Register

(2) Under s. 100.06, Stats., and ch. ATCP 100, a dairy plant operator who purchases milk from producers must do one of the following:

(a) File with the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection (“department”) audited financial statements which show that the operator meets minimum financial standards established by s. 100.06, Stats.

(b) File security with the department in an amount equal to at least 75% of the operator's ”maximum liability to producers,” as calculated under s. ATCP 100.45(5).

(c) Enter into a dairy plant trusteeship under ch. ATCP 100, Subch. V.

(3) Under s. ATCP 100.45(5), a dairy plant operator's “maximum liability to producers” is based on the plant operator's largest monthly purchase of milk during the preceding license year. Milk prices hit all time record highs in 1998, dramatically increasing monthly dairy plant payrolls. Security requirements for the 1999 license year are currently based on these inflated 1998 monthly payrolls, even though 1999 monthly payrolls have dropped dramatically in response to price changes.

(4) Since December 1998, the average market price for raw milk has fallen by approximately 40%. Dairy economists expect BFP average prices to remain at least 12% to 16.2% below last year's average during 1999. Because of the dramatic decline in milk prices, dairy plants have smaller producer payroll obligations than they had in 1998.

(5) Prices received by Wisconsin dairy plants for processed dairy products have also fallen dramatically since December. This has created serious financial hardships for some dairy plants.

(6) Current security requirements, based on 1998 producer prices and payrolls, are excessive in relation to current payroll obligations and impose an added financial burden on dairy plants. Current security requirements under s. ATCP 100.45(5), based on last year's prices, are at least 31 to 48% higher than they would be if calculated at current prices.

(7) Because of the dramatic decline in dairy prices, some dairy plant operators are required to file large amounts of additional security, often amounting to millions of dollars. This is a major expense for affected operators. Operators may find it difficult, financially, to obtain and file the required security. If a dairy plant is unable to file the required security in connection with the May 1, 1999 license renewal, the department will forced to take action against the dairy plant's license. This could result in the forced closing of some unsecured dairy plants. The forced closing of an unsecured plant may, in turn, result in serious financial losses to producer patrons.

(8) By requiring excessive security based on last year's prices, current rules are making it unnecessarily difficult and expensive for dairy plants to obtain and file security. This could contribute to the financial failure of some dairy plants, or to the forced closing of some unsecured plants. Dairy plant financial failures or closings, if they occur, may cause serious and widespread financial injury to milk producers in this state. This constitutes a serious and imminent threat to the public welfare.

(9) In order to reduce the risk of dairy plant financial failures or forced closings, rule amendments are urgently needed to adjust dairy plant security requirements to appropriate levels based on current milk prices. The rule amendments will relieve financially stressed dairy plants from unnecessary financial burdens and will make it easier for those dairy plants to file security with the department. That, in turn, will reduce the risk of dairy plant financial failures, or the forced closing of unsecured plants, which may adversely affect milk producers.

(10) Rule amendments, to be effective, must be promulgated prior to the dairy plant license year beginning May 1, 1999. That is not possible under normal rulemaking procedures. Therefore, the following emergency rule is needed to protect the public welfare.

(11) Should milk prices rise beyond the levels currently anticipated for the license year beginning May 1, 1999, so that security filed under this emergency rule is less than 75% of a dairy plant operator's current monthly producer payroll, the operator is required to notify the department of that fact under s. 100.06, Stats., and s. ATCP 100.20(3). The department may demand additional security at that time.

Publication Date:   April 20, 1999

Effective Date:   May 1, 1999

Expiration Date:   September 28, 1999

EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT

Commerce

(Flammable & Combustible Liquids, Ch. Comm10)

Rules adopted revising ch. Comm 10, relating to regulation of flammable and combustible liquids.

Finding of Emergency

The Department of Commerce finds that an emergency exists and that adoption of a rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety, welfare and the environment.

The facts constituting the emergency are as follows. Under ss. 101.09, 101.142 and101.144, Stats., the Department protects public health, safety, welfare and the environment by promulgating rules for and administering the regulation of petroleum product storage tank systems and the storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids. The purpose of the regulatory effort is to guarantee that storage tank systems and their contents are managed in a manner that is protective of life safety and the environment.

On December 22, 1998, a ten-year upgrade deadline comes to an end, and all tank systems falling under the United States Environmental Protection Agency's rules are required to have been upgraded to comply with new and environmentally protective construction standards. After the final compliance date, the Department and its contracted agents will conduct inspections to guarantee that tank systems which are not in compliance have been shut down in accordance with state and federal rules. In those instances where owners or operators have not complied with the upgrade or shutdown requirements, immediate action must be taken to either prevent the tank systems from continuing to be used or prevent the delivery of additional petroleum product to the systems.

