Rule-Making Notices
Notice of Hearings
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Emergency Rule EmR __ (to be filed prior to 1-1-11)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) announces that it will hold a public hearing on a temporary emergency rule and proposed “permanent" rule related to seed labeling and sales. These identical rules repeal and recreate Chapter
ATCP 20, Wis. Adm. Code. The temporary emergency rule takes effect on January 1, 2011 and will remain in effect until July 1, 2011 or until the “permanent" rule takes effect, whichever is sooner.
Hearing Information
DATCP will hold the public hearing at the time and place shown below.
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
January 11, 2011
Tuesday
9:00am-11:00am
|
Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
Board Room (CR-106)
2811 Agriculture Drive
Madison, WI 53718-6777
|
Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by January 2, 2011, by writing to Deb Bollig, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone (608) 224-4584. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at (608) 224-5058. The hearing facility is handicap accessible.
Submittal of Written Comments
DATCP invites the public to attend the hearing and comment on the temporary emergency and proposed “permanent" rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until
January 14, 2011 for additional written comments. Comments may be sent to DATCP's Division of Agricultural Resource Management at the address below, or by email to
greg.helmbrecht@wisconsin.gov or by email to
http://AdminRules.Wisconsin.gov/.
Copies of Proposed Rule
You can obtain a free copy of the temporary emergency rule or the proposed “permanent" rule, or both, by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling (608) 224-4596 or emailing
greg.helmbrecht@wisconsin.govhttp://AdminRules.Wisconsin.gov/. Copies will also be available at the hearing. To view the temporary emergency rule and proposed “permanent" rule online, go to:
http://AdminRules.Wisconsin.gov/.
Analysis by Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
The Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection (“DATCP") administers Wisconsin's seed law under ss.
94.38 to
94.46, Stats. The seed law regulates the labeling and sale of agricultural seed. The law applies to nearly all seed sold for sowing purposes, including crop seed, vegetable seed for home gardens, lawn and turf seed, flower seed and native species seed. The law does not apply to tree or shrub seeds.
The 2009 biennial budget act (
2009 Wis. Act 28) made significant changes to the seed law. Act 28 repealed many outdated standards effective January 1, 2011 and authorized DATCP to establish new standards by rule.
The temporary emergency rule implements the new law, pending adoption of a proposed “permanent" rule. The proposed “permanent" is identical to this temporary emergency rule. Pursuant to
2009 Wis. Act 28, section
9103(3), the temporary emergency rule took effect on January 1, 2011 and will remain in effect until July 1, 2011 or until the effective date of the proposed “permanent" rule, whichever is sooner.
This rule updates Wisconsin's seed standards to make them more consistent with federal law, current generally-accepted business practices, the model state seed law published by the association of American seed control officials, and seed testing standards published by AOSA, Inc. (the association of official seed analysts). The rule is designed to protect seed purchasers, to ensure fair and accurate labeling of seed, and to ensure fair competition in the sale of seed.
Statute(s) interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
DATCP has general authority, under s.
93.07(1), Stats., to interpret laws under its jurisdiction. DATCP has specific authority, under ss.
94.45(6), Stats., to promulgate rules for:
•
The testing, labeling, distribution and sale of agricultural seed (including crop seed, vegetable seed for home gardens, lawn and turf seed, flower seed and native species seed).
•
Seed labeler licensing.
•
Seed law administration.
2009 Wis. Act 28 repealed outdated seed standards effective January 1, 2011, and authorized DATCP to adopt new standards by rule. A non-statutory provision, contained in section 9103(3) of Act 28, authorized DATCP to adopt interim rules by the emergency rulemaking procedure under s.
227.24, Stats., without a finding of emergency. Under this non-statutory provision, the interim rules may remain in effect until July 1, 2011 or until the effective date of proposed “permanent" seed rules, whichever date is earlier.
Related rule(s) or statute(s)
The department of natural resources (“DNR") administers rules under ch.
NR 40 related to the classification and control of invasive species, including invasive plant species. DATCP administers pesticide rules under chs.
ATCP 29 and
30 (including pesticides used on treated seed).
Plain language analysis
This rule modifies Wisconsin rules governing the sale and labeling of agricultural and vegetable seed. This rule establishes standards related to seed labels, seed germination, and seed evaluation and testing. It establishes general standards for all agricultural seeds, and specialized standards for certain kinds of seed. The standards in this rule are generally consistent with all of the following:
•
Model standards contained in the Recommended Uniform State Seed Law (July 2007) published by the association of American seed control officials.
•
Seed evaluation standards and methods prescribed in the Rules for Seed Testing (October 1, 2010) published by AOSA, Inc. (the association of official seed analysts).
This rule incorporates seed labeler license fees set by s.
94.43, Stats. (this rule does not change the statutory fees). This rule also creates a mechanism by which DATCP may, for good cause, grant individual variances from labeling requirements under this rule if the variance is consistent with the purposes of this rule and is necessary to avoid unfairness or unnecessary hardship.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
USDA administers the following federal laws:
•The federal seed act (
7 USC 1551 et. seq.). Under the federal seed act, seed shipped in interstate commerce must be labeled with information that allows seed buyers to make informed choices. Label information must be truthful.
•
The federal plant variety protection act (
7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.). Under the plant variety protection act, a plant breeder may obtain a certificate of plant variety protection (similar to a patent) for a new plant variety that meets certain criteria.
This rule is consistent with these federal laws.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Most states, and all of the states surrounding Wisconsin, have adopted seed labeling and testing standards that are similar to the standards under this rule.
Data and analytical methodologies
DATCP consulted with DNR, the university of Wisconsin–extension, and AOSA, Inc. (the association of official seed analysts) to develop the standards in this rule. DATCP also consulted with an advisory committee that included Wisconsin seed industry representatives and seed purchasers.
