Rule-making notices
Notice of Hearings
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
[CR 03 -094]
(Reprinted from 10/15/03 Register)
The State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed rule to amend ch.
ATCP 143, relating to production and sale of corn. The department will hold three hearings at the time and places shown below. The department invites the public to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until December 15, 2003, for additional written comments.
You may obtain a free copy of this rule by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Development, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison WI 53708, or by calling (608) 224-5140. Copies will also be available at the hearings.
Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for these hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by October 30, 2003, by writing to Noel Favia, Division of Agricultural Development, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone (608) 224-5140. Alternatively, you may contact the Department TDD at (608) 224-5058. Handicap access is available at the hearings.
Hearings are scheduled at:
Monday, November 17, 2003, 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m.
Lafayette County Courthouse
646 Main Street
County Board Room
Darlington, WI 53530
Handicapped accessible
Tuesday, November 18, 2003, 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m.
WDATCP State Office Building
2811 Agricultural Drive
Madison, WI 54708-8911
Handicapped accessible
Wednesday, November 19, 2003, 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m.
Portage County Courthouse
1516 Church Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481
Handicapped accessible
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Statutes interpreted: ch.
96, Stats.
This rule modifies Wisconsin's current corn marketing order, ch.
ATCP 143, Wis. Adm. Code. This rule increases marketing order assessments, and changes the coverage of the marketing order. This rule must be approved in a referendum of affected producers before it can take effect. Producers affected by the current marketing order or by the proposed changes will be eligible to vote in the referendum.
Background
Under ch.
96, Stats., the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) may adopt marketing orders for agricultural commodities. Marketing orders impose assessments on affected producers. Assessments may be used to finance market development, research and educational programs. Affected producers must, by referendum, approve the marketing order. A marketing board, elected by affected producers, collects and spends assessments for purposes authorized in the marketing order. DATCP regulates marketing boards to ensure that that they comply with the law and the marketing order.
Current Corn Marketing Order
DATCP adopted the current corn marketing order in 1983, and has not amended the marketing order since then. Under the current marketing order, “affected producers" must pay an assessment of 1/10th of one cent per bushel on corn produced in this state, if that corn is sold into commercial channels in this state or another state.
Handlers who buy corn from “affected producers" must collect the assessments from the producers, and remit payment on behalf of the producers to the Corn Marketing Board. Handlers must keep records, and report to each producer the assessments collected from that producer and remitted to the marketing board. “Affected producers" who sell corn to an out-of-state handler must pay assessments to the marketing board (if the out-of-state handler fails to collect and remit the assessments on behalf of the producers).
The Corn Marketing Board is a 9-member board elected by “affected producers" who are subject to assessment under the corn marketing order. “Affected producers" are currently defined as producers who grow corn in this state and sell that corn in commercial channels this state or another state. Members of the Corn Marketing Board are elected to represent 9 separate districts in the state. Board members must reside in the districts they represent (even if they grow corn in another district). “Affected producers" must reside in the district in which they vote (even if they grow corn in another district).
Proposed Changes
Increased Assessment
This rule increases the assessment paid by “affected producers" under the corn marketing order, from 1/10th of one cent per bushel (current assessment) to 1/2 cent per bushel (proposed assessment).
Producers Subject to Assessment
This rule changes the basis on which assessments are collected, and changes the set of producers who are subject to assessment. Under this rule, an “affected producer" must pay an assessment on corn that the producer sells in this state, regardless of where the corn is grown. As a result of this change, a producer who grows corn in this state for sale in another state will no longer pay assessments on that corn. A producer who grows corn in another state, for sale in this state, will for the first time pay assessments on that corn.
Exemptions
Current rules exempt some corn from assessment. This rule retains and clarifies the current exemptions. Under this rule, an affected producer is not required to pay assessments on any of the following:
• Corn that the producer produces for his or her own use (does not sell).
• Corn sold for seed.
• Corn sold directly to a buyer, other than a grain dealer who is required to be licensed under ch.
126, Stats., who uses the corn to feed the buyer's own livestock.
