Remedial Alternative Selection.
These provisions would create two different paths for funding for sites. Through the use of a group of environmental factors, the risk of a site will be determined. Active treatment systems that use mechanical, engineered or chemical approaches would not be approved for a site without one or more environmental factor present. Approved treatments for sites without environmental factors would be limited to non-active approaches, excavation, remediation by natural attenuation and monitoring of the contamination. The five environmental factors are:
· A documented expansion of plume margin;
· A verified contaminant concentration in a private or public potable well that exceeds the preventive action limit established under ch. 160;
· Soil contamination within bedrock or within 1 meter of bedrock;
· Petroleum product, that is not in the dissolved phase, present with a thickness of .01 feet or more, and verified by more than one sampling event; and
· Documented contamination discharges to a surface water or wetland.
Reimbursement Provisions.
Several incentives are added to encourage owners and consultants to reduce costs whenever possible. Provisions are added for the bundling of services at multiple sites to achieve economy of scale and for using a public bidding process to reduce costs. In addition, owners are encouraged to conduct focused remediations that utilize all possible closure tools. To encourage this approach, if a site can be investigated and remedied to the point of closure for $80,000 or less, the consultant can complete the action without remedial alternative approvals or the risk of the site being bundled or put out for bidding. The consultant is provided additional freedom under the structure of the fund in order to facilitate remediation success. Special priority processing of these cost-effective remediations would also be provided.
Review of Existing Sites.
These changes give the Department more ability to redirect actions and impose cost saving measures for sites that are already undergoing remedial actions. Reevaluations including, the setting of cost caps would be done on sites chosen by the Department.
Pursuant to section 227.24, Stats., this rule is adopted as an emergency rule to take effect upon publication in the official state newspaper and filing with the Secretary of State and Revisor of Statutes.
Publication Date:
April 21, 1998
Effective Date:
April 21, 1998
Expiration Date:
September 18, 1998
Hearing Date:
May 29, 1998
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
Department of Commerce
(Building & Heating, etc., Chs. Comm/ILHR 50-64)
(Uniform Multifamily Dwellings, Ch. ILHR 66)
Rules adopted revising chs. Comm 51, ILHR 57 and 66, relating to commercial buildings and multifamily dwellings.
Finding of Emergency and Rule Analysis
The Department of Commerce finds that an emergency exists and that adoption of the rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety, and welfare.
The facts constituting the emergency are as follows. Under ss. 101.02 (15), 101.12, and 101.971 to 101.978, Stats., the Department protects public health, safety, and welfare by promulgating construction requirements for commercial and public buildings, including multifamily dwellings. Present requirements include methods for stopping fire in one area of a building from spreading to another area through service openings in walls, floors, and ceilings, such as penetrations for plumbing and electrical components. The methods that were specified have been shown to fail under fire testing conditions.
The proposed rule impacts all public buildings, which includes multifamily dwellings, and replaces the failed firestopping methods with techniques, materials, and methods that have been tested and nationally recognized. The rule essentially mandates use of tested and listed fire-stop systems for nearly all penetrations of every wall, floor, and ceiling that is required to provide area-separation protection consisting of either a fire-protective membrane or fire-resistive rated construction. The rule also clarifies some problematic, technical provisions that have resulted in confusion and unnecessary costs. Without the proposed rule revisions, firestopping methods that have been proven to be ineffective would still be allowed to be utilized, thereby putting public safety and health at risk.
Pursuant to s. 227.24, Stats., this rule is adopted as an emergency rule to take effect upon publication in the official state newspaper and filing with the Secretary of State and Revisor of Statutes.
Publication Date:
January 28, 1998
Effective Date:
January 28, 1998
Expiration Date:
June 27, 1998
Hearing Date:
March 11, 1998
Extension Through:
August 25, 1998
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
Commerce
(Barrier-Free Design, Ch. Comm 69)
Rule adopted creating s. Comm 69.18 (2) (a) 2. c., relating to vertical access to press box facilities.
Finding of Emergency and Rule Analysis
The Department of Commerce finds that an emergency exists and that the adoption of a rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, safety and welfare. The facts constituting the emergency are as follows:
Chapter Comm 69, establishes design and construction requirements for accessibility in all buildings and facilities. Chapter Comm 69 is based on the federal Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and Titles II and III of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. A number of public school districts are in the process of constructing press boxes at athletic fields. In accordance with both the federal and state rules, an elevator must be used to provide access to a press box. This requirement causes a serious financial hardship on the school districts, since the press boxes involved will be very small and will accommodate only a few people. The federal ADAAG standards are in the process of being revised to exempt state and local government buildings that are not open to the general public from providing elevator access to floor levels that are less than 500 square feet and accommodate less than 5 persons.
The Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) held a hearing on March 31, 1998 to receive public comments on the rules in chapter Comm 69 that requires vertical access to press box facilities. On May 6, 1998, the JCRAR held an executive session to consider this issue and has requested the agency to promulgate an emergency rule adopting the federal exemption for certain publicly controlled facilities, such as press boxes, from vertical access for people with disabilities. The emergency rule is to be promulgated no later than May 15, 1998.
The proposed rule eliminates the requirement that in government owned or operated buildings an elevator must be used to provide access to certain small areas with low capacity. The emergency rule benefits not only school districts, but other small state and local government buildings as well.
