Rule-Making Notices
Notice of Hearing
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) announces that it will hold a public hearing on an emergency rule to amend Chapter
ATCP 10, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to diseases of fish and farm raised deer.
Hearing Date and Location
August 1, 2008 - Friday
1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
2811 Agriculture Drive
First Floor – Room 106 (Boardroom)
Madison, Wisconsin 53718
Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for these hearings. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by July 18, 2008, by writing to Melissa Mace, Division of Animal Health, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone (608) 224-4883. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at (608) 224-5058. Handicap access is available at the hearings.
Copies of Proposed Rule
You may obtain a free copy of this rule by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Animal Health, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling (608) 224-4883 or emailing
Melissa.mace@wi.gov. Copies will also be available at the hearings. To view the proposed rule online, go to:
Submission of Written Comments
DATCP invites the public to attend the hearing and comment on the emergency rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until Friday, August 8, 2008 for additional written comments. Comments may be sent to the Division of Animal Health at the address above, by email to
Melissa.mace@wi.gov or online at
https://apps4.dhfs.state.wi.us/admrules/public/Home
To provide comments or concerns relating to small business, please contact DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, by emailing to
Keeley.Moll@datcp.state.wi.us or by telephone at (608) 224-5039.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP") administers Wisconsin's animal health and disease control programs, including programs to control diseases among fish and farm-raised deer. DATCP regulates fish farms, including fish farms operated by the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR"), and regulates the import, movement and disease testing of fish. DATCP also regulates farm-raised deer herds and the import, movement and disease testing of farm-raised deer.
This emergency rule modifies current health certification and disease testing requirements for fish and farm-raised deer. DATCP adopted an initial emergency rule on these issues on October 31, 2007, pending the adoption of a “permanent" rule. The first emergency rule expired on May 28, 2008. A second emergency rule is necessary, because the proposed “permanent" rule is not yet in effect.
This second emergency rule is similar but not identical to the initial emergency rule. Among other things, this rule creates a limited exemption from VHS testing requirements when fish or fish eggs are reintroduced to the same water body from which they were collected, for the purpose of increasing or rehabilitating a desirable sport fish population. The reintroduction must be approved by DNR and DATCP.
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
DATCP has broad general authority, under s.
93.07(1), Stats., to adopt rules interpreting statutes under its jurisdiction. DATCP also has broad authority under s.
93.07(10), Stats., to adopt rules and issue orders to protect the health of animals, and to prevent, control and eradicate communicable diseases among animals. DATCP has specific authority, under ss.
95.55 and
95.60, Stats., to regulate farm-raised deer and fish.
Under s.
227.24, Stats., DATCP may adopt a temporary emergency rule, pending the adoption of “permanent" rules, if preservation of the public peace, health, safety or welfare makes it necessary to put the rule into effect before the “permanent" rule can take effect.
Rule content
Overview
This emergency rule does all of the following.
•
Adds new viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) testing requirements for all of the following fish and fish eggs if they are of a known VHS-susceptible species and were either (1) collected from a wild source within the preceding 12 months, or (2) kept on a fish farm that received fish or eggs of any species collected from a wild source within the preceding 12 months:
• Fish or fish eggs stocked into Wisconsin public waters. This rule provides a limited exemption for fish or fish eggs that are reintroduced to the same water body from which they were collected (see below).
• Fish moved from Wisconsin fish farms, unless they are moving to a retail food establishment or restaurant, or between fish farms registered by the same person.
• Fish distributed by a bait dealer for use as bait. This rule also prohibits any person from selling bait fish if the seller has reason to know that the bait fish are affected with VHS or another reportable disease.
•
This rule provides a limited exemption from VHS and other disease testing requirements for fish or fish eggs that are reintroduced to the same water body from which they were collected, provided that all of the following apply (a veterinarian or fish health inspector must still issue a fish health certificate based on a visual examination):
• DATCP and DNR approve the reintroduction.
• The fish or fish eggs are not commingled with fish or fish eggs from any other water source.
• The fish or fish eggs are reintroduced into the same lake from which they were collected, or at the same point or a downstream point in the same river system from which they were collected.
• The fish or fish eggs are reintroduced within 30 days after they are collected, or within 30 days after the fish eggs hatch, whichever is later.
• The fish or fish eggs are reintroduced for the purpose of increasing or rehabilitating the population of a desirable sport fishing species.
•
Clarifies that VHS and other routine fish disease testing requirements do not apply when fish farm operators (including DNR) move fish or fish eggs between Wisconsin fish farms registered by the same operator. Current rules will continue to prohibit an operator from moving fish between the operator's registered fish farms if the operator has reason to know that the fish are affected with VHS or another reportable disease.
•
Provides that a fish health certificate covering a fish farm or fish shipment is automatically voided if fish or fish eggs not covered by a valid fish health certificate are added to the covered fish farm or fish shipment.
•
Extends brucellosis-free certification of farm-raised deer herds, from 2 years to 3 years, consistent with tuberculosis-free herd certification. That allows participating herd owners to conduct simultaneous tests for both diseases.
•
Reduces the number of whole herd tests required to certify a farm-raised deer herd as a brucellosis-free herd, from 3 whole herd tests to 2 whole herd tests, consistent with tuberculosis-free herd certification.
Disease Testing of Fish
Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia
VHS is a serious disease of fish. VHS was first reported in Wisconsin on May 11, 2007, after the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory confirmed positive samples from freshwater drum (sheepshead) in Little Lake Butte des Mortes (part of the Lake Winnebago system). VHS was subsequently found in Lake Winnebago, and in Lake Michigan near Green Bay and Algoma and Milwaukee. The source of VHS in these wild water bodies is not known. VHS has not yet been reported in any Wisconsin fish farms.
Current DATCP rules require health certificates for (1) fish and fish eggs (including bait) imported into the state, (2) fish and fish eggs stocked into Wisconsin public waters, and (3) fish and fish eggs moved between Wisconsin fish farms. Import health certificates must include VHS testing if the import shipment includes salmonids (salmon, trout, etc.) or originates from a state or province where VHS is known to occur. VHS testing is not currently required for any of the following:
•
Fish or fish eggs stocked into Wisconsin public waters from Wisconsin sources.
•
Bait fish or fish eggs originating from Wisconsin sources.
•
Fish or fish eggs moved between
Wisconsin fish farms.
•
Non-salmonids imported from states (such as Minnesota) where VHS has not yet been found.
Because VHS has now been found in Wisconsin public waters, it is necessary to expand current VHS testing requirements. Because of the urgent need to minimize the spread of VHS in this state, it is necessary to add VHS testing requirements by emergency rule, pending the adoption of a “permanent" rule.
This emergency rule expands current VHS testing requirements. Under this emergency rule, a fish health certificate and VHS testing are required for all of the following fish and fish eggs if they are of a known VHS-susceptible species identified by the United States department of agriculture (USDA) and were either (1) collected from a wild source in any state within the preceding 12 months, or (2) kept on a fish farm that received fish or fish eggs of any species collected from a wild source in any state within the preceding 12 months:
•
Fish or fish eggs stocked into Wisconsin public waters. There is a limited exemption (see below) for fish or fish eggs reintroduced to the same water body from which they are collected.
•
Fish moved from Wisconsin fish farms, unless they are moved to a retail food establishment or restaurant, or between fish farms registered by the same person.
•
Fish or fish eggs distributed by a bait dealer for use as bait. The bait fish testing requirement will initially apply to emerald shiners (a known VHS-susceptible species), but will not initially apply to other major bait species such as fathead minnows, white suckers and golden shiners (which are not yet known to be VHS-susceptible). However, it could eventually apply to other species if USDA finds that those species are also VHS-susceptible. A retail bait dealer is not required to conduct duplicate tests on fish previously tested by a wholesale bait dealer.
This emergency rule also does the following:
•
Prohibits any person from selling bait fish of any kind if the seller has reason to know that the bait is affected with VHS or another reportable disease.
•
Provides that a fish health certificate covering a fish farm or fish shipment becomes immediately void if fish or fish eggs not covered by a valid fish health certificate are added to the covered fish farm or fish shipment.
Reintroducing Fish to Waters of the State
Under this rule, fish or fish eggs reintroduced to the same public water body from which they are collected are exempt from VHS and other disease testing requirements if all of the following apply (a veterinarian or fish health inspector must still issue fish health certificate based on a visual examination):
•
DATCP issues a permit for the reintroduction.
•
DNR approves the collection and reintroduction.
•
The fish or fish eggs are not commingled with fish or fish eggs from any other water source.
•
The fish or fish eggs are reintroduced into the same lake from which they were collected, or at the same point or a downstream point in the same river system from which they were collected.
•
The fish or fish eggs are reintroduced within 30 days after they are collected, or within 30 days after the fish eggs hatch, whichever is later.
