Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

The State of Minnesota has a shoreland program that is also being revised. The Minnesota DNR's website states that an increase in development pressure around lakes and rivers has raised concerns about water quality and impacts on lake use, therefore resulting in the need to review current shoreland minimum standards in the state. Minnesota bases their shoreland program on statewide classification of all surface waters based on size and shape, amount and type of existing development, road and service accessibility, existing natural character of the water and other parameters. Waterbodies are classified as natural environment lakes, recreational development lakes, general development lakes, remote river segments and forested rivers. Each class has specific standards associated with the shoreland ordinance including building setbacks, lot sizes and widths, bluff impact zones, slope requirements, impervious surface limits and others. The state has a somewhat similar standards in treatment of nonconforming structures and limits impervious surfaces to 20%, which is a lower limit than Wisconsin's current rule and would be significantly less than the proposed highly developed shoreline standard in the proposed rule.

Michigan

The State of Michigan has a wild and scenic rivers protection program to provide special protection to designated rivers. This program is managed similarly to other wild and scenic river protection programs nationwide. The protection standards are outlined in Natural River Zoning Rule 281 which outlines standards for river setbacks, minimum lot widths, special vegetation management standards, and nonconforming structure improvements. The program applies only to wild and scenic rivers. Inland lakes or rivers that are not designated are not protected under the program. Additional activities that may have potential impacts to the public trust or riparian rights, or that may impair or destroy the waters or other natural resources of the state, including inland lakes and streams, the Great Lakes, wetlands, and groundwater, are regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality.

Illinois

The State of Illinois regulates inland waters through an administrative code detailing conservation measures for public waters. The purpose of the program is to protect the public's interests, rights, safety and welfare in the State's public bodies of water. More specifically, construction is regulated to prevent obstruction to, or interference with, the navigability of any public body of water; encroachment on any public body of water; and impairment of the rights, interests or uses of the public in any public body of water or in the natural resources thereof. Illinois does not have a specific program for shoreland management or shoreland ordinance requirements.

Indiana

The state of Indiana regulates lake-side construction activities and provides standards for the activities along and within public freshwater lakes. The state also has standards for nonconforming uses and nuisances including the removal of a lawful nonconforming use if the structure or facility affects public safety, natural resources, natural scenic beauty or the water level of a public freshwater lake. Indiana does not have a specific program for shoreland management or shoreland ordinance requirements.

Iowa

The state of Iowa has an integrated watershed management and surface water regulation program which includes motor regulations and slow-no-wake areas to reduce shore erosion and an invasive species program to help safeguard the biological integrity of the lakes and river systems in Iowa. Iowa does not have a specific program for shoreland management or shoreland ordinance requirements. Most of Iowa's environmental programs are directly mandated by the federal government and required components of Environmental Protection or Federal Emergency Management Agency programs.

Notice of Hearing

Public Defender

rulemaking_notices CR 13-049 CR 13-049

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m), 977.075, and 277.11 (2), Stats., the State Public Defender (SPD) will hold a public hearing to consider adopting proposed permanent rules to revise ss. PD 3.02 (1), 6.01, and 6.02 (1) relating to a new case category of felony diversion.

Hearing Information

Date:   Monday, July 29, 2013
Time:   10:00 a.m.
Location:   Office of the State Public Defender
  315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor
  Madison, WI 53703

If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at a hearing, please call [phone] at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.

Copies of Proposed Rules, Fiscal Estimate, and Economic Impact Analysis

You may obtain a free copy of the rules, fiscal estimates, and economic impact analysis by contacting the Office of the State Public Defender, Attn: Devon Lee, 315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor, Madison, WI 53703. You can also obtain a free copy by calling [phone] or e-mailing [e-mail].

Place Where Comments Are to Be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

Written comments on the proposed rules may be submitted no later than August 1, 2013, and can be faxed to [phone] to the attention of Devon Lee, emailed to [e-mail], or mailed to the attention of Devon Lee at the Office of the State Public Defender, 315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor, Madison, WI 53703.