Standards Incorporated by Reference
This emergency rule incorporates, by reference, seed testing standards published by AOSA, Inc. (the association of official seed analysts). DATCP has requested the attorney general's permission to incorporate these standards by reference. Copies of the standards are on file with DATCP and the legislative reference bureau, and may be obtained from AOSA, Inc.
Small Business Impact
This rule will promote fair competition in the seed industry, for the benefit of seed businesses and seed purchasers. It will update obsolete seed standards, and will ensure that all seed labelers use the same standards for seed labeling and analysis. It will facilitate interstate commerce by making Wisconsin standards more consistent with current standards used by the United States department of agriculture (“USDA") and other states. This rule will not have any significant adverse impact on affected businesses.
If you have comments or concerns relating to small business impact, you may also contact DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, or by email at
Keeley.Moll@wisconsin.gov or by telephone at (608) 224-5039.
Environmental Impact
This rule will protect the environment by helping to prevent the spread of certain noxious weed seeds. Other parts of the rule will have no environmental impact.
Fiscal Estimate
This rule will have no fiscal impact on state or local government. This rule incorporates, without change, seed labeler license fees set by s.
94.43, Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Questions and comments related to this rule, including hearing comments, may be directed to:
Greg Helmbrecht
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708-8911
Telephone: (608) 224-4596
Notice of Hearings
(Without Public Hearing)
Health Services
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and according to the procedure set forth in section
227.16 (2) (e), Stats., the Department of Health Services will adopt the following rules revising Chapter
DHS 1, relating to status and retention period for records of clients who have unpaid liability to the Department or counties as proposed in this notice, without public hearing unless, on or before
February 1, 2011, the Department of Health Services is petitioned for a public hearing by 25 natural persons who will be affected by the rule; a municipality which will be affected by the rule; or an association which is representative of a farm, labor, business or professional group that will be affected by the rule:
Submittal of Written Comments
Comments may be submitted until February 1, 2011 to:
Troy K. Kitzrow
Supervisor, Billing and Collections
Bureau of Fiscal Services
Division of Enterprise Services
Department of Health Services
1 West Wilson Street; Room 750
Madison, WI 53707
608-261-5984
Analysis by Department of Human Services
Statute(s) interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., allows agencies to promulgate rules interpreting the provision of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Related rule(s) or statute(s)
Plain language analysis
In this order, the Department proposes to promote uniformity and cost savings by revising the status and retention period for records of clients who have unpaid liability to the Department or counties. The changes include repealing and recreating rules to more clearly state when a client record may be closed. The changes also include reducing the retention period for closed inpatient mental health records under s.
DHS 1.06 (3) (e) from 10 years to 5 years. The current rules are confusing for Department and county staff and have led to different interpretations. The proposed changes may decrease costs and should increase uniformity and accountability for counties and the Department.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
There appear to be no existing proposed federal regulations that are the same or similar to the proposed rules.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
There appear to be no administrative rules that are the same or similar to the proposed rules.
Iowa: There appear to be no administrative rules that are the same or similar to the proposed rules.
Michigan: There appear to be no administrative rules that are the same or similar to the proposed rules.
Minnesota: There appear to be no administrative rules that are the same or similar to the proposed rules.
Data and analytical methodologies
The Department analyzed ss.
46.03 (18) and
46.10 (1) to
(14) (a), Stats., the Department's current practices and existing rules when deciding how to revise the rules proposed in this order.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
The proposed rules relate to the status and retention periods of client records relating to payment for the services. The proposed rules do not affect businesses.
Small Business Impact
The proposed rules do not affect businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed changes may decrease costs and should increase uniformity and accountability for counties and the Department. The Department's potential savings may be up to $1,000 annually. The savings for counties is unknown. The rules do not affect businesses.
Text Of Proposed Rule
SECTION 1. DHS 1.03 (20) (c) is repealed and recreated to read:
DHS 1.03 (20) PAYMENT PERIOD. (c) Third-party sources have been exhausted and the responsible parties have a permanent inability or unlikely future ability to pay.
SECTION 2. DHS 1.06 (3) (d) and (e) are repealed and recreated to read:
DHS 1.06 (3) (d)
Closing client records; record retention period. Client records may be closed after the department or payment approval authority determines that any one of the conditions listed under s.
DHS 1.03 (20) (a) to
(c) applies. Closed client records shall be maintained for at least 5 years.
(e) Audits. Open and closed client records shall be made available for audit.
Agency Contact Person
Troy K. Kitzrow
Supervisor, Billing and Collections
Bureau of Fiscal Services
Division of Enterprise Services
Department of Health Services
1 West Wilson Street; Room 750
Madison, WI 53707
608-261-5984
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Air Pollution Control
Chs.
NR 400 —
(DNR # AM-17-10 and AM-48-10(E))
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections 227.16 and 227.17, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on proposed revisions to Chapters
NR 400,
405, and
407, Wis. Adm. Code, in permanent rule Order AM-17-10, relating to major source permit thresholds for sources of greenhouse gas emissions on the date and at the time and location listed below. The proposed revisions relate to issues for State Implementation Plan approvability, and the State Implementation Plan developed under sections
285.11(6), Stats., will be revised.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to section
227.24 (4), Stats., the Department will, on the same date and at the same time and location, hold a public hearing on identical revisions in emergency rule Order AM-48-10(E), adopted by the Natural Resources Board on December 8, 2010 and which was published and became effective on December 15, 2010.