•
The fish or fish eggs are reintroduced for the purpose of increasing or rehabilitating the population of a desirable sport fishing species.
Operators Moving Fish Between Their Own Fish Farms
This emergency rule clarifies that VHS and other routine disease testing requirements do not apply when fish farm operators (including DNR) are moving fish or fish eggs between their own registered fish farms. However, current DATCP rules continue to prohibit such movement if the operator knows or has reason to know that the fish or fish eggs are affected with a reportable disease such as VHS. DATCP may also issue quarantine and other disease control orders to individual fish farm operators, as necessary.
Disease-Free Certification of Farm-Raised Deer
Certification Period
Under current rules, DATCP may certify a herd of farm-raised deer as brucellosis-free or tuberculosis-free, or both, based on herd test results provided by the herd owner. Participation is voluntary, but disease-free herd certification facilitates the sale and movement of farm-raised deer. Herd certification is generally governed by federal rules (uniform methods and rules) that DATCP has incorporated by reference in its rules.
Under current federal rules, tuberculosis-free herd certification is good for 3 years, while brucellosis-free herd certification is good for only 2 years. USDA proposes to harmonize the certification terms, but has not yet adopted the necessary rule changes. USDA has authorized DATCP to harmonize the terms in Wisconsin by state rule.
This emergency rule extends brucellosis-free herd certification from 2 years to 3 years (a herd owner may request a shorter term), consistent with tuberculosis-free herd certification. That will allow herd owners to conduct simultaneous tests for both diseases. Simultaneous testing will reduce testing costs and limit stress on tested deer.
Testing for Certification
Under current federal rules, 2 whole herd tests are required in order to certify a farm-raised deer herd as a tuberculosis-free herd, while 3 whole herd tests are required in order to certify a farm-raised deer herd as a brucellosis-free herd. USDA proposes to harmonize the testing requirements, but has not yet adopted the necessary rule changes. USDA has authorized DATCP to harmonize the testing requirements in Wisconsin by state rule.
This emergency rule reduces the number of whole herd tests required in order to certify a farm-raised deer herd as a brucellosis-free herd, from 3 whole herd tests to 2 whole herd tests, consistent with the testing requirement for tuberculosis-free herd certification.
Comparison with federal regulations
DATCP administers animal disease control programs in cooperation with USDA. USDA has issued federal orders in response to the discovery of VHS in the United States and Canada. The orders limit interstate and international shipments of VHS-susceptible fish from states and provinces that border the Great Lakes, and require negative VHS testing to permit movement. This rule supplements current federal rules by establishing testing requirements for intrastate movement and stocking of wild source fish and fish eggs (including bait species) in Wisconsin.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Michigan and Minnesota require VHS testing on salmonids stocked into state waters. On June 7, 2007, Michigan also announced a one-year moratorium on state hatchery production of walleye, northern pike and muskellunge using eggs collected from wild sources in Michigan during 2007. Illinois and Iowa have no VHS testing requirements for intrastate movement or stocking of fish.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Disease Testing of Fish
Effect on private fish farm operators
DATCP estimates that this rule will affect 30-40 private fish farms, not counting DNR “cooperator" fish farms registered by DNR (see above). Many of the affected fish farms are “small businesses," and many of them will be substantially affected by this rule. VHS testing requirements may force some fish farm operators to curtail all or part of their operations. However, some fish farms already conduct VHS tests in order to meet federal requirements for interstate movement of fish.
Fish farm operators may incur added testing requirements under this rule if they keep VHS-susceptible fish or fish eggs that were either (1) collected from any wild source within the preceding 12 months, or (2) kept on a fish farm that received fish or fish eggs (of any species) collected from any wild source within the preceding 12 months. Operators must test those VHS-susceptible fish or fish eggs before they distribute them for bait, for stocking to Wisconsin public waters, or for delivery to other fish farms (other than those registered by the same operator).
A veterinarian or other qualified fish health inspector must certify that the fish or fish eggs are VHS-free, based on tests using approved methods (the American Fisheries Society test or the World Organization for Animal Health test) that DATCP has identified on the health certificate form.
VHS tests must be conducted on a statistically representative sample of fish drawn from the tested species or farm. The average cost to test and certify a single lot of fish is approximately $500 (actual costs vary depending on test method, number of fish in the lot, number of fish species in the lot, etc.). A single fish farm might need to test from 1-30 lots per year, depending on the source and species of the fish, the number of separate fish lots kept on the fish farm, and purposes for which the fish are kept and distributed.
DATCP estimates that approximately 30-40 private fish farm operators will need to conduct VHS tests, and that they will conduct those tests on a combined total of approximately 40 lots of fish per year. Assuming an average cost of $500 per test per lot, the combined total cost to all affected private fish farm operators will be approximately $20,000 per year. However, some of those affected fish farmers are already performing VHS tests in order to meet federal requirements for shipping fish in interstate commerce, so the net impact of this rule may be less than $20,000. Fish farm costs may increase if USDA finds that additional fish species are susceptible to VHS (the amount of the increase will depend on which fish species are found to be susceptible).
Effect on bait dealers
Wisconsin bait dealers are licensed by DNR. This rule will affect licensed bait dealers in the following ways:
•
If bait dealers buy VHS-susceptible bait species that originate from wild sources, their purchase costs may reflect the seller's added cost of VHS testing under this rule.
•
If bait dealers collect VHS-susceptible bait species from wild sources, they will need to conduct VHS tests before reselling or distributing the bait. They will also need to withhold the bait from distribution for at least 4 weeks pending the completion of VHS tests. That will add costs, and may not be practically feasible for affected bait dealers.
This rule applies only to bait species that are known to be susceptible to VHS. Of the major bait species in Wisconsin (fathead minnow, white sucker, golden shiner and emerald shiner), only one species (emerald shiner) is currently known to be susceptible to VHS. Emerald shiners are obtained exclusively by wild harvesting, while other major bait species can be hatched and raised on farms. At this time, DATCP estimates that emerald shiners represent less than 10% of the overall bait market in Wisconsin (the market for wild-harvested emerald shiners has already diminished as a result of federal VHS testing requirements for emerald shiners moved in interstate commerce).
DATCP estimates that approximately 25 Wisconsin bait dealers are currently harvesting emerald shiners from the wild. DATCP estimates that each of those bait dealers would need to test an average of 6 lots of wild-harvested emerald shiners each year, before distributing the emerald shiners for sale. Assuming an average cost of $500 per test lot, the average annual cost for an individual bait dealer would be about $3,000 per year, and the combined total cost to all 25 of those bait dealers would be about $75,000 per year. That figure does not include added costs to hold the emerald shiners for 4 weeks while testing is completed. It is extremely difficult to hold emerald shiners for extended periods, so it may not even be possible for most bait dealers to hold them for the required 4 weeks.
The difficulty of holding emerald shiners for 4 weeks, combined with the added cost of testing emerald shiners, may drive many bait dealers out of the business of harvesting wild emerald shiners for sale as bait. However, those bait dealers may still be able to harvest and sell other types of bait that are not affected by this rule.
Bait dealers that are not currently harvesting emerald shiners will not be substantially affected by this rule unless USDA finds that additional bait species are susceptible to VHS. If USDA finds that other major bait species are susceptible to VHS, this rule could have a more dramatic impact on bait dealers. The impact will depend on the species that are affected.
Accommodation for small business
This rule will have a limited effect on most private fish farms and bait dealers. But in some cases (especially in the case of bait dealers that harvest emerald shiners from wild sources for sale as bait), this rule may impose substantial added costs. If USDA finds that additional fish or bait fish species are susceptible to VHS, this rule may have a more dramatic impact on fish farm operators or bait dealers, or both. Many of the affected entities are small businesses.
This emergency rule is needed to protect the health of wild and farm-raised fish populations in this state. Effective disease control is important for the entire aquaculture industry in this state. Although this rule may increase costs for some fish farm operators and bait dealers, the costs are currently outweighed by the need to prevent and control the spread of disease. DATCP has not exempted small businesses, or adopted more lenient VHS testing requirements for small business, because the risk of disease spread is unrelated to business size.
Disease-Free Certification of Farm-Raised Deer
This rule will have no negative effects on farm-raised deer keepers, and will reduce testing costs for some farm-raised deer keepers. Actual cost savings will depend on herd size and current test schedules. By facilitating simultaneous testing for brucellosis and tuberculosis, this rule will also avoid some stress on tested deer.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
Disease Testing of Fish
Fiscal effect on DNR
This emergency rule will have a fiscal impact on DNR fish hatchery and stocking operations. Under this rule, all VHS-susceptible fish and fish eggs (including VHS-susceptible bait species) must be tested for VHS before being stocked to Wisconsin public waters if they were either (1) collected from a wild source within the preceding 12 months or (2) kept on a fish farm that received fish or fish eggs of any species collected from a wild source within the preceding 12 months. This emergency rule provides a limited exemption for fish or fish eggs that are reintroduced to the same waters from which they are collected (see below).
