Scope Statements
Government Accountability Board
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on July 11, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Assistance by government accountability board staff and voting procedures for challenged electors.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The proposed change to s.
GAB 6.03, Wis. Adm. Code, is simply to amend statutory references that occurred with the adoption of
2007 Wisconsin Act 1. The proposed change to s.
GAB 9.03, Wis. Adm. Code, removes a single reference to “lever" voting machines which are no longer permitted in Wisconsin.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
The proposed revisions do not result in any policy changes. The changes bring the rules into conformity with current Wisconsin statutes.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
5.05 (1) (f), Stats., expressly authorizes the Board to promulgate rules under ch.
227, Stats., for the purpose of interpreting or implementing the laws regulating the conduct of elections or election campaigns or ensuring their proper administration.
Section
5.05 (6a), Stats., permits the Board to authorize staff to provide informal opinions to individuals requesting advice. In s.
GAB 6.03 the Board has authorized the staff to provide these informal opinions.
Section
6.95, Stats., provides procedures for challenged electors to cast a ballot. In s.
GAB 9.03, additional detail is provided on the voting procedures for challenged electors.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., expressly authorizes the Board to promulgate rules to interpret the provisions of statutes the Board enforces or administers.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
10-15 hours.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
This will affect individuals requesting advice from the Government Accountability Board staff and challenged electors.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Requests for assistance from the Government Accountability Board staff and voting procedures for challenged electors are state and local functions, not functions of the federal government. Federal regulations do not govern on these matters.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
There is no economic impact anticipated to implement the rule changes.
9. Contact Person
Michael Haas, 608-266-0136, michael.haas@wisconsin. gov.
Government Accountability Board
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on July 11, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Complaint procedure and enforcement of campaign finance, lobbying, and ethics laws relating to ss.
5.05 (1) (f),
5.05 (2) (m),
5.93,
11.60,
13.69,
19.55,
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting Subchapter
I of Chapter 5 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
This rule repeals rules ss.
GAB 21.01 and
21.04 and amends s.
GAB 20.01 as they are no longer operable subsequent to the merger of the State Ethics Board with the State Elections Board under
2007 Wisconsin Act 1. These rules prescribe procedures relating to processing complaints that were propagated under those particular state agencies. Because those agencies merged into the Government Accountability Board under
2007 Wisconsin Act 1, the associated complaint procedure of the former Ethics Board and the campaign finance complaint procedure of the former Elections Board are no longer consistent with current practices. The Government Accountability Board complaint procedures are provided by statute and not by administrative rule; therefore, the existing rules need to be repaired and repealed.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Existing policy: The existing policy prescribes rules that were intended for agencies that no longer exist and delineate complaint procedures that are inaccurate (e.g., the GAB address that is given in s.
GAB 21.01 is not the address of the GAB's current location) or are superfluous to procedures that are prescribed in state statues.
Proposed policy: Repealed ss. GAB 21.01 and 21.04 will reconcile the administrative code with the statutory changes that have occurred since 2007 and the amended s.
GAB 20.01will accurately describe the provisions in the state statutes consistent with the complaint procedures currently in effect at the Government Accountability Board.
Alternatives:
A)
Do Nothing — leave chapters GAB 20 and 21 as they are.
1) Pros: This alternative means that no rule revision is necessary and staff resources will not be diverted from other tasks and duties needing the attention of the GAB.
2) Cons: The absence of rule revision and repeal in this instance will perpetuate out of date procedures and leave intact inaccurate rules in the administrative code.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
5.05 (1) (f), Stats., expressly authorizes the Board to promulgate rules under ch.
227, Stats., for the purpose of interpreting or implementing the laws regulating the conduct of elections or election campaigns or ensuring their proper administration.
Section
5.93, Stats., establishes that the board may promulgate “reasonable rules" for its administration.
Section
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., expressly authorizes the Board to promulgate rules to interpret the provisions of statutes the Board enforces or administers.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
10-15 hours
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
This rule will affect those wishing to file complaints with the Board pursuant to enforcement of the election laws and in compliance with the Help America Vote Act.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Because this proposal repeals two existing former Ethics Boards rules and effectively repeals a portion of a former Elections Board rule, there is no congruent federal regulation for comparison.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The anticipated economic impact from the implementation of the proposed order is minimal to none.
9. Contact Person
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
1 —
(DNR # WM-21-13)
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on July 15, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Hunting and trapping in state parks.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
These will be permanent rules.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
These will be the first rule revisions related to hunting and trapping in state parks since passage of
2011 Act 168 which established that those activities are generally allowed. These rules will amend or repeal portions of chs.