Publication Date:
May 15, 1998
Effective Date:
May 15, 1998
Expiration Date:
October 12, 1998
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
Department of Commerce
(Financial Resources for Businesses and Communities, Chs. Comm 105 to 128)
Rule adopted creating ch. Comm 110, relating to the Brownfields Grant Program.
Exemption From Finding of Emergency
On October 14, 1997, 1997 Wis. Act 27 took effect. That act created s. 560.13, Stats., which appropriated $5.0 million in funds for each of the state fiscal years of the biennium that can be distributed by the Department of Commerce in the form of grants for brownfields redevelopment or associated environmental remediation. The act requires the department to promulgate administrative criteria for issuing grants for brownfields redevelopment and associated environmental remediation, prescribing the amounts of grants that may be awarded, and including criteria for the awarding of grants on the basis of projects that promote economic development, positive effects on the environment, the total of and quality of the recipient's contribution to their project and innovative proposals for remediation and redevelopment. The act directs the department to promulgate an emergency rule to begin implementing the Brownfields Grant Program before permanent rules may be promulgated under ch. 227, Stats., and exempts the department from making a finding of emergency. This emergency rule was developed in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Administration.
Publication Date:
December 31, 1997
Effective Date:
December 31, 1997
Expiration Date:
May 30, 1998
Hearing Date:
February 12, 1998
Extension Through:
July 28, 1998
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT (2)
Department of Corrections
1. Rules adopted revising chs. DOC 328 and 332, relating to polygraph examinations for sex offenders.
Finding of Emergency
The Department of Corrections finds that an emergency exists and that rules included in this order are necessary for the immediate preservation of public safety. A statement of the facts constituting the emergency is: A recent session law, 1995 Wis. Act 440, created s. 301.132, Stats., which directs the department to establish a sex offender honesty testing program. Section 301.132, Stats., became effective June 1, 1997. Lie detector testing of probationers and parolees is recognized as an effective supervision tool for determining the nature and extent of deviant sexual behavior and developing appropriate intervention strategies. In addition, it is anticipated that testing will improve treatment outcomes by overcoming offender denial and by detecting behaviors that lead to re-offending.
The testing program cannot be implemented without rules. The permanent rule process has been started. However, the permanent rule process will take approximately nine months to complete. Emergency rules are necessary to implement the program for the safety of the public while permanent rules are being developed.
This order:
1. Creates definitions for offender, probation and parole agent, and lie detector examination process.
2. Adopts the statutory definitions of lie detector, polygraph, and sex offender.
3. Establishes the authority, purpose and applicability of the lie detector examination process.
4. Requires an offender who is a sex offender to submit to a lie detector test if required by the department.
5. Establishes criteria for the selection of offenders who are required to participate in the lie detector examination process.
6. Requires that the department provide notice to the offender who is required to participate in the lie detector examination process of the lie detector program requirements, instructions to complete any necessary questionnaires and of the date, time and location of the scheduled test.
7. Provides that an agent and an examiner shall determine the questions the offender may be asked during the lie detector examination process.
8. Allows an agent to consult with a treatment provider regarding the questions the offender may be asked during the lie detector examination process.
9. Provides that the department may administer the lie detector tests or contract with an outside vendor to administer the tests.
10. Provides for sanctions if a sex offender refuses to participate in the lie detector examination process.
11. Provides that an offender's probation or parole may not be revoked based solely on a finding of deception as disclosed by a lie detector test.
12. Identifies the circumstances under which the department may disclose information regarding the lie detector tests or the information derived from the lie detector examination process.
13. Provides that the department may not use the lie detector examination process as a method of punishment or sanction.
14. Provides that an offender shall pay the costs of the lie detector test and a $5.00 administrative fee with each payment. The cost of the lie detector test may vary depending on the type of test used.
15. Establishes procedures for the collection of lie detector fees.
16. Provides for sanctions for an offender's failure to pay the lie detector fees.
17. Provides the criteria for lie detector fee deferrals.
18. Provides for the reporting and notice to the offender when payment of lie detector fees is not received.
The order provides for including the rules for the lie detector program in the same chapter of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, ch. DOC 332, as the rules for registration and community notification of sex offenders, which were published as emergency rules on June 1, 1997.
Publication Date:
December 15, 1997
Effective Date:
December 15, 1997
Expiration Date:
May 14, 1998
Hearing Date:
March 16, 1998
Extension Through:
July 12, 1998
2. Rule adopted amending s. DOC 328.22 (5), relating to custody and detention of felony probationers and parolees.
Finding of Emergency
The Department of Corrections finds that an emergency exists and that a rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public safety. A statement of the facts constituting the emergency is: the Milwaukee County Jail has experienced severe overcrowding. The Department of Corrections and the Milwaukee County Sheriff have worked cooperatively to alleviate the crowded conditions that continue to prevail. This rule amendment will serve the purpose of further alleviating overcrowding by allowing any felony probationer to be detained in a Department of Corrections institution. Presently, only felony probationers with imposed and stayed sentences may be detained in a Department facility.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court rule in Sullivan v. Kliesmet, that the Sheriff of Milwaukee may refuse to accept Department of Corrections detainees when severe overcrowding results in dangerous conditions. The Supreme Court delayed the effective date of the Kliesmet decision one year or until June 25, 1998.