Under current rules, a veterinarian or other qualified fish health inspector must issue a fish health certificate for fish or fish eggs stocked into Wisconsin public waters. The inspector must issue the health certificate on a form prescribed by DATCP. Under this emergency rule, if the fish are of a VHS-susceptible species, and were either (1) collected from a wild source within the preceding 12 months or (2) kept on a fish farm that received fish of any species collected from a wild source within the preceding 12 months, the fish health certificate must certify that the fish are VHS-free. The certification must be based on VHS tests conducted according to approved methods (the American Fisheries Society test or the World Organization for Animal Health test) that DATCP identifies on the health certificate form.
VHS tests must be conducted on a statistically representative test sample of fish drawn from the tested species or farm. The average cost to test and certify a single lot of fish is approximately $500 (actual costs vary depending on test method, number of fish in the lot, number of different species in the lot, etc.). A single fish farm might need to test from 1-30 lots per year, depending on the source and species of the fish, the number of separate fish lots kept on the fish farm, and the purposes for which the fish are kept and distributed.
DNR annually registers approximately 100 fish farms with DATCP. Thirteen of those fish farms are state-owned fish hatcheries. The remainder are registered by DNR but owned by private DNR “cooperators" (as registrant, DNR assumes legal responsibility for compliance with fish health rules). DATCP estimates that DNR will need to conduct VHS tests on a combined total of approximately 120 lots of fish per year (including fish at state hatcheries and “cooperator" fish farms registered by DNR).
Assuming an average test cost of $500 per lot, the total cost to DNR would be approximately $60,000 per year. However, DNR has already implemented a number of internal controls and VHS testing protocols, so the added cost of this rule will be less than $60,000. DNR costs may increase if USDA finds that additional fish species are susceptible to VHS (the amount of the increase will depend on which fish species are found to be susceptible).
Under this emergency rule, fish and fish eggs are exempt from VHS and other fish health testing requirements if they are reintroduced into the same body of water from which they were collected, for the purpose of increasing or rehabilitating a desirable sport fish population. (DATCP and DNR must approve the reintroduction, and a veterinarian or fish health inspector must still issue a fish health certificate based on a visual inspection.) This exemption will make it easier for DNR, local governments and others to continue programs (including so-called “walleye wagon" programs) to supplement the natural reproduction of important sport fish species.
Fiscal effect on DATCP
DATCP will incur added costs to administer and enforce the fish health testing requirements under this emergency rule (and any subsequent “permanent" rule). DATCP will need at least 2.0 FTE additional staff to review and process a large volume of fish health certificates in a timely manner; to train fish health inspectors to collect samples for VHS testing; to provide compliance information and respond to industry inquiries; to conduct inspections and monitor compliance; to conduct investigations of possible law violations; and to initiate enforcement actions if necessary.
The 2.0 FTE staff will have a combined total cost of at least $120,000 per year, including salary, fringe benefits and support costs. DATCP will attempt to absorb these costs in the short term by shifting staff from other important disease control responsibilities, but DATCP will not be able to do so indefinitely without putting other livestock sectors at unacceptable risk. DATCP will seek federal grant funds to cover some of the costs, but federal funding is not guaranteed.
Fiscal effect on University of Wisconsin
This emergency rule may have a slight fiscal impact on University of Wisconsin research facilities and some local governments, to the extent that they may operate fish farms or procure fish from farms affected by this rule. However, the effect will likely be minimal unless those entities are engaged in distributing VHS-susceptible fish or fish eggs from wild sources.
Fiscal effect on local governments
This emergency rule exempts local governments from VHS and other fish health testing requirements when they reintroduce sport fish or fish eggs into the same body of water from which they were collected, for the purpose of increasing or rehabilitating the fish population. (DATCP and DNR must approve the reintroduction, and a veterinarian or fish health inspector must issue a fish health certificate based on a visual inspection.) This exemption will make it easier for local governments to continue current programs (including so-called “walleye wagon" programs) to supplement the natural reproduction of important sport fish species.
Disease-Free Certification of Farm-Raised Deer
This emergency rule extends brucellosis-free herd certification from 2 years to 3 years (a herd owner may request a shorter term), and reduces the required number of certification tests from 3 whole herd tests to 2 whole herd tests, consistent with tuberculosis-free herd certification. That will allow herd owners to conduct simultaneous tests for both diseases. Simultaneous testing will reduce testing costs and limit stress on tested deer. The change will have no fiscal impact on DATCP, on other agencies of state government, or on local government.
State fiscal effect
Increase in costs that are not possible to absorb within the agency's budget.
Local government fiscal effect
Increase in costs; permissive.
Types of local governmental units affected
Towns, villages, cities, counties, school districts.
Fund sources affected
GPR, PRO
Affected Ch.
20 appropriations
Notice of Hearing
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
The State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) announces that it will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to Chapter
ATCP 123, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to customer access to subscription video services.
Hearing Information
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
At 1:00 p.m.
Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
2811 Agriculture Drive, Board Room (CR-106)
Madison, Wisconsin, 53718-6777
Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for these hearings. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by Monday, August 18, 2008, by writing to Michelle Reinen, Division of Trade and Consumer Protection, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone (608) 224-5160. Alternatively, you may contact the DATCP TDD at (608) 224-5058. Handicap access is available at the hearings.
Submission of Written Comments
DATCP will hold a public hearing at the time and place shown above. DATCP invites the public to attend the hearing and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until Friday, September 12, 2008 for additional written comments. Comments may be sent to the Division of Trade and Consumer Protection at the address below, by email to
michelle.reinen@wi.gov or online at
https://apps4.dhfs.state. wi.us/admrules/public/Home
To provide comments or concerns relating to small business, please contact DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, by emailing to
Keeley.Moll@datcp.state.wi.us or by telephone at (608) 224-5039.
Copies of Proposed Rule
You may obtain a free copy of this rule by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Trade and Consumer Protection, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling (608) 224-5160 or emailing
michelle.reinen@wi.gov. Copies will also be available at the hearings. To view the proposed rule online, go to:
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
2007 Wisconsin Act 42 regulates providers of subscription video services. Among other things, the act regulates customer access to video services, and prohibits discrimination in the provision of video services based on race or income. This rule interprets and clarifies those regulations.
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
2007 Wisconsin Act 42 eliminates municipal franchising of cable television services and creates a new state system for franchising and regulating “video service providers" (including but not limited to cable television service providers). The act regulates subscription video services provided, under a state franchise, via cable or local telephone lines. Among other things, the act does all of the following (see s.
66.0420 (8), Stats.):
•
Prohibits a state-franchised video service provider from denying access to a “group" of potential customers based on race or income. A provider has a defense against a claim of discrimination based on income if, within 3 years after the provider first offered video services, at least 30% of the households with access to the provider's video service are “low-income households." The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP") may extend the applicable time period, at the request of a video service provider.
•
Requires a state-franchised “large telecommunications video service provider" to do all of the following, unless DATCP grants a waiver or extension:
• Provide video service access to at least 35 percent of the households in each of the provider's basic local exchange service areas within the state franchise area no later than 3 years after the provider first offers video service.
• Provide video service access to at least 50 percent of the households within each basic local exchange service area not more than 5 years after the provider first offers video service in that area, or not more than 2 years after at least 30 percent of the households with access have subscribed for at least 6 consecutive months, whichever occurs later.
•
Requires a state-franchised “large telecommunications service provider" to file an annual report with DATCP regarding the provider's progress in complying with minimum access requirements.
•
Allows a video service provider to satisfy access requirements with an alternative technology (other than satellite service) that offers the same basic service, function and content features offered by the provider's normal video service network.
•
Provides that a telecommunications video service provider is not required to provide video service outside its basic local exchange service area.
•
Provides that an incumbent cable service provider is not required to provide video service outside the area in which it provided cable television service when it first received a state franchise.
Wis. Act 42, as passed by the Legislature, gave DATCP very limited authority to adopt rules interpreting the access and anti-discrimination provisions of the new video services law. The Governor's partial veto effectively expanded DATCP's rulemaking authority to interpret those provisions. In his veto message, the Governor stated: “It is imperative that the state agencies responsible for …enforcing the anti-discrimination provisions have the ability to interpret these statutes through administrative rule."
Rule content
This rule incorporates and clarifies certain video service access and anti-discrimination provisions contained in Act 42. This rule does all of the following:
•
Clarifies that a “group" means 2 or more households. A video service provider denies access to a “group" if it denies access to all of the households comprising that “group."
