These proposed rules will be reviewed by the Department through its Small Business Review Advisory Committee to determine whether there will be an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Copies of Rule & Contact Person
Copies of this proposed rule are available without cost upon request to:
Pamela Haack, (608) 266-0495
Office of Administrative Rules
Dept. of Regulation & Licensing
1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171
P.O. Box 8935
Madison, WI 53708
University of Wisconsin System
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to ss. 36.11 (1) (c) and 227.16, Stats., the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider amendments to ss. UWS 18.02 and 18.06 (1), Wis. Adm. Code, relating to conduct on university lands.
Hearing Information
May 9, 1996 Room 1820 Van Hise Hall
Thursday 1220 Linden Drive
At 1:00 p.m. Madison, WI
Analysis Prepared by UW System
The revisions to ss. UWS 18.02 and 18.06 (1), Wis. Adm. Code, are proposed to clarify the university's authority to prohibit and control the discharge of pollutants to its storm sewer systems. The 1987 amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act, together with implementing state statutes (s. 147.021, Stats.) and administrative rules (ch. NR 216, Wis. Adm. Code), require the issuance of storm water discharge permits for certain municipal storm sewer systems, sites of industrial activity, and construction sites. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for implementing these provisions, and for the issuance of permits. UW-Madison is currently subject to the permit requirement, and other university campuses operating storm sewer systems may become subject to the requirement in future.
In order for UW-Madison and other UW System institutions to obtain a required permit, the university must demonstrate that it has adequate legal authority to prohibit and control unauthorized discharges to its storm sewer system. The proposed amendments in ch. UWS 18 clarify that the discharge of pollutants to storm water or storm sewers on university lands is prohibited.
Summary of Rules
The proposed amendment to s. UWS 18.06 (1), Wis. Adm. Code, adds language specifically prohibiting the discharge of pollutants to storm water or storm sewers on or serving university lands. In addition, s. UWS 18.02, Wis. Adm. Code, creates definitions for the terms “discharge pollutants to storm water,” “discharge pollutants into storm sewers” and “pollutants” that are consistent with DNR definitions. The inclusion of these changes in ch. UWS 18, Wis. Adm. Code, will make clear that the university has the power to prosecute illegal storm water or storm sewer discharges on university lands. Enforcement will occur through the forfeiture and citation procedures of s. UWS 18.07 and s. 778.25, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules have no fiscal effect. They have no effect on small businesses.
Copies of the Rules
A copy of the proposed rules and the full fiscal estimate may be obtained at no charge from:
Secretary of the Board of Regents
University of Wisconsin System
1860 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Contact People
Patricia A. Brady, (608) 262-6497
1744 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI
Judith A. Temby, (608) 262-2324
1860 Van Hise Hall
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI
E m e r g e n c y R u l e s N o w I n E f f e c t
Under s. 227.24, Stats., state agencies may promulgate rules without complying with the usual rule-making procedures. Using this special procedure to issue emergency rules, an agency must find that either the preservation of the public peace, health, safety or welfare necessitates its action in bypassing normal rule-making procedures.
Emergency rules are published in the official state newspaper, which is currently the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Emergency rules are in effect for 150 days and can be extended up to an additional 120 days with no single extension to exceed 60 days.
Extension of the effective period of an emergency rule is granted at the discretion of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules under s. 227.24 (2), Stats.
Notice of all emergency rules which are in effect must be printed in the Wisconsin Administrative Register. This notice will contain a brief description of the emergency rule, the agency finding of emergency, date of publication, the effective and expiration dates, any extension of the effective period of the emergency rule and information regarding public hearings on the emergency rule.
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection
Rules were adopted amending ch. ATCP 100 (note) and creating s. ATCP 100.76 (3m) and subchapter VI of ch. ATCP 100, relating to price discrimination in milk procurement.
FINDING OF EMERGENCY
1) Each year, Wisconsin's approximately 27,000 dairy farmers sell approximately $3 billion worth of milk to dairy plant operators. Milk sales represent the primary or exclusive source of income for thousands of Wisconsin farm families.
2) Currently, many dairy plant operators appear to be discriminating between milk producers in the amount paid for milk. Many operators appear to be paying higher prices to large producers which cannot be fully justified on the basis of milk quality or differences in procurement cost. Discrimination in milk prices may injure small milk producers and competing dairy plant operators, and may contribute to unwarranted concentration in the dairy industry.
3) Recently, discrimination in milk prices has reached historic highs, with some dairy plants paying volume premiums of up to 70 cents to 90 cents per hundredweight. In order to pay volume premiums at this level, a dairy plant operator must reduce the price paid to other producers. This affects the livelihood of many smaller milk producers, and may affect their ability to continue farming.