Handler Obligations
Under this rule, handlers in this state must collect assessments on grain that the handlers purchase in this state from in-state or out-of-state producers, and must remit those assessments to the marketing board on behalf of those affected producers. This rule clarifies that the handler's obligation to the marketing board accrues when the handler takes title to the grain, regardless of the date of grain pricing or payment, and regardless of the form in which the handler pays the affected producer for the grain.
Under this rule, as under the current rule, the handler must pay an assessment to the marketing board within 15 days after the end of the month in which the handler's obligation to the marketing board accrues. Under this rule, as under the current rule, DATCP or the marketing board may require the handler to provide relevant records and reports to DATCP or the marketing board.
Under this rule, as under the current rule, a handler must report to an affected producer each assessment that the handler collects from that producer. Handlers typically include these reports in their grain transaction settlement statements to producers. This rule clarifies that a handler who reports assessments as part of the normal settlement reporting process is not required to provide a separate annual statement to an affected producer.
Marketing Board Elections
This rule changes voter eligibility requirements in marketing board elections, to correspond with changes in marketing order coverage. Under this rule, all producers who are required to pay assessments to the marketing board will be eligible to vote in marketing board elections. Thus, in-state and out-of-state producers who pay assessments on corn that they sell in this state will be eligible to vote in marketing board elections, and run for election to the marketing board. Producers who grow corn in this state, but sell all of their corn in other states, will no longer pay assessments as “affected producers" and hence will not be eligible to participate in marketing board elections.
Under this rule, an “affected producer" may vote or run for election in a marketing board district in which the producer resides or, if the “affected producer" resides outside this state, in a district where the “affected producer" sells corn in this state. An out-of-state producer who sells corn in more than one district in this state may vote and run for election in only one of those districts.
This rule clarifies, per current provisions of ch.
ATCP 140, Wis. Adm. Code, that the marketing board may reapportion districts only with the approval of DATCP secretary. This rule clarifies, but does not substantially alter, other procedures for nominating, electing and ensuring the eligibility of marketing board members.
Fiscal Estimate
This rule would have no fiscal impact on DATCP or local units of government, beyond the estimated $24,000 cost of adopting the rule. The Wisconsin Corn Promotion Board (CPB) would reimburse this cost.
This rule would increase revenues to the Wisconsin Corn Promotion Board (CPB). The CPB currently collects approximately $183,000 per year in producer assessments. Under this rule, CPB would collect approximately $915,000 per year in producer assessments.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rule would affect approximately 23,000 corn producers, and approximately 300 handlers who collect and remit marketing order assessments on behalf of corn producers. Many of these producers and handlers are “small businesses."
This rule would increase producer assessments, from an average current assessment of approximately $8 per producer per year to an average proposed assessment of approximately $40 per producer per year. Actual assessment amounts would vary by producer. Some producers who currently pay assessments would no longer pay assessments under this rule (producers who grow corn in this state but sell all of their corn out-of-state). Other producers would pay assessments for the first time under this rule (out-of-state producers who sell corn in this state).
This rule must be approved in a referendum of affected producers. Producers who are affected either by the current rule, or by the proposed rule, will be allowed to vote in the referendum. As under the current rule, any producer who pays assessments under the proposed rule would have the option of demanding a refund of those assessments from the CPB. The CPB would be required to refund producer assessments upon demand, as under the current rule.
This rule would not have a large impact on handlers, although the change in rule coverage could require some handlers to collect and remit assessments for a slightly different set of producers. This could require some initial adjustment in billing and recordkeeping operations.
Notice of Proposed Rule
Elections Board
[CR 03 -100]
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
5.05 (1) (f) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting ss.
8.02,
8.04,
8.05 (3) and
(4),
8.07,
8.10,
8.11,
8.15,
8.20,
8.30,
8.50 (3) (a) and
9.10, Stats., and according to the procedure set forth in s.
227.16 (2) (e), Stats., the State of Wisconsin Elections Board will adopt the following rules as proposed in this notice without public hearing unless within 30 days after publication of this notice,
November 1, 2003, the Elections Board is petitioned for a public hearing by 25 persons who will be affected by the rule; by a municipality which will be affected by the rule; or by an association which is representative of a farm, labor, business, or professional group which will be affected by the rule.