•
Defines “household" consistent with current statutes.
•
Defines “low-income household" as a household with a combined annual income equal to less than 200% of the federal poverty level for a family of 3.
•
Clarifies that a video service provider provides video service “access" to a household if the provider is able to provide video service to that household using the provider's normal service network or an equivalent alternative technology, regardless of whether any customer has ordered the service.
•
Spells out the procedure by which a video service provider may ask DATCP to waive or extend the deadline for complying with a minimum access requirement:
• A provider must submit a request in writing, in hard-copy and electronic form. The request must justify the proposed waiver or extension, based on statutory criteria, and must include facts and evidence supporting the justification. DATCP may request relevant supplementary information.
• Within 30 business days after DATCP receives a written request, it must issue a proposed order granting the request, denying the request, or granting the request in modified form. DATCP must issue a press release announcing the proposed order and inviting public comment. DATCP may hold one or more public hearings on the proposed order.
• Within 60 business days after DATCP issues a proposed order, DATCP must issue a final order. If the final order differs from the proposed order, DATCP must explain the reasons for difference.
•
Clarifies that a “large telecommunications service provider" must file its required annual progress report with DATCP by January 31 of each calendar year, beginning with the first calendar year after the provider first provides video service under a state franchise. The provider must provide annual progress reports for at least 5 years, unless DATCP makes an earlier written determination that the provider has met applicable minimum access requirements.
In a separate rule-making proceeding (
Clearinghouse Rule No. 08-027), DATCP has proposed a definition of “video service" that would also apply to this rule. That definition is identical to the definition in s.
66.0420 (1) (y), Stats.
Comparison with federal regulations
Federal law regulates cable television service, including cable ownership, use of cable channels, and cable franchising. Federal law also regulates video services provided by telephone companies.
State and local governments may regulate video services, as long as the regulations do not conflict with federal law. Federal law imposes consumer protection and customer service obligations on cable television service providers, but does not prevent states from imposing more stringent requirements.
Federal law does not establish minimum access requirements. Federal law does prohibit discrimination against a “group" of customers based the income of residents of the “local area" in which the “group" resides. Federal law does not define “group" or “local area."
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
During 2007, Illinois, Michigan and Iowa enacted laws that create a new state system for franchising and regulating video service providers. Minnesota has yet to adopt such a law. The laws adopted by Illinois, Michigan and Iowa are similar in relevant respects to the Wisconsin law, but are not identical to the Wisconsin law.
Illinois. The Illinois law does the following:
•
Prohibits a video service provider from denying access to any potential residential providers because of race or income of the residents in the local area in which the potential subscribers reside; and does not provide the video service provider with an affirmative defense to an allegation of discrimination.
•
Requires a large video service provider to provide access to 25% of the households in its telecommunication service area within 3 years after it began providing video service, and 35% within 5 years after it began providing video service. The provider is not required to meet the 35% requirement until 2 years after at least 15% of the households with access to the provider's video service subscribe to the service for at least 6 months.
•
Requires, within 3 years after the video service provider is granted a franchise, that 30% of the households with access to the video service shall be low-income.
•
Requires the video service provider to file with the state an annual report describing factors related to the access requirements.
•
Allows the video service provider to assert as a defense to a violation of the access requirements a need for an extension of the time requirements based on stated factors.
•
Defines “low-income household" as those residential households within the video service provider's existing local exchange area where the average annual household income is less than $35,000 based on United States Census Bureau estimates adjusted annually.
•
Defines “access" to mean that the video service provider is capable of providing broadband Internet capability and video programming at the household address using any technology except satellite television regardless of whether any customer has ordered the service.
Michigan. The Michigan law does the following:
•
Prohibits a video service provider from denying access to service to any group of potential residential subscribers because of the race or income of the residents in the local area in which the group resides.
•
Provides the video service provider with a defense to an allegation of discrimination where it can show either of the following:
• Within 3 years after it began providing video service at least 25% of the households with access to the provider's video service are low-income households.
• Within 5 years after it began providing video service and from that point forward at least 30% of the households with access to the provider's video service are low-income households.
•
Requires a large video service provider to provide access to 25% of households in its telecommunication service area within 3 years after it began providing video service, and 50% within 6 years after it began providing video service. The provider is not required to meet the 50% requirement until 2 years after at least 30% of the households with access to the provider's video service subscribe to the service for at least 6 months.
•
Allows the video service provider to apply for a waiver or extension of time of the access requirements based on stated factors.
•
Requires the video service provider to submit to the Michigan pubic service commission any information necessary for the commission to prepare an annual report.
•
Defines “low-income household" as a household with an average annual household income of less than $35,000.00 as determined by the most recent decennial census.
•
Does not define “access."
Iowa. The Iowa law does the following:
•
Prohibits a video service provider from denying access to any group of potential residential providers because of the income of the residents in the local area in which the potential subscribers reside. This law does not prohibit denying access based on race, and does not provide the video service provider with an affirmative defense to an allegation that it violated this law.
•
Requires a large video service provider to extend its system to a potential subscriber located within its authorized service area if all of the following occur:
• At least 250 dwelling units are located within 2,500 feet of a remote terminal.
• The dwelling units do not have cable service or video service available from another provider.
• The video service provider is providing cable service and video service to over 50% of all cable service or video service subscribers in the potential subscribers franchise area.
•
Does not specify any reporting requirements for the video service providers.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
This rule does not depend on any complex analysis of data. The definition of “low-income household" is based on the official poverty line defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget based on the most recent data available from the United States Bureau of the Census. The definition of “access" is based on industry practices and consumer experience.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
2007 Act 42 will have a major impact on video service providers in Wisconsin.
This rule interprets and clarifies portions of Act 42 related to customer access to video services, and discrimination in providing access. This rule does not add any substantive requirements or prohibitions, beyond what is already contained in Act 42.
None of the video service providers affected by Act 42 or this rule are small businesses, so this rule will have no impact on small business. For the most part, this rule will have a positive impact on video service providers, because it will clarify requirements and procedures under Act 42.
Fiscal Estimate
This rule will have no significant fiscal impact on DATCP or local units of government.
Notice of Hearing
Financial Institutions—Securities
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to the general rule-making authority provided in sections 551.63 (1) and (2) of the current Wisconsin Securities Law, as well as the statutory authority sections listed below for the Securities Law-related changes based on
2007 Wisconsin Act 196, together with the statutory rule-making authority under current ss.
553.58 (1) and
553.27 (4) of the Wisconsin Franchise Law, the Division of Securities of the Department of Financial Institutions will hold a public hearing to consider a comprehensive adoption, amendment and repeal of administrative rules of the Division of Securities relating to the operation of Chapter 551, Wis. Stats., the Wisconsin Uniform Securities Law as repealed and recreated based on
2007 Wisconsin Act 196, together with revisions to several rules under the Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law, Chapter
553, Wis. Stats.
Hearing Information
August 20, 2008 345 West Washington Avenue
Wednesday 4th Floor Conference Room
at 10:00 a.m. Madison
Submission of Written Comments
Written comments in lieu of public hearing testimony may be submitted which must be received no later than the hearing date and should be addressed to the Administrator of the Division of Securities, 345 West Washington Avenue, PO Box 1768, Madison Wisconsin, 53701.
Copies of Proposed Rule and Contact Person
A copy of the full text of the proposed rule revisions and fiscal estimate may be obtained from:
Randall E. Schumann (608) 266-3414
Legal Counsel for the Division of Securities
Department of Financial Institutions
345 West Washington Avenue, 4th Floor
P. O. Box 1768
Madison, WI 53701
Additionally, the full text of the proposed rule revisions is available on-line at the DFI Website:
www.wdfi.org/ securities&franchising.
Analysis Prepared by Dept. of Financial Institutions— Securities
Statutory authority
Sections
551.605 (1) (a),
(b) and
(c),
(2),
(3) and
(4),
551.102 (2),
(4) (e),
(11) (p),
(15) (h),
(16) (d) and
(28) (h),
551.105,
551.201(1) (b),
(3) (c),
(6), and
(7) (intro.),
(a), and
(b),
551.202 (6),
(13) (c),
(14) (b) and
(23),
551.203,
551.302 (intro.),
(1) (a),
(b) and
(c),
(3) and
(5),
551.304 (2) (intro.) and
(r),
(3) and
(5),
551.305 (2),
(7),
(9),
(10) and
(11),
551.306 (1) (b),
551.401 (2) (h), and
(4) (intro.),
551.402 (2) (i) and
(5),
551.403 (2) (c),
551.404 (2) (b) and
(4),
551.405 (2) (a) 4. and
(c),
(3),
(4) (b) and
(c),
551.406 (1),
(3) (b),
(4) and
(5),
551.407 (4),
551.408 (5),
551.409,
551.411(1),
(2),
(3) (a) and
(c),
(5),
(6),
(7) and
(8),
551.411 (4) (b) and
(5),
551.502 (2) and
(3),
551.504 (1),
551.606 (3),
551.608 (2) (intro.),
551.611 (1),
551.614 (1) (b) 1. and
2., and
(4), Wis. Stats.