NR 10 and
45 so that hunting regulations promulgated under previous statutory authority will be consistent with the act. These rules will amend the same chapters so that hunting and trapping regulations in state parks are not in conflict with policies established by the Natural Resources Board under authority created by the act. Through this proposal, the department may significantly simplify hunting regulations.
For safety purposes, these rules may prohibit the discharge of firearms from-or-across certain trails. These rules may restrict trapping to the use of dog proof traps only and define those traps.
The department will not use this rulemaking to establish new season dates or to modify periods when hunting and trapping are allowed in state parks.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Prior to
2011 Act 168, state parks were statutorily closed to hunting unless the department had written rules specifically allowing a hunting opportunity at an individual state park. Statutes did not grant rule authority for the department to allow bear hunting. Statutes did not grant rule authority to allow trapping. Today, hunting and trapping are both allowed at state parks except where the Natural Resources Board has prohibited the activities in order to protect public safety or a unique plant or animal community. Under Act 168, the Department may prohibit hunting or trapping on lands within 100 yards of a designated use area. Examples of designated use areas include locations such as campgrounds and beaches.
Because the old presumption that state parks are closed unless opened by rule has been replaced by a presumption that state parks are open unless board action has been taken to close them, some provisions of administrative rule have been pre-empted by the actor may no longer be needed. For example, s.
NR 45.09 (1) prohibits firearms discharge in state parks, except where seasons have been established in s.
NR 10.01 (3). This is no longer accurate because hunting is now allowed in many areas in addition to those established in s.
NR 10.01 (3).
Rules which establish certain small game hunting seasons at Governor Dodge, Mill Bluff, and Mirror Lake state parks may be in conflict with actions that have already been taken by the board under their new statutory authority. These rules will be reviewed.
State Ice Age Trail Areas fall under the statutory definition of state parks and are affected by the act in the same way as other state park properties. Specific hunting season frameworks and firearm possession and discharge restrictions established in s.
NR 10.275 (4) will also be modified for consistency with the act and subsequent action by the Natural Resources Board or may be repealed.
Other state trails and the North Country trail are also part of the state park system and these rules could apply to those properties as well.
Under previous statutory authority to allow turkey hunting at state parks, the department has established 18 state park turkey management units by rule. The only people who are allowed to hunt in those parks are people who draw one of a limited number of turkey permits specifically for that unit. Through these rules, the department proposes simplifying turkey hunting regulations by eliminating those units. Turkey hunting would be allowed at those parks by hunters who possess a harvest permit for the larger unit in which the state park property is located. This will simplify hunting regulations, expand the area for which turkey permits are valid, and streamline administration of the turkey permit system for the department. Through the hearing process, this proposal will be compared to the policy alternative of maintaining current rules, which some hunters may appreciate because competition from other hunters in a park is limited through the permit system.
Under previous statutory authority to allow deer hunting at state parks, the department has established 16 state park deer management units by rule. The only people who are allowed to hunt in parks for which a specific deer management unit is designated are people who purchase an access permit. Access permits are limited in number and issued on a first-come-first served basis. Through this rulemaking process, the department will evaluate simplifying hunting regulations by eliminating the access permit requirement and simply allowing deer hunting by anyone who possess the correct carcass tags for the surrounding deer unit. This will simplify hunting regulations, expand the area for which antlerless deer permits are valid, and streamline administration of permit systems for the department. Through the hearing process, this proposal will be compared to the policy alternative of maintaining current rules, which some hunters may appreciate because competition from other hunters in a park is limited through the access permit system.
Also under previous statutory authority, another 25 state parks are listed by rule and deer hunting seasons are established, although they do not have specific unit designations. Instead, they are simply a part of the surrounding deer management unit. Specifically naming these state parks by rule is no longer necessary and this rule proposal will strike most of that language.
These rules will establish that, in addition to the statutorily established prohibition of hunting from certain state park trails, no person may discharge a firearm, bow, crossbow or air gun from, on, or across any trail corridor on lands in the Wisconsin State Park system which are identified on a map produced by the department as a designated use area. This provision protects public safety by reducing the likelihood of archery gear and gun discharge from or across locations where people are likely to be present.
These rules may restrict trapping to the use of dog proof traps only and define those traps or modify existing trap-type definitions. A type of trap that would meet the requirements of being a “dog proof trap" is an "enclosed trigger trap". These are any trap with a pull-activated trigger, inside an enclosure, and recessed 1 1/4 inches or more, from an opening that is no greater than 1 3/4 inches in diameter. While these trap types are very effective for catching raccoons, they may be the only animal that is capable of activating the trigger and being captured.