Hearing Information
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
January 21, 2011
Friday
10:00am
|
Natural Resources State Office Building
Room G09
101 S. Webster Street
Madison, WI 53703
|
Reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Robert Eckdale in writing at the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AM/7), 101 S Webster, Madison, WI 53702; by E-mail to
Robert.Eckdale@wisconsin.gov ; or by calling (608) 266-2856. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Copies of Proposed Rule
The emergency order, proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be viewed and downloaded from the
Administrative Rules System Web site which can be accessed through the link provided on the Proposed Air Pollution Control Rules Calendar at
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/air/rules/calendar.htm. If you do not have Internet access, a printed copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Eckdale, Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Air Management (AM/7), 101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI, 53702, or by calling 608.266.2856.
Submittal of Written Comments
Comments must be received on or before Friday, January 28, 2011. Written comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, E-mail, or through the Internet and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules should be submitted to:
Andrew Stewart
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air Management (AM/7)
101 S Webster St, Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608 266-6876
Fax: 608.267.0560
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
Statute(s) interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives state agencies general rulemaking authority. Section
227.14 (1m) (b), Stats., allows the Department to use the format of federal regulations in preparing a proposed rule if it determines that all or part of a state environmental regulatory program is to be administered according to standards, requirements or methods which are similar to standards, requirements or methods specified for all or part of a federal environmental program. Section
227.24 (1) (a), Stats., gives the Department the authority to promulgate a rule as an emergency rule without complying with notice, hearing, and publication requirements under ch.
227, Stats., if necessary for the preservation of public welfare. Section
285.11 (1), Stats., gives the Department authority to promulgate rules consistent with ch.
285, Stats. Section
285.11 (16), Stats., requires the Department to promulgate rules that specify the amounts of emissions that result in a stationary source being classified as a major source. This section requires the rules to be consistent with but no more restrictive than the federal Clean Air Act.
Related statute(s) or rule(s)
None.
Plain language analysis
On April 1, 2010, US EPA promulgated the first standard for regulating motor vehicle gases contributing to climate change, i.e., greenhouse gases or GHG. Because of the way the Clean Air Act (CAA) is structured, once GHG emissions from motor vehicles are subject to regulation, stationary sources become regulated for these gases. Without further action by EPA, this standard has the unintended affect of subjecting literally tens of thousands of sources across the country to some of the most complex air permit and emission control regulations. In order to mitigate this unintended effect, EPA promulgated on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31514), an additional “tailoring" rule that limits the number of sources subject to the permit and emission control regulations.
Under current state statutes and administrative code, Wisconsin sources will become subject to permit and emission control requirements on January 2, 2010. However, Wisconsin sources will not benefit from the tailoring rule limiting applicability under air permit and emission control regulations until revisions can be made to Wisconsin administrative code. This order proposes to revise the administrative code to make it consistent with the new federal rule.
Specifically, this proposal will define the greenhouse gases subject to regulation, establish greenhouse gas emission thresholds, that if exceeded, will trigger permitting and emission control requirements, and establish global warming potential factors which are used to calculate individual greenhouse gas emissions on an equivalent and comparable basis.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
U.S. EPA promulgated rules in
40 CFR parts 51 and
70 as revised on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31514) to relieve overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of these rule, fall on permitting authorities and sources. They accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD and Title V programs of the CAA. In particular, EPA established with this rulemaking a phase-in approach for PSD and Title V applicability, and established the first two steps of the phase-in for the largest emitters of GHG.
Under these federal rules, the first step, which will begin on January 2, 2011, PSD or Title V requirements will apply to sources' GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD or Title V anyway due to their non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, EPA will not require source owners or operators to evaluate whether they are subject to PSD or Title V requirements solely on account of their GHG emissions. Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable requirements of PSD, most notably, the best available control technology (BACT) requirement, will apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, but only if the project also significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant. For the Title V program, only owners or operators of existing sources with, or new sources obtaining, Title V permits for non-GHG pollutants will be required to address GHG during this first step.
The second step of the federal rules, beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources as well as existing sources not already subject to Title V that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent emissions will become subject to the PSD and Title V requirements. In addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and that undertake a modification that increases net emissions of GHG by at least 75,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent emissions will also be subject to PSD requirements.
An important provision of these federal rules is that PSD and Title V permitting is only triggered when both the appropriate traditional mass-based applicability threshold, i.e., 100 tpy or 250 tpy, and the GHG carbon dioxide equivalent emission threshold are exceeded.
U.S. EPA also makes certain commitments to conduct studies related to potential regulatory burdens which could result from lowering the applicability threshold from what is contained in the current rule. Except for these federal commitments, the rules proposed here are consistent with the federal rules.
The greenhouse gas endangerment finding (74 FR 66496), EPA's memorandum entitled “Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program" (75 FR 17004) and the motor vehicle (75 FR 25324) and tailoring (75 FR 31514) rules have been challenged by various parties, nationally. In the event that courts or Congress stay or otherwise invalidate the finding, interpretation and both rules related to greenhouse gases the Department will act to invalidate the emergency rule and re-evaluate the need for a permanent rule in light of the court's or Congressional actions.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
The states of Illinois and Minnesota are US EPA delegated states so they do not need to amend their state rules to implement the provision of the federal tailoring rule. Michigan and Iowa are SIP approved states like Wisconsin, so they will need to implement rules similar to what are being proposed here in order to modify their permit program and implement the provisions of the federal rule.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rule is based on the federal rule changes. Information on the federal rule changes can be obtained from federal registers published on October 27, 2009 (74 FR 55292), October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260), and June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31514).
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small businesses
The Department did not conduct an independent analysis of the effect on small business, but is relying on the analysis performed by the US EPA. This analysis can be found in US EPA's rule docket for Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Proposed Rule [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517; FRL-8966-7], October 27, 2009 (74 FR 55292).
Effect on Small Business
This proposal will prevent unintended impacts to small businesses resulting from promulgation by U.S. EPA of emission standards for GHG, by limiting the number that may become subject to the Title V and PSD permitting programs. The Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at
SmallBusiness@dnr.state.wi.us, or by calling (608) 266-1959.