For the Franchise Law-related changes under Chapter
553, Wis. Stats:
Statutes interpreted
Securities Law-related:
Sections
551.605 (1) (a),
(b) and
(c),
(2),
(3) and
(4),
551.102 (2),
(4) (e),
(11) (p),
(15) (h),
(16) (d) and
(28) (h),
551.105,
551.201 (1) (b),
(3) (c),
(6), and
(7) (intro.),
(a), and
(b),
551.202 (6),
(13) (c),
(14) (b) and
(23),
551.203,
551.302 (intro.),
(1) (a),
(b) and
(c),
(3) and
(5),
551.304 (2) (intro.) and
(r),
(3) and
(5),
551.305 (2),
(7),
(9),
(10) and
(11),
551.306 (1) (b),
551.401 (2) (h), and
(4) (intro.),
551.402 (2) (i) and
(5),
551.403 (2) (c),
551.404 (2) (b) and
(4),
551.405 (2) (a) 4. and
(c),
(3),
(4) (b) and
(c),
551.406 (1),
(3) (b),
(4) and
(5),
551.407 (4),
551.408 (5),
551.409,
551.411 (1),
(2),
(3) (a) and
(c),
(5),
(6),
(7) and
(8),
551.411 (4) (b) and
(5),
551.502 (2) and
(3),
551.504 (1),
551.606 (3),
551.608 (2) (intro.),
551.611 (1),
551.614 (1) (b) 1. and
2., and
(4), Wis. Stats.
Franchise Law-related:
Summary of rule
Because the repeal and recreation of the Wisconsin Securities Law in
2007 Wisconsin Act 196 (signed by the Governor on March 27, 2008) -- which involved the adoption of the 2002 Uniform Securities Act (“2002 USAct") as developed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws -- resulted in changes to all aspects of Wisconsin securities regulation (definitions, securities registration procedures and registration exemptions, securities licensing, enforcement powers and procedures, as well as general administrative powers), the corresponding administrative rule chapters and provisions relating to those aspects/categories of law changes need to be updated and made consistent. Such rule revisions are necessary to facilitate compliance by securities issuers and securities professionals of the Securities Law changes for the benefit of Wisconsin public investors. Also, because the effectiveness date for
2007 Wisconsin Act 196 is January 1, 2009, the proposed rule-making process is being conducted now to enable the rules to be finalized concurrent with the effectiveness of the legislation.
Separately, because the adoption by the Federal Trade Commission of its FTC Franchise Rule (“the FTC Franchise Rule," which became effective for use on a voluntary basis for franchisors on July 1, 2007, and becomes effective on a mandatory basis July 1, 2008) supersedes and preempts several existing Wisconsin franchise rules establishing requirements for disclosure documents used in connection with the offer and sale of franchises to persons in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin franchise rules so impacted need to be revised to be consistent with the FTC Rule. As a related matter, remedial franchise-related legislation was enacted in
2007 Wisconsin Act 150 (effective April 5, 2008) which made a necessary statutory change to make Wisconsin's timing deadline within which franchisors must provide a franchise disclosure document to a prospective purchaser, consistent with the recent FTC Franchise Rule change on that subject.
Additionally, the Wisconsin Franchise Law disclosure document-related rules impacted by the changes to the FTC Franchise Rule need to be revised and updated as necessary to be made consistent and thereby facilitate compliance by franchisors seeking to offer and sell franchises to persons in Wisconsin. For purposes of providing regulatory consistency among the 15 state jurisdictions (including Wisconsin) that regulate offers/sales of franchises, the Franchise and Business Opportunity Project Group of the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA") developed revised 2008 Franchise Registration and Disclosure Guidelines (“Franchise Guidelines") that were adopted by the NASAA membership in April 2008, that state jurisdictions which register franchise offerings can adopt as the required format for franchise disclosure documents. Those Franchise Guidelines were developed to be, and are, consistent with the FTC Franchise Rule which allows franchise law states to impose additional disclosure requirements that are consistent with the FTC Franchise Rule. In that regard, the Franchise Guidelines adopt the FTC form of franchise disclosure document with the addition of a state cover page, and include new instructions for franchisors to file registrations with state administrators, as well as revised application forms. The proposed Wisconsin Franchise Rule revisions will include, via incorporation by reference, the above-described NASAA Franchise Guidelines and forms.
A summary of the subject matter and nature of the more significant of the rule revisions follows:
1. In the definitional Chapter of the Securities rules, rules DFI-Sec 1.02 (6) (a) and (b), which define the term “investment contract" to include both the “modified
Howey" and “risk capital" tests, are being repealed because both are expressly included [as subsections (d) 1 and 2] in the statutory definition of “security" in new s.
551.102 (28), Wis. Stats.
2. The additional categories of “institutional investor" contained in the registration exemption rule of DFI-Sec 2.02 (4) under current s.
551.23 (8), Wis. Stats., are moved to the Definitions Chapter of the rules because under the new statute, “institutional investor" is now a defined term contained in definitional section s.
551.102 (11), Wis. Stats., par. (b) of which provides separate authority to, by rule, further specify other persons as “institutional investors."
3. The registration exemption treatment for both domestic (Wisconsin) as well as non-Wisconsin not-for-profit-issuers that is currently scattered in several different places in both the statutes and rules, is consolidated in 4 distinct subsections of a single exempt security rule adopted under the statutory authority of new s.
551.201 (7), Wis. Stats.
4. Because the federal Regulation D, Rule 505 securities registration exemption contained in current s.
551.23 (19), Wis. Stats., was not retained in the new law, but rather was to be adopted by rule, that federal Rule 505 exemption is made an exempt transaction rule under the discretionary exemption rule-making authority of s.
551.203, Wis. Stats.
5. Designating by rule for purposes of the “manual" registration exemption in new statute section 551.202 (2) (d), Wis. Stats., certain nationally recognized securities manuals.
6. Among the broker-dealer-related rule revisions, the temporary agent licensing rule in DFI-Sec 4.085 is repealed because that procedure is included in new statute 551.408 (2), Wis. Stats.
7. The extensive series of bank agency transactions rules in current s. DFI-Sec 4.10 are repealed as being superseded by the language of the exclusion from the definition of broker-dealer in s.
551.102 (4) (c) of the new law [based on federal Graham-Leach-Bliley legislation] relating to permitted securities-related activities of banks.
8. The extensive series of rules in DFI-Sec 4.11 dealing with brokered certificates of deposit (i.e. sales to persons in Wisconsin by broker-dealers of federally insured certificates of deposit in specified financial institutions) are also repealed.
9. Included among the investment adviser-related rule revisions are additional “dishonest or unethical practices" under existing rule DFI-Sec 5.06 based on current NASAA Model Rules (such as guaranteeing results, offering “free" reports or analyses that really are not free, or disclosing clients' identity or financial information) which, under new s.
551.412 (4) (m), Stats., can be a basis for denial, suspension or revocation of an investment adviser registration. Also added are currently proposed NASAA Model Rules on subject areas that include principal trading by an adviser, making misrepresentations or omissions of material facts in soliciting advisory customers, and effectuating certain prohibited agency cross-transactions.
10. Revisions to existing advisory rules would raise (up to $1200 from the current $500) the dollar threshold of permitted prepayment of adviser fees six months or more in advance to thereby harmonize with a pending SEC proposal on that subject.
11. The examination waiver provided for investment advisers and investment adviser representatives in current DFI-Sec 5.01(4) (a) based upon passage of the Series 7 and Series 63 examination is repealed to make Wisconsin uniform with other state jurisdictions -- virtually none of which recognize such exams as a basis for waiver of the investment adviser examination requirement.
12. The “temporary hardship exemption" from compliance with the electronic-filing-with-the IARD requirement currently contained in DFI-Sec 5.01(8) is being repealed because in the seven years since the SEC and states (including Wisconsin) have adopted that exemption,, the Division's information is that it has never been used or relied on at the federal or state level.
13. Added to the Administrative Procedure Chapter are 2 separate rules relating to ability of parties to conduct discovery and to utilize information acquired subsequent to issuance of a summary order.
14. Revisions to the Franchise Law rules include (i) changing the rule defining “timely" in DFI-Sec 31.01 (8) [with respect to providing required disclosures] from the previous 10 business day requirement to the new 14 calendar day requirement under the new FTC Franchise Rule and as established in amended s.