Under
2011 Acts 35 and
51, the possession of concealed handguns and firearms transportation requirements have changed and this proposal will update administrative code to reflect those changes.
The department will consider creating, repealing, or amending other rules where an opportunity to simplify or clarify regulations is identified during this rule making process.
These rules will modify additional chapters of natural resources code where it is necessary to maintain cross references with chs.
NR 10 and
45.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
The state trails system and department responsibilities and powers are established in s.
23.175, Stats. State trails are described as part of the state park system in sub. (2) (a).
The state park system is established in s.
27.01, Stats. and specific authority for the department to promulgate rules necessary to govern the conduct of state park visitors and for the protection of state parks is found in sub. (2) (j).
The department's authority to establish and maintain open and closed seasons for fish and game and any bag limits, size limits, rest days and conditions governing the taking of fish and game is established in s.
29.014, Stats.
These proposed rules may use the statutory authority described above to interpret s.
29.089, Stats., related to trapping on land in state parks. This provision establishes that state parks are open to hunting and trapping and that the department may prohibit hunting or trapping in a park or portion of a park if necessary to protect public safety or a unique animal or plant community.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates that 400 hours of employee time will be needed to promulgate these rules.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Hunters, trappers, and other recreational users of state park lands are the principal groups that will be affected by this rulemaking. However, the department anticipates that the impacts of these rules for various state park enthusiasts will be minimal. The major policy decisions were made with the passage of
2011 Act 168 and refined through decisions made by the Natural Resources Board using authority established in the act. Any impacts of this subsequent rule making are likely to be minor.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
8. Anticipated economic impact of implementing the rule (note if the rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on small businesses)
These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, will have no effect on the private sector or small businesses. These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business.
Significant policy decisions that could potentially result in increased use of state parks by some users or decreased use by other users were made with enactment of
2011 Act 168 and again when the Natural Resources Board developed policies under authority of the act. These rules will not have significant additional impacts on the use of the state park system or the related economic activity of park users.
This is not a complete estimate of economic impacts but, rather, a summary which indicates that these rules could have none or a minimal economic effect locally or statewide. A 14 day comment period to gather public information will be sufficient to assist in the preparation of a final economic impact analysis.
9. Contact Person
Scott Loomans, 608-267-2452.
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
1 —
(DNR # WM-22-13 (E))
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on July 15, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Hunting and trapping in state parks.
Rule Type
Emergency.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
This rule is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare of visitors to Wisconsin State Park properties by restricting gun and archery shooting activities in certain areas and trapping activities to certain methods.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
These will be the first rule revisions related to hunting and trapping in state parks since passage of
2011 Act 168 which established that those activities are generally allowed.
For safety purposes, these rules may prohibit the discharge of firearms from-or-across certain trails. These rules may restrict trapping to the use of dog proof traps only and define those traps.
The department will not use this rulemaking to establish new season dates or to modify periods when hunting and trapping are allowed in state parks.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Prior to
2011 Act 168, state parks were statutorily closed to hunting unless the department had written rules specifically allowing a hunting opportunity at an individual state park. Statutes did not grant rule authority for the department to allow bear hunting. Statutes did not grant rule authority to allow trapping. Today, hunting and trapping are both allowed at state parks except where the Natural Resources Board has prohibited the activities in order to protect public safety or a unique plant or animal community. Under Act 168, the Department may prohibit hunting or trapping on lands within 100 yards of a designated use area. Examples of designated use areas include locations such as campgrounds, certain hiking trails and beaches.
The act allowed the department to prohibit hunting in designated use areas. For safety purposes, these rules would also prohibit the discharge of firearms, air-guns, bows, and crossbows from-or-across trails. For instance, under these rules, it would be illegal to discharge a firearm from an area where hunting is allowed to another area where hunting is allowed if the two areas are separated by a designated hiking trail.
These rules may restrict trapping to the use of dog proof traps only and define those traps or modify existing trap-type definitions. A type of trap that would meet the requirements of being a “dog proof trap" is an “Enclosed trigger trap". These are any trap with a pull-activated trigger, inside an enclosure, and recessed 1 1/4 inches or more, from an opening that is no greater than 1 3/4 inches in diameter. While these trap types are very effective for catching raccoons, they may be the only animal that is capable of activating the trigger and being captured. These rules may allow additional trap types in certain situations where the traps are submerged by water.