Environmental Analysis
The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on comments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
This proposal limits the applicability of Department permitting consistent with the federal permit program, resulting in fewer permit actions. This translates to an expected cost avoidance for both the Department and the private sector over what costs will be imposed if the proposal is not approved. The following information and assumptions were used in estimating the cost avoidance, which are summarized in the table below. (Note that estimates in this analysis are based on EPA proposed rules published in September, 2009. EPA's final rule establishes applicability thresholds much higher than originally proposed, therefore, the cost avoidance numbers go up significantly from what is presented here.)
National average dollar per permit costs and national numbers of permits avoided comes from Tables 3-1 and 3-2 in US EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, Final Report, September, 2009.
Number of permits avoided in Wisconsin was determined by taking a percentage of the national estimate of permits avoided.
Number of industrial sources subject to PSD - Currently the Department issues 8-10% of the nation's PSD permits annually due the historically large manufacturing base in Wisconsin. While there will be some correlation between the industrial base and sources of greenhouse gas emissions it is not expected to be as high as what the Department currently sees under the existing PSD program. For the purposes of this Fiscal Estimate 5% is being applied to the national estimate of 3,299 permits avoided, resulting in an estimated annual cost avoidance or $13,947,450 for the private sector and $7,647,750 for the Department.
Number of commercial and residential sources subject to PSD - Based on an assumption that Wisconsin's number of sources is proportional to percentage of the national population, 2% is being applied to the national estimate of 37,197 permits avoided, resulting in an estimated annual cost avoidance of $12,563,928 for the private sector and $3,709,584 for the Department.
Number of new industrial sources subject to Title V - Currently the Department issues approximately 3% of the nation's Title V permits. Therefore 3% of the national estimate of 195,895 permits avoided is used in this Fiscal Estimate resulting in an estimated one-time cost avoidance of $272,398,950 for the private sector and $115,706,376 for the Department.
Number of new commercial and residential sources subject to Title V - Based on an assumption that Wisconsin's number of sources is proportional to percentage of the national population, 2% is being applied to the national estimate of 5,956,513 permits avoided, resulting in an estimated one-time cost avoidance of $593,982,180 for the private sector and $235,639,140 for the Department.
US EPA notes that significant uncertainties exist in their estimates due to the lack of historical record and permitting experience upon which to base resource needs for including greenhouse gas sources in the PSD and Title V permitting programs. The Department does not have Wisconsin specific information that allows the estimates to be better refined for this Fiscal Estimate.
Agency Contact Person
Andrew Stewart
Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Air Management (AM/7)
101 S Webster St,
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608 266-6876
Fax: 608.267.0560
Notice of Hearings
Public Instruction
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections
43.09 (2) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting section
43.24 (3), Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing as follows to consider proposed permanent rules to revise Chapter
PI 6, relating to public library audit requirements. The hearing will be held as follows:
Hearing Information
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
January 13, 2011
Thursday
10:00am-Noon
|
Reference and Loan Library
Meeting Room
2109 S. Stoughton Road
Madison, WI 53716
|
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Michael Cross, Director, Public Library Development, at
michael.cross@dpi.wi.gov, (608) 267-9225 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Proposed Rule and Contact Person
Lori Slauson, Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Submittal of Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than January 19, 2011, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Public Instruction
Statute(s) interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
Section
43.09 (2), Stats., allows the Division for Libraries, Technology and Community Learning in the Department of Public Instruction to promulgate necessary standards for public library systems. If promulgated, such rules shall be consistent with s.
43.15, Stats., and shall be established in accordance with ch.
227, except that the division shall hold a public hearing prior to adoption of any proposed rule.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives an agency rule-making authority to interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Related statute(s) or rule(s)
None.
Plain language analysis
Subchapter
III of ch. PI 6, Wis. Admin. Code, specifies requirements for public library systems. Current language under s.
PI 6.06 (4) (d) dates from 1972 and must be revised to reflect current minimum standard expectations for governmental audits. The proposed rule language states the present minimum standard for governmental audits as they apply to public library systems and is consistent with other department audit requirements for agencies receiving federal and state funds through the department.
The rules require each public library system to contract with a certified public accountant to audit the system's general purpose financial statements for the fiscal year. The audit shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal laws and regulations and Wisconsin Statutes and administrative rules including: generally accepted auditing standards; governmental auditing standards issued by the comptroller general of the United States; and the applicable provisions of the United States office of management and budget, circular A-133. The rules also require each public library system to maintain financial statements present in the auditor's report and to submit a corrective action plan when found to be out of compliance.
The proposed rules will apply to public library system audits conducted upon the effective date of this rule.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Iowa doesn't have any rules relating to library audit requirements.
Illinois requires the board of directors of each library system to:
Maintain all financial records at the system headquarters.
Cause an annual audit of the records of the system for the preceding fiscal year and those maintained by the treasurer to be made by an independent public accountant. The certified public accountant shall be guided by “Government Auditing Standards."
Account for all funds of the library system by expenditure, encumbrance or reserves at June 30 each year.
Adopt an annual budget for the ensuing fiscal year.
Maintain an inventory of all equipment purchased.
Ensure that financial reports are submitted to the state librarian twice a year.
Minnesota requires regional library systems to annually submit an audit of receipts and disbursements. The audit shall be performed by the staff of the state auditor's office, by a certified public accountant, or by a public accountant as defined in Minnesota statutes.
Michigan requires a cooperative library to file with the department a copy of an annual financial audit. If the audit report discloses a deficit or other material deficiency, the cooperative library shall submit a correction action plan for approval by the department.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
See the plain language analysis.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small businesses
N/A.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules specify the minimum standard expectations for governmental audits.