553.27 (4), Wis. Stats., in
2007 Wisconsin Act 150; and (ii) amendments to the franchise registration and registration amendment filing procedures in DFI-Sec 32.06 and 32.07 to reference the new FTC Franchise Rule and its Disclosure Document requirement, as well as the recently developed and adopted conforming NASAA 2008 Franchise Registration Disclosure Guidelines.
Each Section that contains a substantive adoption, amendment or repeal of a rule is followed by a separate Analysis which discusses the nature of the revision as well as the reason for it.
A copy of the entirety of the proposed rule revisions to be considered may be obtained upon request to the Division of Securities, Department of Financial Institutions, 345 West Washington Avenue, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 1768, Madison, Wisconsin 53701. Additionally, the full text of the proposed rule revisions is available on-line at the DFI Website:
www.wdfi.org/securities&franchising.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Types of small businesses that could be affected
Broker-dealer and investment adviser registrants under the new Wisconsin Uniform Securities Law with fewer than 25 full-time employees who meet the other criteria of sec. 227.114 (l) (a), Wis. Stats. The proposed revisions to both the procedural and substantive securities broker-dealer and investment adviser registration rules, as well as the Rule of Conduct and Dishonest or Unethical Practices provisions are applicable equally to all broker-dealers and investment advisers because the requirements involved are for the protection and benefit of Wisconsin customers of those firms. All Wisconsin customers of securities broker-dealers and investment advisers are entitled to the public investor protection benefits of such rule requirements, irrespective of the size of the firm providing the securities services.
All of the small-business capital formation registration exemptions under the current Wisconsin Securities Law rules are retained in the rules as revised.
Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
No new or additional reporting, bookkeeping, or other procedures are contained in this rulemaking package.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
No one-time revenue fluctuations.
State fiscal effect
None
Local fiscal effect
None
Long-range fiscal implications
None
Notice of Hearing
Public Service Commission
NOTICE IS GIVEN that pursuant to s.
227.16 (1), Stats., the Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed rule changes to repeal and recreate Chapter
PSC 116, relating to a fuel cost rate adjustment process for electric utility service.
Hearing Information
August 4, 2008 Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
Monday Public Service Commission Bldg.
9:30 a.m. 610 North Whitney Way
Madison, Wisconsin,
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 get this document in a different format should contact James Wagner or Michael Ritsema, as indicated below.
Contact Person
Questions regarding this matter should be directed to James Wagner, Docket Coordinator, (608) 267-9768,
James.Wagner@psc.stat.wi.us; or Michael Ritsema, (608) 267-9296,
Michael.Ritsema@psc.state.wi.us. Media questions should be directed to Tim Le Monds, Director of 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 use (800) 251-8345, if calling from outside Wisconsin use (608) 267-1479.
Copy of Proposed Rule
A copy of this entire notice, including the text of the proposed rule, may be accessed from the electronic regulatory filing portion of the Commission's website (psc.wi.gov).
Submission of Written Comments
Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The hearing record will remain open for written comments from the public until Wednesday, August 6, 2008. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-224. File by one mode only.
Industry:
File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the Commission's website 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 psc.wi.gov.
If filing by mail, courier, or hand delivery: Address your comments as shown below.
If filing by fax: Send fax comments to (608) 266-3957. Fax filing cover sheet must state “Official Filing," the docket number 1-AC-224, and the number of pages (limited to 25 pages for fax comments).
Address comments to:
Sandra J. Paske
Secretary to the Commission
Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 7854
Madison, WI 53707-7854
FAX (608) 266-3957
The deadlines for receiving comments are:
Comments Due: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - Noon
FAX Due: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - Noon
At the hearing or in written comments, persons are encouraged to address the following:
1. Please quantify the risk associated with the current chapter PSC 116 and the risk associated with the proposed chapter PSC 116.
2. Please describe how the proposed rule achieves or undermines the four goals of these rules as set by the Commission:
•
Insulate electric utilities from the high-risk created by volatile fuel costs.
•
Create incentives for good fuel management practices.
•
Promote rate stability.
•
Minimize the administrative burden to the Commission.
Analysis Prepared by the Public Service Commission
Statutory authority
Statute interpreted
Explanation of agency authority
The Commission may promulgate a rule with respect to a fuel cost rate adjustment process for electric utility service under ss.
196.02 (1) and
(3),
196.03 (1),
196.06,
196.20,
196.37,
196.395, and
227.11, Stats. For general rulemaking authority, statutes grant the Commission, “the jurisdiction to supervise and regulate every public utility in this state and to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction." s.
196.02 (1), Stats. This includes the power to, “adopt reasonable rules to govern its proceedings and to regulate the mode and manner of all inspections, tests, audits, investigations and hearings." s.
196.02 (3), Stats. Also the Commission “may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute. s.
227.11 (2) (a), Stats.
Chapter
196, Stats., confers upon the Commission exclusive authority to establish just and reasonable rates for public utility service.
Waukesha Gas & Electric Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, 181 Wis. 281, 287, 194 N.W. 846 (1923). The Commission enforces a utility's duty to “furnish reasonably adequate service and facilities" at just and reasonable rates. s.
196.03 (1), Stats. A utility may only increase its rates, “by order of the commission, after an investigation and opportunity for hearing." s.
196.20 (2m), Stats. If the Commission, “finds rates, . . . to be unjust, unreasonable, insufficient . . . or unlawful, the commission shall determine and order reasonable rates . . . to be imposed, observed and followed in the future." s.
196.37 (1), Stats.
In addition to the Commission's broad ratemaking powers, s.
196.20 (4) (c), Stats., states, “[i]f an increase in fuel costs is of an extraordinary or emergency nature, the commission, after a hearing limited in scope to the question of the increase in fuel costs, may grant a rate increase to an electric public utility." s.
196.20 (4) (c), Stats. This subsection diminishes none of the Commission's other powers to investigate and change rates. Therefore with respect to a fuel cost rate adjustment process for electric utility service the Commission has discretion to establish any necessary and convenient process that must include a hearing before rates may increase.
Related statutes or rules
Objective of the rule
The Commission sets the rates a Wisconsin electric public utility may charge customers. During periodic rate case proceedings the Commission finds reasonable forecasts of the utility's revenues and costs and establishes rates designed to give a utility the opportunity to recover its costs plus a reasonable rate of return on equity. Except for the cost of fuel used to generate electricity, significant differences between forecasted and actual costs rarely occur. Significant discrepancies between the predicted and actual fuel cost occur because of the volatile nature of this cost. These shifts in fuel cost may cause rates to become unjust and unreasonable, requiring a rate change.
As early as the 1920s many state utility commissions, including Wisconsin's, allowed a utility to place in its tariff a formula under which rates adjusted automatically according to changes in fuel cost. More than 25 years ago the Wisconsin Legislature prohibited large investor-owned electric utilities from using this automatic adjustment clause by enacting s.
196.20 (4), Stats. Intended to add public scrutiny to the process while recognizing the need for a quick response, this section authorized the Commission to order a rate increase caused by “an increase in fuel costs . . . of an extraordinary or emergency nature, . . . after a hearing limited in scope to the question of the increase in fuel costs." s.
196.20 (4) (c), Stats.
Chapter
PSC 116 implements s.
196.20 (4), Stats. Originally promulgated in 1985, the current rule reflects an update in 2002 designed to streamline the fuel cost rate adjustment process and reduce the number of such proceedings. However, once promulgated the rule update met with changed circumstances its design did not address. These circumstances included the following factors that further increase fuel cost volatility: (1) the implementation of Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator?Day 2 Market, (2) increased demand on some fuels, increased transportation costs of some fuels, and (3) the effects of severe weather on the availability of some fuels. This increased volatility has significantly augmented a utility's risk of an unreasonable loss when costs go up and a customer's risk of paying unreasonable rates when costs go down. This situation prompted the Commission to seek a redesign of the fuel cost rate adjustment process that resulted in this Proposed Rule.
Summary of proposed rule
The proposed rule establishes a process by which the rates for the state's large investor-owned electric utilities may be changed to reflect changes in the cost of fuel. The process requires a utility to submit to the Commission an annual fuel cost plan that forecasts, for a one year period, the cost of specified fuel items. These fuel costs include the cost of materials that are converted to electrical energy, as well as items and programs that offset the cost of, or provide less expensive alternatives to, those materials. The Commission reviews each utility's fuel cost plan, and, after a hearing, establishes rates that recognize the cost in the plan.
During the course of the year to which the plan applies, the rule allows a utility to defer discrepancies between the fuel cost forecasted in rates and the actual cost. The rule provides for the Commission to reconcile the difference between the forecasted and the actual, reasonable and prudently incurred fuel cost on an annual basis. After a hearing, the Commission approves a reasonable adjustment to rates to implement this reconciliation. Also during a plan year, the Commission may adjust rates to avoid a reconciliation that causes a material change in rates. However, no utility may obtain a mid-year increase in rates under this provision more than once during a plan year.