Analysis Prepared by the Office of the State Public Defender

Statutes interpreted

Sections 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m) and 977.075, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m) and 977.075, Stats.

Agency authority

Section 977.02 (3) (a), Stats., requires the public defender board to consider the anticipated costs of effective representation for the type of case in which the person seeks representation. Section 977.02 (4m), Stats., requires the state public defender board to promulgate rules for payments to the state public defender under s. 977.075, Stats. Section 977.075, Stats., requires the state public defender board to establish by rule a fee schedule that sets the amount that a client responsible for payment shall pay for the cost of the legal representation if the client does not pay the applicable discount fee.

Related statutes or rules

None.

Plain language analysis

This proposed rule will revise three sections of the PD administrative code to include a new “felony diversion" case category. This proposed case category will apply to cases in which the SPD and the prosecutor negotiate felony diversion agreements as an alternative to the filing of formal criminal charges.

SPD case categories reflect the anticipated cost of retained counsel and set the required payment amounts for legal representation. The proposed rule adds the felony diversion case category to three schedules: cost of retained counsel, s. PD 3.02 (1); payment for legal representation, s. PD 6.01; and discount option, s. PD 6.02 (1). The SPD currently provides representation in diversion cases within the case category of “special proceedings." The new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

There are no existing or proposed federal regulations that address the activities of the proposed rules.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota) generally require defendants to reimburse the state or county for the cost of public counsel. Those states do not have rules like Wisconsin regarding the cost of retained counsel, payment for legal representation, and discount options for particular case types.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

None.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis

The rule will require individuals who are represented in felony diversion cases to pay $240 toward the cost of their representation, which is lower than for other felony cases. Clients also have the option to pay a lower discount amount of $60 as provided in s. PD 6.02 (1). As this rule would impact only individual clients of the SPD, there is no anticipated economic impact of implementing the rule.

Effect on Small Business

None.

Agency Contact Person

Devon Lee, [e-mail] or [phone]

Office of the State Public Defender

315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor

Madison, WI 53703.

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
Administrative Rule Chapter PD 3, Indigency Criteria, s. 3.02. Administrative Rule Chapter PD 6, Payment for State Public Defender Representation, ss. 6.01 and 6.02.
Subject
Creation of Felony Diversion case category.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
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
The anticipated cost of counsel reflects the likely cost for a prospective client to hire a private attorney. The SPD includes this amount in its determination of an applicant's financial eligibility for SPD services. The required payment for legal representation reflects the average attorney costs for the SPD in the respective case categories. A new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases.
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)
This rule has no economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole. There are no implementation or compliance costs.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
A new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases. The rule will require individuals who are represented in felony diversion cases to pay $240 toward the cost of their representation, which is lower than for other felony cases. This increased cost reflects the significant time attorneys invest in felony diversion cases. Clients also have the option to pay a lower discount amount of $60 as provided in PD s. 6.02 (1).
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range implications of implementing the rule.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The case categories used by the office of the state public defender are unique to the SPD and have no federal equivalent.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Neither Illinois nor Michigan has a statewide public defender system. In Iowa, courts order defendants to repay the costs for a public defender to the extent they are able. In Minnesota, courts may require a defendant to reimburse the state for legal fees.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Devon M. Lee Legal Counsel WI State Public Defender [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Public Service Commission

rulemaking_notices CR 13-048 CR 13-048

(PSC Docket # 1-AC-229)

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to repeal ss. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (j) and (3), 113.0406 (7), 134.062 (2), 134.063 (1) (L), 134.13 (7), 185.33 (18), and 185.37 (2) (L); to amend ss. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (i), 134.062 (1) (k), and 185.37 (2) (k); and to create ss. PSC 113.0408, 113.0409, 134.051, 134.053, 185.30, and 185.305, relating to applications for service and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Hearing Information

Pursuant to s. 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., the commission will hold a public hearing on these proposed rules.