The shut down of noncomplying tank systems is a core environmental and financial issue. The tank systems that are not in compliance pose a continuing high-risk threat to the environment, and delay in action will continue an unnecessary environmental hazard. Additionally, new releases from these non-upgraded tank systems will add to the financial burden of the PECFA program, which is significantly over-subscribed. The rule included with this order is in response to environmental issues associated with non-upgraded tank systems.

Publication Date:   December 11, 1998

Effective Date:   December 11, 1998

Expiration Date:   May 10, 1999

Hearing Date:   March 3, 1999

Extension Through:   September 6, 1999

EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT

Commerce & Natural Resources

(Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Interagency Responsibilities, Ch. Comm 46)

Rules adopted revising ch. Comm 46, relating to the Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Interagency Responsibilities.

Finding of Emergency

The Department of Commerce finds that an emergency exists and that adoption of the rule included in this order is necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety, and welfare.

The facts constituting the emergency are as follows. Under sections 101.143 and 101.144, Wisconsin Statutes, the Department protects public health, safety, and welfare by promulgating rules for and administering the Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund (PECFA Fund). The purpose of the fund is to reimburse property owners for eligible costs incurred because of a petroleum product discharge from a storage system or home oil tank system. In administering this fund, the Department has relied upon a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Natural Resources for classifying contaminated sites, disbursing funds, and addressing other statements of policy that affect the two Departments.

On September 17, 1998, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules adopted a motion pursuant to s. 227.26(2)(b), Stats., that directed the Department and the Department of Natural Resources to jointly adopt the above portions of the Memorandum of Understanding and related policy issues as an Emergency Rule. An emergency rule in response to that directive was then adopted by the two Departments and became effective on January 1, 1999. Subsequently, further improvements for jointly administering the PECFA fund were developed that were consistent with the JCRAR directive, and were adopted by the two Departments in an emergency rule which replaced the initial emergency rule. That second emergency rule became effective on February 23, 1999. Now, significant additional changes have again been developed, which are also consistent with the JCRAR directive.

Chapter Comm 46 defines “high priority site,” “medium priority site, ” and “low priority site,” and provides that the Department of Natural Resources has authority for high priority sites and that the Department of Commerce has authority for low and medium priority sites. The rule requires transfer of authority for sites with petroleum contamination in the groundwater below the enforcement standard in ch. NR 140 from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Commerce. The rule also establishes procedures for transferring sites from one agency to the other when information relevant to the site classification becomes available.

Chapter Comm 46 requires the two agencies to work cooperatively to develop the following:

1.   A system of joint decision-making for the selection of remedial bids and the setting of remediation targets for sites which are competitively bid or bundled with another site or sites.

2.   An agreed-upon methodology for determining if there is evidence of an expanding plume and the actions to take if the data provided through the site investigation is not adequate.

3.   A process for taking into account the impact of error of measurement, repeatability of results and statistical significance, when determining whether a site is above or below the enforcement standard or any other contaminant level or target.

4.   A system for electronically tracking the achievement of remediation targets.

5.   A reconciled list of sites in remediation.

Publication Date:   July 10, 1999

Effective Date:   July 10, 1999

Expiration Date:   December 7, 1999

EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT (2)

Commerce

(Financial Resources for Communities,
Chs. Comm 105 to 128)

1. Rules adopted revising ch. Comm 113, relating to the annual allocation of volume cap on tax-exempt private activity bonds.

Finding of Emergency & 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 health, safety and welfare.

Several areas in the State of Wisconsin have recently experienced severe economic distress due to large plant closings which have put hundreds of Wisconsin residents out of work. As a result of two large paper mills being shut down a year ago, 1997 Wisconsin Act 237 created s. 560.147, Stats., authorizing the Rapid Response Fund within the Wisconsin Development Fund. The fund is part of the Rapid Response Initiative, which assists areas affected by these and future closings. Commerce is now proposing as part of this initiative a Rapid Response Set Aside within the volume cap allocation process which will enable businesses in these distressed areas to obtain the financing they need to make the necessary capital investments to create and retain jobs. Several projects are pending in that need this change in order to move forward with their plans. Allocation of volume cap is in highest demand in the spring and summer due to the construction cycle. The Rapid Response set-aside must be in place as soon as possible in order for projects to receive allocation and begin construction as soon as possible. Jobs cannot be created or retained until projects go forward.

Publication Date:   February 17, 1999

Effective Date:   February 17, 1999

Expiration Date:   July 17, 1999

Hearing Date:   April 12, 1999

Extension Through:   September 14, 1999

2.   Rules adopted creating ch. Comm 112, relating to the Wisconsin Development Zone Program.

Finding of Emergency

The Department of Commerce finds that an emergency exists and that the adoption of a rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety and welfare.