Wisconsin public library systems are already aware of the requirements specified in the rule and are already complying. Therefore, the rules should not have a fiscal effect on public library systems.
The proposed rules will have no fiscal impact on school districts, the department or small businesses as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Notice of Hearings
Public Instruction
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections
43.09 (1) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting section
43.09, Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing as follows to consider proposed permanent rules revising Chapter
PI 6, relating to public librarian certification. The hearing will be held as follows:
Hearing Information
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
January 13, 2011
Thursday
10:00am-Noon
|
Reference and Loan Library
Meeting Room
2109 S. Stoughton Road
Madison, WI 53716
|
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Michael Cross, Director, Public Library Development, at
michael.cross@dpi.wi.gov, (608) 267-9225 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Proposed Rule and Contact Person
Lori Slauson, Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Submittal of Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than January 19, 2011, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Public Instruction
Statute(s) interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
Section
43.09 (1), Stats., requires the Division for Libraries, Technology and Community Learning in the Department of Public Instruction to issue certificates to public librarians and promulgate, under ch.
227, Stats., necessary standards for public librarians.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives an agency rule-making authority to interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Related statute(s) or rule(s)
None.
Plain language analysis
Subchapter
I of ch. PI 6, Wis. Admin. Code, pertains to public librarian certification and specifies certification requirements for administrators who serve in municipal, joint, and county public libraries with certain populations. The proposed rules:
Allow Grade II certificates to be issued to applicants holding a bachelor's degree along with a minor in library science if the minor includes or is supplemented by 3 semester credits of coursework, or the equivalent, in advanced public library administration.
Update public librarian certification requirements for Grade II and III certification. Some of the areas of coursework have been changed to reflect the changes in public librarians' work responsibilities. The total number of credits required to be completed will still be a total of 12. However, the rule will provide flexibility as to how those 12 credits may be earned.
Require certification renewal to include at least 10 hours of technology.
Modify the temporary certification requirements for Grade II and III certification to reflect the new coursework required to get a public librarian certification and require at least one course to be completed annually until the certification requirements are complete.
The proposed rules will apply to individuals as specified in the “INITIAL APPLICABILITY" section of the rule.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Michigan and Iowa have public librarian certification programs that are similar to Wisconsin's. Among the features of their certification programs:
Certification of the directors of public libraries is required in both states. Michigan also has staffing standards that require selected staff in libraries, in addition to the director, to be certified.
Both of the certification programs have multiple levels of certification based on the populations of the communities served.
Both of the certification programs require specified educational attainments and additional library courses based on grade level.
Both of the certification programs require initial certification and recertification at specified time intervals.
The certification programs in Michigan and Iowa require that libraries have certified staff as condition of receiving state funds.
Illinois doesn't have a state certification program; each public library system establishes its own rules for membership requirements.
The certification program in Minnesota is voluntary for library employees.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
To equip public library directors with the knowledge and skills needed in the changing environment of public library service.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small businesses
N/A.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules will update public librarian certification requirements. The rules update some coursework required to receive Grade II or III certification, but do not require additional coursework beyond the 12 semester credits currently required. The rules also allow four years of temporary certification for an individual to complete the courses needed to receive regular certification.
It is assumed the proposed rules will have no fiscal impact on libraries, school districts, the department or small businesses as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Notice of Hearing
Public Instruction
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections
118.29 (6) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting section
118.29 (6), Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing as follows to consider proposed permanent rules creating Chapter
PI 46, relating to training requirements for individuals administering nonprescription and prescription drug products to pupils.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held as follows:
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
January 12, 2011
Wednesday
3:00-4:30pm
|
GEF 3 Building
Room 041
125 S. Webster Street
Madison, WI 53703
|
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Douglas White, Director, Student Services/Prevention and Wellness at
douglas.white@dpi.wi.gov, (608) 266-5198 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Proposed Rule and Submittal of Written Comments
Lori Slauson, Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than January 18, 2011, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Public Instruction
Statute(s) interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
Section
118.29 (6), Stats., requires the department to approve training in administering nonprescription drug products and prescription drugs. The administrative rule provides the specifics of the department's medication training requirements.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives an agency rule-making authority to interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Related statute(s) or rule(s)
N/A
Plain language analysis
2009 Wisconsin Act 160 requires the department to approve training in administering nonprescription drug products and prescription drugs to pupils by school personnel or volunteers.
The proposed rules require individuals who administer medications to pupils under s.
118.29, Stats., to have medication
skill training annually and medication
knowledge training bi-annually. The rules require the
skill training to be documented by a school nurse, medical provider or adequately trained parent but do not specify what entity must provide the training. In addition, the rules do not specify what entity must provide the
knowledge training only that it must be approved by the department.
Emergency rules may be promulgated prior to March 1, 2001, the effective date of the Act's provisions.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
N/A
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota do not have rules relating to medication administration training requirements.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
To determine the training requirements related to medication administration, the Department first reviewed examples of such training from other states and school districts. The Department's drafts of training requirements were then reviewed by experts in the field including the Wisconsin Association of School Nurses, Wisconsin Department of Health Services public health nursing program, pharmacists and medical doctors. Suggestions from these groups helped to shape the final proposed training requirements. Guidelines for medication training follow similar frequency in other areas of healthcare such as use cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated defibrillation by unlicensed assistive personnel.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small businesses
N/A
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A
Effect on Small Business
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules require individuals who administer medications to pupils under s.
118.29, Stats., to have medication
skill training annually and medication
knowledge training bi-annually. The rules require the skill training to be documented by a school nurse, medical provider or adequately trained parent. The rules do not specify what entity must provide the knowledge training only that it must be approved by the department.