Analysis Prepared by State Elections Board
The rules prescribe the standards for filing officers to determine whether nomination papers comply with the requirements of ch.
8 of the Wisconsin Statutes and provide guidance to candidates and other circulators to enable them to so comply. The old rule, requiring that the circulator reside in the district in which a nomination paper or petition was being circulated, was no longer consistent with the decision of Judge Barbara Crabb in
Frami et al. v. Ponto et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 02-C-515-C. Pursuant to that decision, the Elections Board is enjoined from enforcing a residency requirement with respect to the circulators of nomination papers.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the State of Wisconsin Elections Board by ss.
5.05 (1) (f) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Elections Board hereby amends ss. ElBd 2.05 (14) and 2.07 (5), interpreting ss.
8.02,
8.04,
8.05 (3) and
(4),
8.07,
8.10,
8.11,
8.15,
8.20,
8.30,
8.50( 3) (a) and 9.10, Stats., as follows:
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. ElBd 2.05 (14) is amended to read:
ElBd 2.05 (14) No signature on a nomination paper shall be counted unless the elector who circulated the nomination paper completes and signs the certificate of circulator and does so after, not before, the paper is circulated. No signature may be counted when the residency of the circulator cannot be determined by the information given on the nomination paper.
SECTION 2. ElBd 2.07 (5) is amended to read:
ElBd 2.07 (5) Where it is alleged that the signer or circulator of a nomination paper does not reside in the district in which the candidate being nominated seeks office, the challenger may attempt to establish the geographical location of an address indicated on a nomination paper, by providing district maps, or by providing a statement from a postmaster or other public official.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The creation of this rule does not affect business.
Fiscal Estimate
The creation of this rule has no fiscal effect.
Contact Person
George A. Dunst
Legal Counsel, State Elections Board
132 E. Wilson Street, P.O. Box 2973
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-2973; Phone 266-0136
Notice of Hearing
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
111.09,
111.71,
111.94 and
227.24, Stats., and interpreting ss.
111.09,
111.71, and
111.94, Stats., the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission will hold a public hearing in the Commission's Conference Room at 18 South Thornton Avenue in the City of Madison, Wisconsin on the
20th day of November, 2003, at 11:00 a.m. regarding the Commission's promulgation of the following emergency rules increasing filing fees.
The Commission invites the public to attend the hearing and to present verbal and/or written comments regarding the emergency rules. In addition to or instead of verbal testimony, written comments can also be sent directly to the Commission at
werc@werc.state.wi.us or at Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, P.O. Box 7870, Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7870. Written comment should be received by the Commission on or before
December 1, 2003.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. ERC 1.06 (1), (2) and (3) are amended to read:
ERC 1.06 Fees. (1) Complaints. At the time a complaint is received alleging that an unfair labor practice has been committed under s.
111.06, Stats., the complaining party or parties shall pay the commission a filing fee of
$40. $80. The complaint is not filed until the fee is paid.
(2) Grievance arbitration. At the time a request is received asking that the commission or its staff act as a grievance arbitrator under s.
111.10, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125. $250.
(3) Mediation. At the time a request is received asking the commission or its staff to act as a mediator under s.
111.11, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125. $250.
SECTION 2. ERC 10.21 (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) are amended to read:
ERC 10.21 Fees. (1) Complaints. At the time a complaint is received alleging that a prohibited practice has been committed under s.
111.70(3), Stats., the complaining party or parties shall pay the commission a filing fee of
$40. $80. The complaint is not filed until the fee is paid.
(2)
Grievance arbitration. At the time a request is received asking that the commission or its staff act as a grievance arbitrator under s.
111.70 (4) (c) 2., or
(cm) 4., Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125. $250.
(3) Mediation. At the time a request is received asking the commission or its staff to act as a mediator under s.
111.70 (4) (c) 1. or
(cm) 3., Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee or
$125. $250.
(4) Fact-finding. At the time a request is received asking the commission to initiate fact-finding under s.