Date:   Monday, July 29, 2013
Time:   10:00 a.m.
Location:   Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
  Public Service Commission Building
  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 Justin Chasco, as indicated in the previous paragraph, as soon as possible.

Written Comments

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The hearing record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Monday, August 12, 2013 at noon. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-229. File by one mode only.

Industry: File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's web site (psc.wi.gov).

Members of the Public: Please submit your comments in one of the following ways:

•   Electronic Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov, and click on the “ERF - Electronic Regulatory Filing" graphic on the side menu bar. On the next page, click on “Need Help?" in the side menu bar for instructions on how to upload a document.

•   Web Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov, click on the “Public Comments" button on the side menu bar. On the next page select the “File a comment" link that appears for docket number 1-AC-229.

•   Mail Comment. All comments submitted by U.S. Mail must include the phrase “Docket 1-AC-229 Comments" in the heading, and shall be addressed to:

    Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission

    Public Service Commission

    P.O. Box 7854

    Madison, WI 53707-7854

The commission does not accept comments submitted via e-mail or facsimile (fax). Any material submitted to the commission is a public record and may appear on the commission's web site. Only one comment may be submitted per person during a comment period. The commission may reject a comment that does not comply with the requirements described in this notice.

Analysis Prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Statutory authority and explanation of authority

This rule is authorized under ss. 196.02 (1) and (3), 196.745 (1) (a), and 227.11, Stats.

Section 227.11, Stats., authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section 196.02 (1), Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.02 (3), Stats., grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Section 196.745 (1) (a), Stats., grants the commission specific authority to adopt rules requiring that the construction and operation of gas facilities be done in a reasonably adequate and safe manner.

Statutes interpreted

Section 196.02 (1), Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.03 (1) Stats., requires public utilities to furnish adequate service. Section 196.37 (2), Stats., requires utility practices and services to be reasonable.

Related statutes or rules

Chapters PSC 113, 134, and 185, which contain the commission's rules for the provision of service by electric utilities, standards for gas service and standards for water public utility service.

Brief summary of rule

This rule is intended to harmonize the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act with the commission's administrative rules on the provision of service by utilities. Specifically, the rule requires public utilities in Wisconsin to take steps to identify and mitigate identity theft risks by verifying the identity of applicants for service as required by the FACT rules. Many Wisconsin utilities already use procedures consistent with the requirements of this rule. This rule permits utilities to require an applicant for service to provide initial identifying information. If an applicant for service refuses to provide identifying information or provides inadequate identifying information, the rule permits utilities to require additional identifying information as a pre-condition for establishing service. If an applicant for service fails to provide identifying information, the utility may refuse to provide service to the applicant.

Comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act1 (FACT) included a number of changes to the Fair Credit Reporting Act2. Many of these changes addressed identity theft risks and plans that companies must develop to ensure the identity of those who already have accounts, or who open new accounts, with the company. This rule is intended to harmonize the requirements of the federal government and the commission with regard to identity theft risks.

1Pub. L. No. 108-159, 117 Stat. 1952.

215 U.S.C. 1681.

Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states

Michigan permits utilities to request customer identification similar to this rule (MI Admin. Rule 460.106). Illinois (see, e.g., 83 Ill. Adm. Code 280.70), Minnesota, and Iowa (see Iowa Admin. Code r. 199-19.4(16)) do not have administrative rules either allowing or prohibiting a utility to require identification as a pre-condition for service, but each state requires utilities to comply with company-specific tariffs when they review applications for service. Many of those tariffs allow utilities to require supporting documentation, including identification.

Effect on Small Business

This rule has no effect on small businesses since these utilities, as monopolies and unlike small businesses, are all dominant in their field. Further, these rules primarily harmonize the commission's rules on the provision of utility service with federal regulations.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rulemaking will not have an effect on small business.