Local fiscal effect
The knowledge portion of the training may be obtained by using department resources (webcast and SchoolMeds On-Line Medication Training Program) free of charge. However, a school district may provide or contract for such training if approved by the department. It is assumed that most school districts will use the resources provided by the department. Therefore, any costs associated with providing the knowledge portion of the training by the school district will be voluntary and is indeterminate.
The skill portion of the training will have to be provided by a school nurse, medical provider or adequately trained parent. For school districts that have hired or contracted school nursing services, the skill verification for medication administration would likely be the continued responsibility of the nurse at no additional cost. Eighty percent of school districts employ a school nurse. Of the remaining 20 percent, some school districts contract for nursing services and some school districts may have an adequately trained parent willing to verify the skill portion of training.
For school districts that do not have a school nurse or parent, the cost of contracting with a nursing service is $30 per hour. The time necessary for the nurse to verify the skill would take approximately 10 minutes for each route of medication. The rate of children with special health care needs in Wisconsin statewide is 13.9 percent. However, it is unknown how many different routes of medication may need to be administered to these students. It is also unknown how many of these students attend a school district that does not employ a school nurse. Therefore, costs associated with providing training needed to verify skill medication administration are indeterminate.
State fiscal effect
DPI provides the knowledge training as described above. If this training is not used by school districts, DPI must approve the training used. Costs associated with providing and reviewing training will be absorbed by the department.
Private schools fiscal effect
As with public school districts, the costs to private schools are indeterminate. However, the costs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Notice of Hearing
Public Service Commission
(PSC # 1-AC-235)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to renumber section
PSC 168.06 (5); renumber and amend section
PSC 168.13 (2) (a); amend section
PSC 168.09 (2); and create section
PSC 168.06 (5) (b) and
168.13 (2) (b) and
(c). The proposed amendments would, respectively, establish certain criteria for the recertification of resellers; include section
196.859, Stats., in the list of assessment statutes that apply to large resellers; and clarify the procedure for involuntary revocation of a reseller certificate.
NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to section
227.16 (2) (b), Stats., the commission will hold a public hearing on these proposed rule changes at the time and location below:
Hearing Information
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
January 11, 2011
Tuesday
10:00am
|
Public Service Commission
Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
610 Whitney Way
Madison, WI 53705
|
This building is accessible to people in wheelchairs through the Whitney Way (lobby) entrance. Handicapped parking is available on the south side of the building.
The commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding or who needs to receive this document in a different format should contact the Docket Coordinator, as indicated in the following paragraph, as soon as possible.
Submittal of Written Comments
Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The hearing record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until January 19, 2011, at noon (January 18, 2011, at noon, if filed by fax). All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-235. File by one mode only.
Industry:
File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's website,
http://psc.wi.gov.
Members of the Public:
If filing electronically: Use the Public Comments system or the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. Both of these may be accessed from the commission's website,
http://psc.wi.gov.
If filing by mail, courier, or hand delivery: Address as shown in the box on page 1.
If filing by fax: Send fax comments to (608) 266-3957. Fax filing
cover sheet MUST state “Official Filing," the docket number 1-AC-235, and the number of pages (limited to 25 pages for fax comments).
Comments Due:
|
Address Comments to:
|
January 19, 2011
Noon
FAX Due:
January 18, 2011
Noon
|
Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, WI 53707-7854
FAX: (608) 266-3957
|
Analysis Prepared by Public Service Commission of Wisconsin
Statutory authority and explanation of authority
Section
227.11, Stats., authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section
196.02 (1), Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section
196.02 (3), Stats., grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Sections
196.01 (1d) (c) and
196.203 (2), Stats., define resellers and require their certification to provide telecommunications services in Wisconsin. Section
196.859, Stats., requires the commission to assess telecommunications providers to recover the budgeted costs of the enforcement of the telecommunications trade practices regulations under the jurisdiction of the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection. Pursuant to its authority in ss.
196.44 and
196.02 (3), Stats., the commission may promulgate a rule interpreting and applying s.
196.859, Stats., to reseller telecommunications providers.
Statute(s) interpreted
The proposed regulations interpret ss.
196.203 (3),
196.03 (1) and
(6), and
196.44, Stats. Sections
196.203 (3) and
196.03 (1) and
(6), Stats., require that a telecommunications utility, which includes resellers in the alternative telecommunications utility category, provide reasonably adequate services and that such services be priced at just and reasonable rates. For a telecommunications provider, whether a service is reasonably adequate or a rate or charge is just and reasonable is determined by a multi-factor test in ss.
196.03 (1) and
(6), Stats. The multi-factor test applies when evaluating what is in the public interest, convenient or necessary with respect to the services and rates and charges of a telecommunications provider. Certification of a reseller is effected under s.
196.203, Stats., which includes in the certification process the commission's right and opportunity to impose provisions of ch.
196, Stats., that the commission believes are necessary for protection of the public interest.
Protection of the public interest is effected by ensuring that only properly certified resellers are doing business in Wisconsin. A streamlined revocation process as proposed aids the elimination from the market of resellers that are unable or unwilling to comply with the law. In addition, the mechanism of voiding of reseller arrangements, contracts, and billings for operations without proper certification is an administrative device to compel resellers to properly obtain and maintain certification at the risk of repaying their Wisconsin-generated revenues gained during unauthorized operations. This device is a means of enforcing provisions of ch.
196, Stats., under s.
196.44, Stats. However, an amendment is proposed here to better calibrate the refund obligation to the nature of the deficiency causing the loss of certification. If a reseller lost certification and then re-applied, the criteria proposed to evaluate the applicant reseller's ability to comply with regulations would strike a better balance between the refund obligation and the cause of the loss of certification. Greater flexibility will aid a speedier return of the applicant reseller to full certification.