4) The state of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection is responsible for enforcing s. 100.22, Stats., which prohibits dairy plant operators from discriminating between milk producers in the prices paid to those producers. However, a dairy plant operator may defend a discrimination in prices if the operator can prove that the discrimination is based on differences in milk quality, is justified on the basis of differences in procurement costs, or is justified in order to meet competition.
5) The Department recently completed a survey of dairy plant pricing programs. The Department presented the survey results to the Board of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection on November 14, 1994. The survey suggests that many dairy plant operators are paying discriminatory prices which cannot be justified on the basis of differences in milk quality or procurement costs. Many of the surveyed dairy plant operators claimed that their discriminatory prices were justified in order to meet prices offered by competitors. Many operators stated that they were willing to reduce their discriminatory payments to levels that could be cost-justified if their competitors would do the same. But compliance by an individual dairy plant operator may put that operator in an untenable competitive position unless the operator's competitors also comply.
6) Enforcement of s. 100.22, Stats., is hampered by the lack of clear standards in the law. For example, there are no clear standards of cost-justification or “meeting competition.” Currently, there are no rules interpreting s. 100.22, Stats. Clarifying rules would facilitate compliance and enforcement.
7) Effective January 1, 1996, federal milk marketing orders will be modified to incorporate a new system of milk component pricing. Dairy plant operators will be making changes to their payment schedules and computer programs in order to implement the new component pricing system. Although the marketing order changes do not address the issue of discrimination in milk pricing, they provide an opportunity for all dairy plant operators to modify their pay programs to comply with s. 100.22, Stats. Simultaneous compliance by dairy plant operators would minimize competitive losses by individual dairy plant operators who choose to comply.
8) In order to promote prompt and effective compliance with s. 100.22, Stats., and to minimize continuing harm to dairy plant operators and smaller milk producers, it is necessary to adopt rules interpreting s. 100.22, Stats., before January 1, 1996. Failure to adopt rules by January 1, 1996 will reduce the chance of securing industry-wide compliance with s. 100.22, Stats., and may therefore result in continuing harm to milk producers and competition.
9) The Department cannot adopt interpretive rules by normal rulemaking procedures by January 1, 1996. Pending the adoption of rules by normal rulemaking procedures, it is therefore necessary to adopt emergency rules to protect the public welfare.
Publication Date:
January 1, 1996
Effective Date:
January 1, 1996
Expiration Date:
May 30, 1996
Hearing Date:
February 1, 1996
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
Department of Corrections
Rules were adopted revising ch. DOC 328, relating to the procedure and timing for collecting fees charged for supervision.
EXEMPTION FROM FINDING OF EMERGENCY
In section 6360 in 1995 Wis. Act 27, the Legislature directed the Department to promulgate rules required under ss. 304.073 (3) and 304.074 (5), Stats., for supervision fees charged to probationers and parolees, by using the emergency rule-making procedures under s. 227.24, Stats., but without having to make a finding of emergency. These rules will remain in effect until replaced by permanent rules.
ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
This rule-making order implements ss. 301.08 (1) (c), 304.073 and 304.074, Stats., establishing the procedure and timing for collecting fees charged for supervision.
Currently, offenders on probation or parole pay no supervision fee. Through this emergency rule making order, the Department will charge offenders on probation and parole a supervision fee. Offenders under administrative or minimum supervision and supervised by the Department will pay a fee sufficient to cover the cost of supervision. Offenders under medium, maximum, or high risk supervision will pay a supervision fee based on the ability to pay.
These rules exempt an offender who is supervised by another state under an interstate compact from paying a Wisconsin supervision fee. An offender who is serving a concurrent sentence of prison and probation or parole is not required to pay the supervision fee while in prison.
These rules authorize the Department to contract with a vendor to provide monitoring of an offender. Offenders who are on monitoring are required to pay a fee sufficient to cover the cost of monitoring, supervision by the Department and cost of administering the contract.
These rules require the Department to establish the rate for supervision and monitoring fees and to provide the offender with the supervision fee schedule.
These rules require offenders to comply with the procedures of the Department or vendor for payment of the supervision or monitoring fee. These rules require the Department to provide the offender with a copy of the procedures for paying the supervision or monitoring fee. These rules permit an offender to pay the supervision fee in monthly installments or in a lump sum.
These rules permit the Department to take certain action for the offender's failure to pay the supervision or monitoring fee. The actions include counseling, wage assignments, review of supervision level, recommendation for revocation of probation or parole and any other appropriate means of obtaining the supervision or monitoring fee.
Publication Date:
December 21, 1995
Effective Date:
January 1, 1996
Expiration Date:
May 30, 1996
Hearing Dates:
February 13, 16 & 22, 1996
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
