PD 1.04 (5) is the original rule relating to appellate certification that was promulgated as required by statute. Based on agency experience and research the OSPD considers it a “best practice" to provide a period of provisional certification during which supervisory staff review private bar performance on appellate appointments. This review of performance of private bar attorneys would be similar to that required for staff attorneys. The proposed amendment would help to assure that representation by the private bar is at the same level as representation provided by the State Public Defender.
The proposed rule would amend s. PD 1.04 (5) to provide for provisional certification of private attorneys seeking to be certified for appellate appointments to allow for performance reviews by agency supervisors. The proposed rule would also allow the Director of the Appellate Division to place an attorney previously certified for appellate cases on provisional certification status in lieu of decertification.
The proposed rule would also correct two cross references in s. PD 1.04 (5).
Statutory authority for rule: s. 977.02 (5) Stats.
Statutes interpreted: s. 977.08 (3) Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
It is anticipated that the rule changes will have no fiscal impact. Copies of the full fiscal estimates are freely available from the contact person.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed amendment would not have a regulatory effect on small businesses.
Contact Person
For copies of the proposed amendment to the rule, or if you have questions, please contact Deborah Smith, Legal Counsel, 315 North Henry Street, Madison, WI 53703-3018; (608) 261-8856.
Written Comments
Written comments regarding this rule may be submitted in addition to or instead of verbal testimony at the public hearing. Such comments should be addressed to the contact person at the address stated above, and must be received by August 26, 2002.
Notice of Hearing
Regulation and Licensing
(CR 02-103)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Department of Regulation and Licensing in ss. 227.11 (2) and 448.02 (cm), Stats., and interpreting s. 448.02 (cm), Stats., the Department of Regulation and Licensing will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order create ch. RL 222, relating to the extension of disciplinary action time limits for the Medical Examining Board.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date:   August 26, 2002
Time:   10:00 A.M.
Location:   1400 East Washington Avenue
  Room 179A
  Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received by August 27, 2002 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
Statutes authorizing promulgation: ss. 227.11 (2) and 448.02 (cm), Stats.
Statutes interpreted: s. 448.02 (cm), Stats.
Section 448.02 (3) (cm), Stats., establishes certain time limits for the Medical Examining Board to initiate disciplinary action against physicians. The board may request the Secretary of the Department of Regulation and Licensing to grant an extension to those time limits. This proposed rule-making order describes how a request is made and the factors to be considered fin determining whether to grant an extension.
The request for an extension must be made in writing and shall include the nature and date of the investigation, the extension of time to determine whether a physician is guilty of unprofessional conduct or negligence, and the reasons why the board has not made a decision within the time specified.
Section RL 222.02, Wis. Adm. Code, creates definitions of terms used in the statutes. The four definitions are “allegation involving the death of a patient;" “board," “initiate disciplinary action," and “initiating an investigation."
Section RL 222.03, Wis. Adm. Code, summarizes the information needed for a request. In determining whether a specified extension of time is necessary for the board to determine whether there is probable cause for the extension the secretary shall take into consideration the nature and complexity of the investigation, the quantity and quality of evidence, the cause of any delays in the investigation, and the extent to which the person will be prejudiced by an extension of time.
The board may initiate disciplinary action against a physician no later than one year after initiating an investigation involving the death of a patient and no later than 3 years after initiating an investigation of any other allegation, unless the board shows that an extension of time is necessary.
Fiscal Estimate
1. The anticipated fiscal effect on the fiscal liability and revenues of any local unit of government of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
2. The projected anticipated state fiscal effect during the current biennium of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
3. The projected net annualized fiscal impact on state funds of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These proposed rules will be reviewed by the department through its Small Business Review Advisory Committee to determine whether there will be an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Wis. Stats.
Copies of Rule and Contact Person
Copies of this proposed rule are available without cost upon request to: Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 (608) 266-0495.
Notice of Hearing
Revenue
(CR 99-101)
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to s. 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting ss. 77.51 (17m) and (21m), 77.52 (2) (a) 5. and 5m., (2m) and (3m) and 77.525, Stats., the Department of Revenue will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below, to consider the amendment of sales tax rules relating to communication services.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002, in Room 6N-8 (6th floor) of the State Revenue Building, located at 2135 Rimrock Road, Madison, Wisconsin.
Handicap access is available at the hearing location.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Revenue
Statutory authority: s. 227.11 (2) (a), Stats.
Statutes interpreted: ss. 77.51 (17m) and (21m), 77.52 (2) (a) 5. and 5m., (2m) and (3m) and 77.525, Stats.
SECTION 1. Tax 11.66 (title) is revised, to remove cable television system services and to clarify that the section applies to telecommunications services and telecommunications message services.
SECTION 2. Tax 11.66 (1) (a) is repealed. This definition is no longer needed because of the repeal of Tax 11.66 (4) (d).
SECTIONS 3 AND 4. Tax 11.66 (1) (b) is renumbered Tax 11.66 (1) (a) and new sub. (1) (b) is created, to provide a reference to the statutory definition of “telecommunications services."
SECTIONS 5 TO 8. Tax 11.66 (2) (intro.), (a) and (b) (intro.) and 1. to 5. are renumbered Tax 11.66 (2) (a) (intro.), 1. and 2. (intro.) and a. to e. and new sub. (2) (intro.), (a) (title) and (b) are created, to clarify the content of sub. (2) and list the types of services discussed in Tax 11.66.\
Tax 11.66 (2) (a) 1. as renumbered is revised and examples are added, to reflect the tax treatment of certain telecommunications services that originate or terminate in Wisconsin.
SECTIONS 9 TO 14. Tax 11.66 (3) (title) and (intro.) are revised, sub. (3) (d) is repealed, sub. (3) (a), (b), (c) and (e) to (L) and (m) are renumbered sub. (3) (a) 1., 2., 3., 4. to 11. and 15. and sub. (3) (a) (intro.) is created, to clarify the content of sub. (3) and to remove cable television system services from Tax 11.66 because they are taxed separately from telecommunications services.
Tax 11.66 (3) (a) 1. as renumbered and the example are revised, to reflect the tax treatment of certain telecommunications services that originate or terminate in Wisconsin, as a result of the amendment of s. 77.52 (2) (a) 5., Stats., by 1997 Wis. Act 27.
SECTION 15. Tax 11.66 (3) (a) 12., 13. and 14. are created, to list additional services.
Loading...
Loading...
Links to Admin. Code and Statutes in this Register are to current versions, which may not be the version that was referred to in the original published document.