Section
196.44, Stats., permits the appropriate enforcement of s.
196.859, Stats., as a provision in ch.
196, Stats., subject to commission enforcement. The proposed rule to make larger resellers subject to assessment is consistent with the commission's discretion and duty to engage in practical and economical enforcement of a legislative direction for the recovery of budgeted costs of the enforcement of the telecommunications trade practices regulations of the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection.
Related statute(s) or rule(s)
Related rules consist of the other provisions of ch.
PSC 168 dealing with resale of telecommunications services and the certification of resellers. That chapter identifies telecommunications services that are legally available for resale, providers that are subject to reseller certification, the application for certification, and how certification is continued through annual report filings. Once an entity is certified as a reseller, the related rules identify the permissible activities in which a reseller may engage and the statutes with which the reseller must comply. Annual reports on such activities are required, which, if not filed, may trigger the revocation of certification. Other activities are identified that may also justify opening a revocation proceeding. Finally, a reseller may also voluntarily surrender its certificate to cease Wisconsin intrastate operations, but subject to compliance with any outstanding commission orders.
Summary and analysis of the rule amendments
The proposed amendment to PSC 168.06 (5) establishes five criteria that the commission may use to evaluate the amount of revenues that need to be refunded due to operations without certification, as required to enforce PSC 168.06 (1). The proposed criteria afford the commission flexibility to judge each reseller re-applying for certification according to its individual circumstances, taking into account the reason for loss of certification, the cooperation of the applicant, past conduct while operating without authority, the number and type of consumer complaints, and the impact of a proposed refund upon the financial viability of the applicant. This benefits the applicant by informing it as to the requisites for re-certification and by better accommodating equitable arguments that a full refund might be disproportionate to the nature of the failure that resulted in the prior de-certification.
The proposed amendment to PSC 168.09 (2) to insert s.
196.859, Stats., in the list of assessment statutes applicable to larger resellers better informs them of their statutory responsibilities. This treatment accords with the commission's decision in docket 5-TI-1990 in November 2009, to impose the statute on larger resellers by exercise of the reserved power to amend any reseller's existing certificate. Resellers having intrastate Wisconsin gross operating revenues in a calendar year that did not exceed $200,000 were excluded in that order and remain excluded in this proposed rule amendment. Commission experience fairly suggests that it would be burdensome to require an annual report from smaller providers where the costs of commission processing and provider compliance would likely exceed the few dollars of liability that would accrue to the reseller but for the exemption.
Finally, the proposed amendment of the revocation procedure under PSC 168.13 (2) clarifies and streamlines the revocation process by clearly stating the opportunity to cure non-compliance within the timeline of a revocation proceeding, but before the revocation process proceeds to a formal trial-type hearing. The current language tends to suggest that an objecting respondent reseller should petition for a hearing when in fact a proceeding with an opportunity for hearing is already underway by the commission's noticing an intention to revoke certification. The proposed amendment clarifies that during the initial 30-day window, the reseller can choose either to object and proceed to hearing or to elect to cure deficiencies to avoid the sanction of revocation.
Comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations
There are no known comparable rules at the federal level under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.
Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states
Section
196.859, Stats., relates to an assessment by the commission for telecommunications utility trade practices. Such an assessment is apparently unique to Wisconsin. There is no similar rule in any of the neighboring states of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota.
The neighboring states do not have regulations comparable to the proposed rule amendments to provide flexibility in granting re-certification and streamlining the revocation process. Michigan does not certify resellers at all. While the other three states do have reseller certification procedures, if a reseller lost its certification and then re-applied, each of those states would treat the applicant reseller as if it were seeking an original certification. However, such an applicant would be subject to limited additional staff scrutiny as to whether the cause for the termination of the prior certification had been remedied. Such additional scrutiny is not codified in any rules, however. None of the three states has Wisconsin's refund obligation for revenues obtained during unauthorized operations. The criteria in proposed PSC 168.06 (5) (b) would be unique to Wisconsin.
Effect on Small Business
No specific factual or analytical studies were conducted as to the proposed changes, or with respect to the effects on small businesses. The proposed amendment to PSC 168.09 (2) is intended to avoid smaller reselling entities, especially as the administrative costs for both the commission and the provider would likely exceed the annual assessment liability, which in many cases, based on other assessment statutes administered by the commission, could be quite small.
Anecdotal experience from prior commission applications and proceedings support the amendment of PSC 168.13 (2) and PSC 168.06 (5) (b), as simplifying procedures and thus creating savings and efficiencies in administrative operations for both the reseller and the commission.
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
The proposed rule changes may affect small businesses, but generally in a way that affords them benefits. No new professional skills will be required of a small business on account of the rule.
The establishment of criteria that may mitigate the current refund of revenues received while operating without certification will provide an opportunity for a small business to present facts, without need of counsel, to show why refunds would not be fair or could adversely affect the economic viability of the company. The proposed rule essentially allows equitable arguments to be made to reduce the refund without imperiling the company and to expedite a reseller's return to certification in good standing.
The insertion of s.
196.859, Stats. (telecommunications utility trade practices), among those assessment statutes applicable to certain larger resellers has already been applied by order in docket 5-TI-1990. The order in that docket applied s.
196.859, Stats., to large resellers having annual gross operating revenues derived from Wisconsin intrastate operations of $200,000 or more. The smallest resellers will continue to be exempt from reporting if they have gross operating revenues under $200,000 in a calendar year, as they would otherwise have no duty to file any revenue data with the commission. It would not be worth the commission expense to force small resellers to file annual reports to permit levying assessments under s.
196.859, Stats., that likely would not exceed the cost of preparing and filing the necessary reports.