The effective dates of this rule will be delayed so that the provisions will be in effect for as long as possible while permanent rules are being promulgated.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
The state trails system and department responsibilities and powers are established in s.
23.175, Stats. State trails are described as part of the state park system in sub. (2) (a).
The state park system is established in s.
27.01, Stats., and specific authority for the department to promulgate rules necessary to govern the conduct of state park visitors and for the protection of state parks is found in sub. (2) (j).
The department's authority to establish and maintain open and closed seasons for fish and game and any bag limits, size limits, rest days and conditions governing the taking of fish and game is established in s.
29.014, Stats.
These proposed rules may use the statutory authority described above to interpret s.
29.089, Stats. related to trapping on land in state parks. This provision establishes that state parks are open to hunting and trapping and that the department may prohibit hunting or trapping in a park or portion of a park if necessary to protect public safety or a unique animal or plant community.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates that 200 hours of employee time will be needed to promulgate these rules.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Hunters, trappers, and other recreational users of state park lands are the principal groups that will be affected by this rulemaking. However, the department anticipates that the impacts of these rules for various state park enthusiasts will be minimal. The major policy decisions were made with the passage of
2011 Act 168 and refined through decisions made by the Natural Resources Board using authority established in the act. Any impacts of this subsequent rule making are likely to be minor.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, will have no effect on the private sector or small businesses. These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business.
Significant policy decisions that could potentially result in increased use of state parks by some users or decreased use by other users were made with enactment of
2011 Act 168 and again when the Natural Resources Board developed policies under authority of the act. These rules will not have significant additional impacts on the use of the state park system or the related economic activity of park users.
This is not a complete estimate of economic impacts but, rather, a summary which indicates that these rules could have none or a minimal economic effect locally or statewide. A 14 day comment period to gather public information will be sufficient to assist in the preparation of a final economic impact analysis.
9. Contact Person
Scott Loomans, 608-267-2452
Public Instruction
Per the Dane County Circuit Court order issued in Coyne, et al. v. Walker, et al., Case No. 11-CV-4573, the Department of Public Instruction is not required to obtain the Governor's approval for this statement of scope.
Rule No.
Relating to
Revenue limit exemptions for energy efficiencies.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency (Emergency Rule Only)
N/A
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
This rule change will modify ch.
PI 15 to reflect changes in the corresponding statutes as a result of
2011 Wisconsin Act 32 and
2013 Wisconsin Act 20. The rule will also be updated to reflect other statutory changes and agency practice.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Chapter
PI 15 was promulgated on March 1, 2010. This rule change is designed to modify the existing rule so that the rule is reflective of current law.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Under s.
227.11 (2) (a) (intro), Stats., “Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation." As such, a rule is required to effectively implement and provide transparency to the revenue limit exemptions for energy efficiencies under s.
121.91 (4) (o), Stats.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The amount of time needed for rule development by department staff and the amount of other resources necessary are minimal.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
This rule change will affect school districts.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
N/A.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
9. Contact Person
Public Instruction
Per the Dane County Circuit Court order issued in Coyne, et al. v. Walker, et al., Case No. 11-CV-4573, the Department of Public Instruction is not required to obtain the Governor's approval for this statement of scope.
Rule No.
Relating to
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
N/A.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
Section
119.23 (11) (a), Stats., requires the DPI to promulgate rules to implement and administer the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The 2013-15 budget,
2013 Wisconsin Act 20, made several modifications to the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The rule needs to be updated to reflect statutory changes and changes in practice.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
The DPI is proposing to update Ch.
PI 35 so that it reflects how the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is implemented and administered. The alternative to not updating this rule is to have an administrative rules chapter that is outdated.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
119.23 Milwaukee parental choice program.
(11) The department shall do all of the following:
(a) Promulgate rules to implement and administer this section. The department may not by rule establish standards under sub. (7) (am) that exceed the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The amount of time needed for rule development by department staff and the amount of other resources necessary is indeterminate.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Private schools participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program will be impacted by this rule change.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
N/A.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
9. Contact Person
Public Instruction
Per the Dane County Circuit Court order issued in Coyne, et al. v. Walker, et al., Case No. 11-CV-4573, the Department of Public Instruction is not required to obtain the Governor's approval for this statement of scope.
Rule No.
Relating to
Parental Choice Program for Eligible School Districts and Other School Districts.
Rule Type
Emergency and Permanent.
1. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The 2011-13 budget,
2011 Wisconsin Act 32, created the Parental Choice Programs for Eligible School Districts under s.
118.60, Stats. The 2013-15 budget,
2013 Wisconsin Act 20, significantly modified s.
118.60, Stats., including creating the Parental Choice Program for Eligible School Districts and Other School Districts. Section
118.60 (11) (a), Stats., requires the DPI to promulgate rules to implement and administer both programs. Unless a new rule is in place, DPI may be prevented from efficiently implementing and administering these programs.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The 2011-13 budget,
2011 Wisconsin Act 32, created the Parental Choice Programs for Eligible School Districts under s.
118.60, Stats. The 2013-15 budget,
2013 Wisconsin Act 20, significantly modified s.
118.60, Stats., including creating the Parental Choice Program for Eligible School Districts and Other School Districts. The DPI is proposing to create a rule to govern the implementation and administration of both programs.
3. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
The DPI is proposing to create a rule, Chapter
PI 48, to implement and administer the Parental Choice Program for Eligible School Districts and Other School Districts based on s.
118.60, Stats. Without a rule, the DPI will not be able to provide transparency in how it is implementing and administering these programs.
4. Detailed Explanation of Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
The DPI is explicitly required by statute to create a rule to implement and administer s.
118.60, Stats. Specifically, s.
118.60 (11) (a), Stats., provides:
118.60 Parental choice program for eligible school districts and other school districts.
(11) The department shall do all of the following:
(a) Promulgate rules to implement and administer this section. The department may not by rule establish standards under sub. (7) (am) that exceed the standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
5. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The amount of time needed for rule development by department staff and the amount of other resources necessary is indeterminate.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Private schools participating in these programs will be impacted by this rule.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
N/A.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats.
9. Contact Person
Public Service Commission
(PSC Docket # 1-AC-242)
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on July 2, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
The electronic delivery of applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN).
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the objective of The Rule and Expected Financial Impact
Currently, s.
196.491, Stats., requires the commission to send a copy of an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to clerks and public libraries. While s.
PSC 111.51 (4) currently requires the commission to send an electronic copy of an initial CPCN application to municipal and town clerks and public libraries, it requires the commission to send a paper copy of a completed application.
2013 Wisconsin Act 10 made changes to s.
196.491, Stats., to require the commission to send an electronic copy of both an initial and a completed CPCN application to clerks and public libraries. Upon request, the commission is also required to send a paper copy of the application. This rulemaking will make the
2013 Wisconsin Act 10 changes to s.
PSC 111.51 (4). No financial impact is expected.
2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
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
196.491 (3) (a), Stats., references commission rules about certificates of public convenience and necessity.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
Approximately 80 hours of state employee time will be spent developing and processing the rule. No additional resources should be necessary.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
The commission, municipal, town and county clerks, and county main public libraries.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
None.
7. Contact Person
Scot Cullen, Docket Coordinator
(608) 267-9229 or
Revenue
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on July 15, 2013.
Rule No.
Relating to
Assessment of agricultural property.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule will amend s.
Tax 18.05 (1) to provide further clarity regarding what land in federal and state pollution control and soil erosion programs should be classified as agricultural property that qualifies for use-value assessment.
2. Description of the Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule, New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule, and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives
Section
Tax 18.05 (1) currently defines what land in specific federal and state pollution control and soil erosion programs qualifies for agricultural use. This listing has not been updated since 2000.
The proposed rule will address changes in the listed programs that have occurred since the rule was enacted and will also identify general criteria for determining what land that is in federal and state pollution control and soil erosion programs qualifies for agricultural use under the subchapter. This will provide consistency and clear standards for property owners and assessors.
3. Detailed explanation of statutory authority for the rule (including the statutory citation and language)
“Agricultural use" means agricultural use as defined by the department of revenue by rule and includes the growing of short rotation woody crops, including poplars and willows, using agronomic practices.
Section
70.32 (2) (c) 1i., Stats., authorizes the department to promulgate a definition of agricultural use. This definition is found in s.
Tax 18.05 (1). The proposed rule will merely modify the definition of agricultural use as described in parts 1 and 2 above.
4. Estimate of Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend Developing the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates it will take approximately 200 hours to develop the rule.
5. List with Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Proposed Rule
Property owners and property assessors.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Proposed Rule
Property assessment is not regulated by federal statutes or regulations.
7. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
The proposed rule will have minimal or no economic impact.
The rule will have no economic impact on small business.
8. Contact Person
Nate Ristow, (608) 266-6466 or Dale Kleven, (608) 266-8253.