Comparison with federal regulations
No comparable federal regulations exist. The proposed rule does not conflict with, overlap, or duplicate other rules or federal regulations.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota allow rate regulated utilities to adjust rates based on a formula specified in that state's administrative code and published on the utility's approved tariff. Rates adjusted in this manner do not require a Commission order or hearing. As part of electric restructuring in Illinois, the largest electricity providers opted out of this method of cost recovery.
Michigan allows a utility to escrow discrepancies between the fuel cost forecasted in rates and the actual cost. The Michigan Public Service Commission reconciles the difference between the forecasted and the actual fuel cost on an annual basis and, after a hearing, approves an adjustment to rates to implement this reconciliation. The proposed rule is modeled after the Michigan process.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rule will have no effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
The proposed rule changes the fuel cost rate adjustment process for electric public utilities. There are no additional costs to state or local government as a result of these changes and there is also no significant financial impact on the private sector.
State fiscal effect
None
Local fiscal effect
None
Fund sources affected
PRO
Affected Ch.
20 appropriations
Long-range fiscal implications
None
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
49.22 (9) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider emergency and permanent rules revising Chapter
DWD 40, relating to the establishment of birth cost orders based on child support guidelines.
Hearing Information
July 29, 2008
|
MADISON
|
Tuesday
|
G.E.F. 1 Building, B205
|
1:30 p.m.
|
201 E. Washington Avenue
|
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and will be afforded the opportunity to make an oral presentation of their positions. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their facts, views, and suggested rewording in writing.
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is wheelchair accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 267-9403 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the proposed rules is available at
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. This site allows you to view documents associated with this rule's promulgation, register to receive email notification whenever the Department posts new information about this rulemaking order, and submit comments and view comments by others during the public comment period. You may receive a paper copy of the rule or fiscal estimate by contacting:
Elaine Pridgen, Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Children and Families
201 E. Washington Avenue
Madison, WI 53707
Submission of Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received at the above address, email, or through the http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov web site no later than July 30, 2008, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Agency Contact Person
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted
Related statutes or rules
Explanation of agency authority
As of the date of filing, authority to promulgate this rule is within the Department of Workforce Development. Effective July 1, 2008, authority to promulgate the rule and contact individuals will be within the Department of Children and Families.
Section
49.22 (9), Stats., provides that the department shall promulgate rules that provide a standard for courts to use in determining a child support obligation based upon a percentage of the gross income and assets of either or both parents. According to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), medical support is a subset of child support.
Summary of the emergency and proposed rules
Under s.
767.89 (3) (e), Stats., the content of a paternity judgment shall include an order establishing the amount of the father's obligation to pay or contribute to the reasonable expenses of the mother's pregnancy and the child's birth. The amount established may not exceed one-half of the total actual and reasonable pregnancy and birth expenses. The order shall specify the court's findings as to whether the father's income is at or below the federal poverty line and specify whether periodic payments are due on the obligation, based on the father's ability to pay or contribute to those expenses. If the father has no present ability to pay, the court may modify the judgment or order at a later date to require the periodic payments if the father has the ability to pay at that time.
If the birth costs were paid by the Medicaid program, the order for payment of birth costs under s.
767.89 (3) (e), Stats., will be to the State of Wisconsin. An unmarried mother who applies for or receives Medicaid is required to cooperate with the local child support agency in establishing paternity (if necessary), obtaining medical support, and assigning the rights to payment of medical support to the state. There are exceptions to the child support cooperation requirement for good cause and for women during pregnancy and 60 days post-partum.
Federal and state income tax refund offset is one of the primary tools for collection of birth cost orders owed to the state. OCSE recently notified Wisconsin that it will not certify the state's request for federal income tax refund offset for birth cost orders that have been determined using the methodology in s.
767.89 (3) (e), Stats. This provision requires the court to make a finding based on the father's ability to pay before setting a periodic payment on birth costs. OCSE's interpretation of federal regulations as issued in Policy Interpretation Question PIQ-07-01 provides that the judgment amount must be set according to guidelines that take into consideration the father's ability to pay.
This rule creates a procedure in the child support guidelines in Chapter
DWD 40 that allows a court to take into consideration the father's ability to pay in determining the birth cost judgment amount. The court may order a judgment that is the lowest of the following:
•
An amount that does not exceed one-half of the actual and reasonable cost of the pregnancy and child's birth as provided under s.
767.89 (3) (e), Stats.
•
An amount that does not exceed 5% of the father's income over 36 months.
•
If a father's child support obligation was determined under s.
DWD 40.04 (4) and the father's monthly income available for child support is between 75% and 125% of the federal poverty guidelines, the court may use the maximum birth cost judgment amount provided in the schedule in Appendix D.
•
If a father's child support obligation was determined under s.
DWD 40.04 (4) and the father's monthly income available for child support is less than 75% of the federal poverty guidelines, the court may order a birth cost judgment at an amount appropriate for the father's total economic circumstances.
Although the primary impetus for this rule is to comply with federal child support regulations to ensure that OCSE will certify birth cost orders owed to the State of Wisconsin in cases under Section IV-D of the Social Security Act, the birth cost provision will also apply to other parties, such as a private insurance company seeking recovery of birth costs under s.
767.89 (3) (e), Stats.
The department will revise the schedule of the maximum birth cost judgment amounts for low-income payers in Appendix D every year based on changes in the federal poverty guidelines and publish notice of the revisions to the schedule in the Wisconsin Administrative Register. Currently the schedule in Appendix C on determining the child support obligation of low-income payers is revised at least once every 4 years based on changes in the federal poverty guidelines since the schedule was last revised. The proposed rule will provide that both Appendix C and Appendix D will be revised every year based on changes in the federal poverty guidelines.
The proposed rule will also create a cross-reference to the medical support provision in s.
767.513, Stats., in the newly-created section on medical support in s.
DWD 40.05. OCSE has notified Wisconsin that the medical support provision in s.
767.513, Stats., must be within the child support guidelines in Chapter
DWD 40.
In addition, the proposed rule amends the section on determining income imputed based on earning capacity when information on the parent's actual income or ability to earn is unavailable. The current rule provides that the court may impute to the parent the income that a person would earn by working 35 hours per week for the federal minimum wage. This provision was created effective January 1, 2004, when the federal and state minimum wage were the same rate.
The state minimum wage has been higher than the federal minimum wage since June 1, 2005, and the provision on imputing income when information is unavailable has been inconsistently applied by counties since the increase. Some counties have been using the state minimum wage in determining earning capacity since it is the applicable minimum wage rate, while others have been using the federal minimum wage as the current rule provides.
The proposed rule will allow courts to impute income to the parent at the higher of the state or federal minimum wage. This change will have no effect in the near future since the federal minimum wage will soon be equal to or higher than the state minimum wage, but it will ensure consistency among counties if the state rate is again higher than the federal rate. Effective 7/24/08, the federal minimum wage rate will be $6.55 and the state minimum wage rate will be $6.50. Effective 7/24/09, the federal minimum wage rate will be $7.25, and the state minimum wage is proposed to also increase to $7.25.
Comparison with federal regulations
In PIQ-07-01, OCSE states that medical support is a subset of child support, and child support orders must be set under state guidelines that comply with
45 CFR 302.56. State guidelines must:
•
Take into consideration all earnings and income of the noncustodial parent.
•
Be based on specific descriptive and numeric criteria and result in a computation of the support obligation.
•
Provide for the child's health care needs through health insurance coverage or other means.
•
Provide a rebuttable presumption that the amount determined using the guidelines is the correct child support to be awarded.
The circumstances in which past-due support qualifies for federal income tax refund offset are listed in
45 CFR 303.72(a). The list includes cases where the child support agency is providing services to a Medicaid recipient.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
All states are required to comply with the OCSE interpretation that birth cost judgment amounts must be set under the state's child support guidelines.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
OCSE has notified states that birth cost judgment amounts must be set according to child support guidelines that take into consideration the father's ability to pay.
This rule provides that the amount of a birth cost judgment may not exceed 5% of the father's income over 3 years, with a graduated scale of lower amounts for fathers with income below 125% of the federal poverty guidelines. The 5% limit is based on a proposed federal rule on medical support in child support cases. The proposed federal rule provides that cash medical support or private health insurance is considered reasonable in cost to the obligated parent if it does not exceed 5% of his or her gross income. Child Support Enforcement Program; Medical Support, 71 Fed. Reg. 549965, (proposed September 20, 2006)
Analysis used to determine effect on small businesses
The rule could affect a private insurance company seeking recovery of birth costs under s.