The last rule change proposing an amendment to the certification revocation procedure clarifies the process. It permits resellers to quickly comprehend their choices: (a) compliance to retain good standing; (b) default to permit the revocation without opposition; or (c) opposition to revocation by going to a contested case hearing. The current rule's lack of clarity suggests an additional petition process for hearing when it was originally intended that there be one proceeding to encompass both an opportunity to cure deficiencies and the right to resort to hearing, if necessary.
Fiscal Estimate
Assumptions used in arriving at fiscal estimate
State Fiscal Effects
There are no estimated state fiscal effects from the draft revisions to the Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule (PSC 168). A state fiscal effect would occur if the revisions increased or decreased state staff workload, but the proposed rule is not anticipated to change workload for state staff.
The Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule revision 1) clarifies the process under which the Commission considers the amount of customer refunds required of resellers who operate without certification, 2) clarifies the process under which resellers may file an objection to revocation of certification, and 3) makes administrative rule consistent with Commission order under docket 5-TI-1990 and applies s.
196.859 to resellers with annual gross operating revenues, derived from Wisconsin intrastate operations, of $200,000 or more. The rule change to apply s.
196.859 to resellers with intrastate revenues of $200,000 or more is consistent with current policy and will not change state staff workload. The revisions clarifying the information the Commission will consider in calculating potential refunds to consumers and in finalizing revocation proceedings could streamline state staff work processes. The volume of reseller recertification requests is very small, but can be time-consuming in the one element usually of concern to resellers, the amount of refund due to operations without proper certification. It is anticipated that the flexibility provided in the proposed criteria applicable to establishing and/or reducing required refunds would likely permit much faster resolution of this primary issue of contention. A small, but unquantifiable, increment in staff processing efficiency is expected. Therefore, the proposed rule is estimated to have no state fiscal effect.
Local Fiscal Effects
The revised Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule is not estimated to have a local fiscal effect. A local fiscal effect would occur if telecommunication service rates or refunds for customers, which include Local Governments, were affected by this proposed rule. The revisions to the rule are not anticipated to change service rates. In addition, the revisions clarifying process under which the Commission considers the amount of customer refunds required of resellers who operate without certification will not change Commission policy in determining the amount of customer refunds required; so the proposed rule will not affect refund amounts. Therefore, the revised Telecommunications Resellers and Resale Rule is not estimated to have a local fiscal effect.
State fiscal effect
No State Fiscal Effect.
Local fiscal effect
No local government costs.
Long-range fiscal implications
None.
Text Of Proposed Rule
Section 1. PSC 168.06 (5) is renumbered 168.06 (5) (a).
SECTION 2. PSC 168.06 (5) (b) is created to read:
PSC 168.06 (5) (b) If a reseller is seeking recertification after a prior certification under this chapter expired or was revoked by the commission and it had operated in Wisconsin without certification, the commission may consider the following factors in determining any repayment, refund, or credit respecting the reseller's void arrangements, contracts, and billings under sub. (1):
1. The reason for the failure to obtain certification of its operations under this chapter.
2. The cooperation of the reseller in resolving past deficiencies in conjunction with the application for re-certification.
3. The past conduct of the reseller during the period in which it operated without valid certification under this chapter.
4. The number and type of prior and pending consumer complaints against the reseller based upon violations of this chapter or regulations of any other governmental unit.
5. The impact of repayment, refund, or credit upon the financial viability of the reseller.
SECTION 3. PSC 168.09 (2) is amended to read:
PSC 168.09
(2)
Alternative telecommunications utility resellers having gross operating revenues derived from Wisconsin intrastate operations of $200,000 or more in a calendar year shall comply with and be subject to assessment as provided in ss.
196.85,
and 196.858
, and 196.859, Stats.
SECTION 4. PSC 168.13 (2) is renumbered 168.13 (2) (a) and amended to read:
PSC 168.13 (2) (a) If the commission has determined that grounds for revocation exist, the commission may commence a revocation proceeding by mailing to the affected reseller, at its last known address on file with the commission, a written notice of the reasons for the proposed revocation of certification under this section. Within 30 days of the mailing date of said notice, a reseller may file a written petition for continued certification. The petition shall contain a statement of any corrective action taken and state whether a hearing is requested or waived. Depending upon the information received, the commission may determine that the grounds for revocation have been remedied, proceed to revoke the reseller's certificate, or take other action as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Failure of a reseller to respond under this subsection shall result in revocation of certification without hearing.
SECTION 5. PSC 168.13 (2) (b) and (c) are created to read:
PSC 168.13 (2) (b) Within 30 days of the mailing date of said notice under par. (a), a reseller may file a written petition for continued certification. The petition shall contain a statement of any corrective action taken and state whether a hearing is requested or waived. file a written response that may contain one or more of the following:
1. A showing that one or more of the commission's reasons for revocation have been resolved or cured.
2. A showing that one or more of the commission's reasons may be resolved in a remedial compliance plan for which the reseller requests commission acceptance and deferral of certificate revocation.
3. An objection to the commission's reasons for revocation and a request for hearing.
(c) Depending upon the information received in the reseller's response, the commission may determine that the grounds for revocation have been remedied, proceed to revoke the reseller's certificate, or take other action as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Failure of a reseller to respond under this subsection shall result in revocation of certification without hearing.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin administrative register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.
Agency Contact Person
Questions regarding this matter should be directed to the docket coordinator, Gary A. Evenson, at (608) 266-6744. Small business questions may be directed to Gary A. Evenson at the foregoing telephone number, or
gary.evenson@wisconsin.gov. Media questions should be directed to Teresa Weidemann-Smith, Communications Specialist, Governmental and Public Affairs, at (608) 266-9600. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may also use the commission's TTY number; if calling from Wisconsin, dial (800) 251-8345; if calling from outside Wisconsin, dial (608) 267-1479.