111.70 (4) (c) 3., Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125, $250, except that if the parties have previously paid a mediation filing fee for the same dispute under sub. (3), no fee shall be paid.
(5) Interest arbitration. At the time a request is received asking the commission to initiate interest arbitration under s.
111.70 (4) (cm) 6.,
(4) (jm) or
111.77 (3), Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125, $250, except that if the parties have previously paid a mediation filing fee for the same dispute under sub. (3), no fee shall be paid.
SECTION 3. ERC 20.21 (1), (2), (3) and (4) are amended to read:
ERC 20.21 Fees. (1) Complaints. At the time a complaint is received alleging that an unfair labor practice has been committed under s.
111.84, Stats., the complaining party or parties shall pay the commission a filing fee of
$40. $80. The complaint is not filed until the fee is paid.
(2) Grievance arbitration. At the time a request is received asking that the commission or its staff act as a grievance arbitrator under s.
111.86, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125. $250.
(3) Mediation. At the time a request is received asking the commission or its staff to act as a mediator under s.
111.87, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125. $250.
(4) Fact-finding. At the time a request is received asking the commission to initiate fact-finding under s.
111.88, Stats., the parties to the dispute shall each pay the commission a filing fee of
$125, $250, except that if the parties have previously paid a mediation filing fee for the same dispute under sub. (3), no fee shall be paid.
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
The emergency rules provide the increased filing fee revenue needed to support 2.0 Program Revenue positions authorized by
2003 Wisconsin Act 33.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Small businesses rarely use those Commission's services impacted by the increase in filing fees. The occasional impact on small business of the fee increase will be limited to payment of the employer share of the increased fees.
Fiscal Estimate
During the last four fiscal years, WERC has averaged $225,000 in filing fee revenue.
WERC estimates that doubling the existing filing fee levels will produce some reduction in the requests for WERC fee-related services but produce an additional $200,000 in fee revenues annually.
Because the vast majority of filing fee revenue is derived from services for which the union and employer each pay 50% of the fee and because the vast majority of the WERC's fee-related services are provided to public sector employers and the unions representing their employees, WERC anticipates that doubling the existing fees will increase the costs of public sector employers by $100,000 annually.
Contact Person
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
49.137 (4m) and
227.11, Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider changes to ch.
DWD 59, relating to the child care local pass-through program.
Hearing Information
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
GEF 1 Building, Room B103
201 E. Washington Avenue
Madison, WI
1:30 p.m.
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and will be afforded the opportunity to make an oral presentation of their positions. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their facts, views, and suggested rewording in writing.
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearings, please call (608) 267-9403 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audiotape format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
The federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), a federal block grant, makes federal child care funding available to states that can contribute the required match at the state's federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) rate. Wisconsin's current FMAP rate is approximately 42%. The state child care local pass-through program began in 1999 to bring federal CCDF funds into the state that had been left unmatched in the state budget. Through the child care pass-through program, the department awards grants to all local governments and tribes that supply the match required to bring the funds into the state. In the three grant cycles that have occurred thus far, $11.4 million, $14 million, and $17.25 million have been awarded for services in approximately 66 counties to fund activities such as accommodation of children with disabilities, education of providers, and staff retention strategies.
Increased match rate.
2003 Wisconsin Act 33 allocated the state's CCDF funds in a manner that assumes an increase in the match rate that local governments and tribes must contribute to receive pass-through funds. Federal law requires that federal CCDF funds received by the state as a whole be matched at the state's FMAP rate.