767.89 (3) (e), Stats., but the effect would be
de minimus.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rule may affect small businesses but will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
The rule allows Wisconsin to continue to collect birth cost judgments owed to the state through federal income tax refund offset. If the department failed to enact this rule to comply with OCSE requirements, the state and county child support agencies would likely experience a decrease in revenue. In calendar year 2007, the child support program collected $11,481,000 in birth costs through federal income tax refund offset. Of the nearly $11.5 million collected, approximately $6.62 million was returned to the federal government to reimburse Medicaid costs, $1.72 million was used by county child support agency programs to benefit children in the state, and the remaining $3.14 million was returned to the state Medicaid program.
State fiscal effect
None
Local fiscal effect
None
Long-range fiscal implications
Continuation of current revenue.
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
49.138 and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider rules revising Chapter
DWD 16, relating to emergency assistance for families with needy children.
Hearing Information
August 5, 2008
|
MADISON
|
Tuesday
|
G.E.F. 1 Building, B205
|
1:30 p.m.
|
201 E. Washington Avenue
|
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and will be afforded the opportunity to make an oral presentation of their positions. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their facts, views, and suggested rewording in writing.
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is wheelchair accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 267-9403 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the proposed rules is available at
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. This site allows you to view documents associated with this rule's promulgation, register to receive email notification whenever the Department posts new information about this rulemaking order, and submit comments and view comments by others during the public comment period. You may receive a paper copy of the rule or fiscal estimate by contacting:
Elaine Pridgen, Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Children and Families
201 E. Washington Avenue
Madison, WI 53707
Submission of Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received at the above address, email, or through the http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov web site no later than August 6, 2008, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Agency Contact Person
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted
Explanation of agency authority
As of the date of filing, authority to promulgate this rule is within the Department of Workforce Development. Effective July 1, 2008, authority to promulgate the rule and contact individuals will be within the Department of Children and Families.
Section
49.138, Stats., provides that the department shall implement a program of emergency assistance to needy persons in cases of fire, flood, natural disaster, homelessness or impending homelessness, or energy crisis. “Needy person" has the meaning specified by the department by rule.
Summary of the proposed rule
The emergency assistance program is funded by the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, which requires that the funds be used for eligible needy families with a child. The proposed rule will add a provision to the nonfinancial eligibility section regarding the child for whom emergency assistance is requested. The current rule provides that the child is or, within 6 months prior to the month of application, was living with a qualified caretaker relative. The proposed rule also requires that the child will live with the qualified caretaker relative in the month following the application date.
Comparison with federal regulations
In general, states must use TANF funds for eligible, needy families with a child and for one of the four purposes of the TANF program:
1. To provide assistance to needy families.
2. To end dependence of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.
3. To prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
4. To encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
All states with an Emergency Assistance program funded by TANF must require that the assistance be used for an eligible family with a child.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The rule ensures compliance with TANF requirements.
Analysis used to determine effect on small businesses
The rule affects W-2 agencies but the change in policy is minor.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rule may affect small businesses but will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
The policy change is so minor that it is not expected to have any fiscal effect.
State fiscal effect
None
Local fiscal effect
None
Long-range fiscal implications
None
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
104.04 and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider rules revising Chapter
DWD 272, relating to increasing Wisconsin's minimum wages and affecting small businesses.
Hearing Information
August 6, 2008
|
MADISON
|
Wednesday
|
G.E.F. 1 Building, H306
|
1:30 p.m.
|
201 E. Washington Avenue
|
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and will be afforded the opportunity to make an oral presentation of their positions. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their facts, views, and suggested rewording in writing.
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is wheelchair accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 266-9427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the proposed rules is available at
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. This site allows you to view documents associated with this rule's promulgation, register to receive email notification whenever the Department posts new information about this rulemaking order, and submit comments and view comments by others during the public comment period. You may receive a paper copy of the rule or fiscal estimate by contacting:
Bob Anderson
Department of Workforce Development
Equal Rights Division
201 E. Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 8928
Madison, WI 53708-8928
Submission of Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received at the above address, email, or through the http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov web site no later than August 7, 2008, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Agency Contact Person
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted
Chapter
104, Stats., and 227.11, Stats.
Explanation of agency authority
Chapter
104, Stats., and Chapter
DWD 272 provide that Wisconsin's minimum wage should be sufficient to enable the employee receiving it to maintain himself or herself under conditions consistent with his or her reasonable comfort, physical well-being, decency, and moral well-being. Section
104.04, Stats., directs the Department to determine the state's minimum wage taking into consideration the effect of the wage on the economy of the state, including employment opportunities for low-wage workers and regional economic conditions within the state.
Summary of the proposed rule
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal minimum wage will be $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. The Department proposes to increase the state minimum wage to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009, to match the federal rate. The minimum wage rate and various special rates will be increased as follows:
Category
|
Current Rate
|
Proposed Rate
7/24/09
|
Federal Rate
7/24/09
|
Non-Agricultural work
|
|
|
|
Adult
|
$6.50
|
$7.25
|
$7.25
|
Minor
|
$5.90
|
$7.25
|
$7.25
|
Opportunity
|
$5.90
|
no change
|
$4.25
|
Agricultural work
|
|
|
|
Adult
|
$5.15
|
$7.25
|
$7.25
|
Minor
|
$4.25
|
$7.25
|
$7.25
|
Camp Counselors
|
Salary per week
|
Salary per week
|
|
Adults, no board or
lodging
|
$315
|
$350
|
exempt
|
Adults, with board
only
|
$240
|
$265
|
exempt
|
Adults, with board
and lodging
|
$189
|
$210
|
exempt
|
Minors, no board
or lodging
|
$275
|
$350
|
exempt
|
Minors, with board
only
|
$209
|
$265
|
exempt
|
Minors, with board
and lodging
|
$165
|
$210
|
exempt
|
The proposed rule will affect employees not covered by or exempt from the federal minimum wage law. The federal minimum wage law applies to employees of businesses that have annual gross sales or value of business done of at least $500,000. It also applies to employees of smaller businesses if the employees are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, such as employees who work in transportation or communications or who regularly use the mails or telephones for interstate communications.
In addition, the FLSA covers employees who perform duties that are closely related and directly essential to interstate activities, including guards, janitors, and maintenance workers. It also applies to employees of government agencies, hospitals, and schools, and it generally applies to domestic workers.
The FLSA exempts any employee employed by an establishment that is an amusement or recreational establishment, organized camp, or religious or non-profit educational conference center, if either of the following apply:
•
It does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year.
•
During the preceding calendar year, its average receipts for any six months of the year were not more than 33 1/3% of its average receipts for the other six months of the year.
The proposed increase to the state minimum wage may affect camp counselors and other seasonal amusement and recreational workers. In 2007, there were 2,401 Wisconsin workers that were paid less than $7.25 per hour in the Standard Occupational Classification codes for the categories of amusement and recreational attendants; recreation workers; lifeguards, ski patrol, and other recreational protective service workers; and tour guides and escorts. The Department does not know how many of these workers were employed by an establishment that is seasonal.
Comparison with federal regulations
The current federal minimum wage rate is $5.85 per hour. It will increase to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008, and to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois. The minimum wage rate will be $7.75 effective July 1, 2008; $8.00 effective July 1, 2009; and $8.25 effective July 1, 2010.
Michigan. The minimum wage rate will be $7.40 per hour effective July 1, 2008.
Iowa. The minimum wage rate is $7.25 per hour.
Minnesota. The minimum wage rate is $6.15 per hour. The Governor recently vetoed a bill that would have increased the minimum wage rate to $6.75 per hour in July 2008 and $7.75 per hour in July 2009.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rule increases the state minimum wage rate to match the federal minimum wage rate effective July 24, 2009. Under the proposed rule, minors and agricultural workers will have the same minimum wage rate as adult nonagricultural workers. There are no special rates for minors or agricultural workers under federal law. The proposed rule does not eliminate these special categorical rates, which may differ from the adult nonagricultural rate in the future.
The camp counselor minimum wage is a weekly salary based on the hourly rate of $7.25 per hour for 48 hours. Camp counselors are exempt from the federal minimum wage law. The state has a special salary rate for camp counselors due to the difficulty in interpreting hours worked in many camp situations. The responsibilities of a camp counselor can vary widely. Some counselors are working 24 hours per day for 6 days per week under the interpretation of hours worked in s.
DWD 272.12. The minimum weekly salary for camp counselors is an attempt at a reasonable and affordable rate for the special circumstances.
Analysis used to determine effect on small businesses
The number of workers that will be covered by the state minimum wage increase but are not covered by the federal minimum wage is very small. Also, most of the amusement and recreational workers who were paid less than $7.25 per hour in 2007 were already being paid at least $7.00 per hour.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rule will affect small businesses but will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
None
Local fiscal effect
None
Long-range fiscal implications
None
