ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE
AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
Amend ETF 10.01(3i), 10.65 and create ETF 10.85 and 20.0251 regarding compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.
| |||
Subject
| |||
Internal Revenue Code compliance.
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
| |||
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| |||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
| ||
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| |||
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| |||
This rule-making is needed to amend the existing rules and create new rules to clarify how the Wisconsin Retirement System complies with the Internal Revenue Code.
| |||
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| |||
There is no economic and fiscal impact on small business, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units and the state's economy as a whole. The rule change addresses the need to clarify how the Wisconsin Retirement System complies with the Internal Revenue Code.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
The rule language more accurately reflects tax requirements under IRC §§ 401 (a) and 415. The agency does not see alternatives to achieving the policy goal of the rule amendments.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
There are no long range economic or fiscal impacts of the rule.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
The proposed rule amendments are required to maintain written plan document compliance with federal tax requirements under IRC §§401 (a) and 415. Therefore the goal of the rule amendment is to more accurately reflect current legal requirements under the federal government.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
Illinois — The Illinois Pension Code provides comparable provisions regarding compliance of the public employee pension system with the Internal Revenue Code.
Iowa — The Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System is governed by Iowa Code Chapter 97(B) and Chapter 495 of the Iowa Administrative Rules. These laws and rules provide comparable provisions regarding compliance of the public employee pension system with the Internal Revenue Code.
Michigan — Chapter 38 of the Michigan Statutes contain some provisions that are comparable regarding the State Employees' Defined Benefit Pension Plan compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.
Minnesota — Chapters 352 to 356A of the Minnesota Statutes contain some provisions that are comparable regarding compliance of the Public Employees' Retirement Association Defined Benefit Pension Plan with the Internal Revenue Code.
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original ⍽ Updated
⍽ Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
Admin Code Chapter NR 18, Falconry
| |||
Subject
| |||
Revisions to the Falconry Permitting Rules
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
20.370 1 (fs)
| ||
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| |||
⍽ No Fiscal Effect
X Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
⍽ Increase Costs
X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
⍽ Decrease Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
| ||
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| |||
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| |||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will no longer issue a permit to individuals engaged in the sport of falconry. Permits will be issued by states with oversight provided by the Service. The Service has formulated revisions as to how the sport of falconry is to be conducted and supervised by the states. The proposed rule makes the revisions to current code to ensure compliance with federal rules by January 14, 2014.
| |||
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
| |||
The total impact of this rule is indeterminate. The proposed rule does not change existing code regarding permit fees for approximately 100 resident falconers and fewer than 10 nonresident falconers. The resident falconer pays $75 for a 3-year falconry permit, and a nonresident falconer pays $100 annually for a nonresident raptor trapping permit. The updated rule does specify that permit holders with hybrid raptors must have two telemetry radio transmitters attached to the hybrid raptors. Currently, there are seven hybrid permit holders in the state. The radio telemetry transmitter costs $185.00/unit (two needed per rule) and a radio telemetry receiver costs $670.00. It is estimated this provision could cost each of the seven permit holders $1,040 for the telemetry radio purchases. The updated rule also mentions an ISO-compliant microchip; this is mentioned as optional in the rule. It is estimated that a microchip and the related scanner could cost approximately $220.00. The number of falconers who may use this option is not known, but it is estimated to be no more than a dozen. It is estimated that there will be a slight increase in time spent by permit holders to meet reporting requirements, but it is not possible to estimate an exact cost related to the potential workload increase.
This rule update applies only to falconers. The proposal does not impose any additional compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. The department has determined that this rule will not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, or overall economic competitiveness of the state. No fiscal impacts are expected for the public utility rate payers or local government units.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
Allows the State of Wisconsin to take over control of regulating the sport of falconry.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
Will provide a consistent framework for regulating the sport of falconry.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formerly provided permits to individuals engaged in the sport of falconry. Permits now will be issued by states with oversight provided by USFWS.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
All states need to comply with USFWS revisions to the sport of falconry.
| |||
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
| |||
Sumner Matteson (608) 266-1571
|