2003 Wisconsin Act 33 allocated some of the state's CCDF funds to the direct child care subsidy program under s.
49.155, Stats., with match through general purpose revenue at less than the state's FMAP rate. Budget documents indicate that the legislature intended that local governments contribute a higher match under the pass-through program to cover the state match shortfall in the direct subsidy program and ensure that Wisconsin does not lose valuable federal child care dollars available under CCDF. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau document entitled
Comparative Summary of Budget Recommendations-- Governor and Joint Committee on Finance, June 2003 specifies that the Joint Finance option for funding the pass-through program, which was eventually adopted, would require local agencies to contribute 52% matching funds in 2003-2004 and slightly more in 2004-2005. This document is available at
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2003- 05budget
/JFC/dwd.pdf. The pass-through program is discussed at page 35 of the Workforce Development paper and page 731 of the comprehensive document. The current Chapter
DWD 59 requires that local governments and tribes contribute matching funds at the FMAP rate to be eligible for pass-through funds. This order amends the rule so that the match rate for a given year will be dependent on legislative allocation of federal CCDF funds. The department will determine the match rate to be either the FMAP rate or a higher percentage rate needed to meet the state's match requirements under federal CCDF law and state budget appropriations under Chapter
20, Stats.
Administrative process.
2003 Wisconsin Act 33 also reduced funding to the child care local pass-through program by 86%. This dramatically reduced funding necessitates a change in the process for awarding grants. Chapter
DWD 59 currently requires a 2-step grant process wherein a statewide request for continuation plans is issued and grants awarded for continuing grants, with funds set aside for a second statewide request for proposals for initial grants. Current grantees receive up to 75% of the funds under a noncompetitive process for 2 years following the receipt of the initial grant, and can compete, along with any eligible jurisdiction in the state, for the remaining 25% or more as initial grantees under the same matching terms.
This rulemaking order changes that process to allow all funds to be committed to continuing grants if there is insufficient funding to provide continuing grants of at least 50% of the eligible grantees' initial grant levels from the previous two grant cycles. Jurisdictions receiving continuing grants generally provide more service for the program dollar because they have already done the start-up work and are building the sustainability of programs that are filling a community need. There are currently 63 initial grantees representing approximately 130 jurisdictions in over 60 counties. If grants were awarded to new grantees, the amount of initial grants that could be awarded would be quite small, given the limited funding for the pass-through program. An inordinate amount of these small grants would be spent on start-up costs and some grantees may reject the grant once it is awarded.
Even if the grant process is not changed to allow all funds to be committed to continuing grants, it is likely that current grantees would still receive most of the funds available under the open initial grant process. While the initial grants process is open and awards funds to all eligible applicants, current grantees are likely to claim most, if not all, of the funds available under any new initial grants process. They were the only jurisdictions submitting eligible applications in 2002, have demonstrated interest in the pass-through program, have services in progress that are facing significant budget shortfalls, have experience with the grant application process, and have the matching funds in hand. A two-step grant award process with such limited funds available to distribute is unwieldy and wasteful. The same people at the local level are likely to be filling out 2 applications to receive both a continuing and initial grant, while department staff would have the workload of preparing, distributing, reviewing, and calculating 2 sets of grant awards. This would not only waste state and local staff resources on low-value administrative processes, it would waste state and local public funds at a time when they are in short supply. This could further undermine state and local efforts to ensure a reasonable supply of reliable and quality child care for families who depend on this service in order to work.
This order also amends the rule to provide that if initial grants are awarded, no initial grant will be awarded if the amount would be less than $500.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules do not affect small business as defined in s.
227.114, Stats.
Fiscal Impact
The match rate paid by local governments that receive a pass-through grant will increase from approximately 42% to approximately 52% for the current biennium and may vary in future years depending on legislative allocation of federal CCDF dollars. The increased match for pass-through grants will cover the GPR shortfall in funds appropriated to the child care direct subsidy program and allow Wisconsin to draw the full federal funding available under the Child Care Development Funds (CCDF) block grant.
For the current biennium, the rule change allows state government to receive $1,289,800 in federal CCDF dollars that would have otherwise been left undrawn.
2003 Wisconsin Act 33 provides $2,475,100 in SFY04 and $2,478,500 in SFY05 for local pass-through grants. Based on these appropriations, the increased match rate will increase cost to local governments by $918,400.
Contact Information
A paper copy may be obtained at no charge by contacting:
Elaine Pridgen
Office of Legal Counsel
Dept. of Workforce Development
201 E. Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 7946
Madison, WI 53707-7946
(608) 267-9403
elaine.pridgen@dwd.state.wi.us
Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received at the above address no later than November 14, 2003, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