Pursuant to ss. 560.70 to 560.797, Stats., the Department of Commerce is responsible for administering Wisconsin Development Zone Program. These rules are being adopted to incorporate in the administrative code the recent amendments contained in 1997 Wis. Act 27 that entirely changed the eligibility and the criteria for certified development zone businesses and the process for the verification and the claiming of tax credits. Section 560.785, Stats., directs the Department of Commerce to develop rules and exceptions to those rules concerning the eligibility for tax benefits. After a review and evaluation of all the certified businesses and their projects a number of exceptions have been identified in order to meet the needs of different areas of the state and to fulfill our commitments to businesses that were made prior to this legislation. In order to process claims for tax years beginning on or after January, 1, 1998, these rules must be made available immediately.

Publication Date:   February 25, 1999

Effective Date:   February 25, 1999

Expiration Date:   July 25, 1999

Hearing Date:   May 12, 1999

Extension Through:   September 22, 1999

EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT

Employment Relations Commission

Rules adopted revising ch. ERC 33, Appendix C, relating to the calculation of a minimum qualified economic offer in collective bargaining with professional school district employes.

Finding of Emergency

We find that it is necessary to promulgate the amendment to ch. ERC 33, Appendix C as an emergency rule to preserve the public peace, health, safety and welfare. Without the amendment, the timely and peaceful resolution of collective bargaining disputes in Wisconsin will be endangered.

Publication Date:   June 12, 1999

Effective Date:   June 12, 1999

Expiration Date:   November 9, 1999

EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT

Financial Institutions

(Division of Securities)

Rules adopted creating s. DFI-Sec 2.01(1)(c)6 and (d)6., relating to designating alternative accounting guidelines for the preparation of financial statements for certain governmental issuers of securities.

Finding of Emergency

The Division of Securities of the Department of Financial Institutions for the State of Wisconsin finds that an emergency exists and that rules are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or welfare. A statement of the facts constituting the emergency follows.

These emergency rules are necessitated by a new accounting guideline relating to disclosures about Year 2000* issues applicable to the preparation of financial statements for governmental issuers of securities as required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board Technical Bulletin 98-1, Disclosures about Year 2000 Issues (“GASB TB 98-1”, or “Guideline”). The existence of this issue and the need for emergency rule treatment to assist governmental issuers was brought to the attention of the Division by representatives of Wisconsin public accounting groups and Wisconsin bond attorneys who recently learned about a Report by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants regarding GASB TB 98-1.

As a result of that Report (and as particularized below) many Wisconsin governmental issuers would have the audit opinions for their financial statements for years ending after October, 1998, qualified with respect to disclosures about Year 2000 issues. Thus beginning in approximately March and April of 1999 and continuing through the accounting period ending 12/31/99, that new accounting Guideline will adversely impact the ability of Wisconsin and other state and local governmental securities issuers to continue to use on an “automatic”/self-executing basis, the existing securities registration exemption in s. 551.22(1)(a) of the Wisconsin Securities Law to offer and sell their debt securities to public investors in Wisconsin.

Over the years and to date, Wisconsin and other state and local governmental securities issuers having “full-GAAP” financial statements (e.g. prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles) have been able to sell their debt securities to Wisconsin public investors in reliance on automatic use of the registration exemption in s. 551.22(1)(a), Wis. Stats., without the need for any exemption or other filing with the Division.

GASB TB 98-1 requires footnote disclosure of Year 2000 information regarding a governmental issuer's preparedness in terms of making its systems and equipment Year 2000 compliant. GASB TB 98-1 applies to financial statements dated October 31, 1998, and terminates for financial statements issued for purposes of the accounting period ending December 31, 1999, unless systems and equipment are not Year 2000 compliant as of the balance sheet date. In response to GASB TB 98-1, members of the Auditing Standards Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) issued a Report under the title “AICPA Illustrative Reporting Guidance on Year 2000 Disclosures Made Under GASB TB 98-1, Issued October 22, 1998.” That Report raised the concern that in light of the unprecedented nature of the Year 2000 issue, the required disclosures will be neither ascertainable by management nor verifiable by auditors. As a result, the AICPA strongly recommended that auditors issue qualified opinions (scope limitations) with respect to such Year 2000 issue disclosures.

Consequently, all Wisconsin and other governmental securities issuers whose financial statements would contain such qualified opinions, would not meet (in the absence of the emergency rules) the “full-GAAP” financial statement requirement for automatic use of the registration exemption in 551.22(1)(a), Wis. Stats. Thus, such issuers would either have to go through a regulatory filing and review procedure with the Division prior to each offering, or would have to restrict the initial offering to securities law provisions that would preclude underwriters from reoffering those securities to investors in the primary and secondary markets.

In the absence of the emergency rules, governmental securities issuers would be adversely affected by the costs of making securities filings with their attendant delays. Also, even though Year 2000 issues equivalently affect private corporate issuers of securities, because there is no counterpart to GASB TB 98-1 within the standards promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board applicable to private corporate securities issuers, the additional costs and filing delays would be singularly borne by governmental securities issuers (if the emergency rules were not adopted).