Hearing Dates:
May 21 & 28, 1997
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
Workforce Development
(Labor Standards, Chs. DWD 270-279)
Rules were adopted revising ch. DWD 272, relating to the minimum wage.
Finding of Emergency
The Department of Workforce Development finds that an emergency exists and that a rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. A statement of the facts constituting the emergency is:
In addition to raising the minimum wage to $4.75 per hour on October 1, 1996, and $5.15 per hour on September 1, 1997, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act provides for an “opportunity wage” of $4.25 per hour which may be paid by each new employer to a person under the age of 20 during the first 90 days of employment. The Department's permanent rules to raise the state minimum wage contained provisions creating an opportunity wage that are the same as those of the federal law.
On April 10, 1997, the State Senate Committee on Labor, Transportation and Financial Institutions suspended the portions of
CR 96-181 relating to the opportunity wage. The Department proceeded with formal adoption of the provisions of the rule that were not suspended; the permanent rule changes will become effective on June 1, 1997. On April 17, 1997, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) unanimously approved extension of the Department's emergency rule on minimum wage, which includes the provisions on the opportunity wage. The emergency rule extension lasts until June 27, 1997.
The respective votes of the two Legislative committees have caused uncertainty as to whether the provisions relating to the opportunity wage remain in effect through June 27, 1997, or expire on June 1, 1997. The JCRAR has met several times since the standing committee's suspension but its only action on this issue was to extend the emergency rule, which includes the opportunity wage provision. The legal interpretation from the Legislative Council as to the precedence of the emergency rule provision vs. the permanent rule provision has not been definitive.
It appears that the JCRAR will vote in June on the standing committee suspension of the opportunity wage provisions of the permanent rule. If the JCRAR does not concur in the standing committee's suspension, the Department will proceed to promulgate the opportunity wage provisions on a permanent basis. However, due to timelines required for promulgation of permanent rules, this provision would not likely take effect permanently until September 1, 1997. Thus, the delays in action coupled with interpretive uncertainty could result in a regulatory gap that would cause confusion amongst the state's employees and employers over the provisions in effect after June 1, 1997. The Department believes that such uncertainty throughout the state would be undesirable.
In absence of definitive legal opinion or action on the opportunity wage issue by the JCRAR, this emergency rule alleviates uncertainty as to whether the opportunity wage provisions are effective after June 1 by explicitly maintaining their effect. The Department will make every reasonable effort to comply with the JCRAR's intent once action is taken. If the JCRAR affirms the standing committee's suspension, the Department will immediately withdraw the provisions of this emergency rule. If the JCRAR does not affirm the standing committee's suspension, this emergency rule will prevent a gap in coverage of the opportunity wage between the date of JCRAR action in June and the effective date of permanent provisions on the opportunity wage.
This emergency rule also contains a provision that prohibits the displacement of an employee that occurs solely for the purpose of hiring an opportunity employee. This language is similar to a provision of the federal law and was included by the Department because the Senate Committee on Labor, Transportation and Financial Institutions asked that the state rule also contain this provision. This language was originally submitted to the Senate Labor, Transportation and Financial Institutions Committee as a germane modification to CR-96-181 on March 31, 1997. It was the Department's intent to promulgate this provision as part of the permanent rule. However, this provision was inadvertently omitted from the final draft.
Publication Date:
May 31, 1997
Effective Date:
May 31, 1997
Expiration Date:
October 29, 1997
EMERGENCY RULES NOW IN EFFECT
Workforce Development
(Wage Rates, Chs. ILHR 290-294)
Rules adopted revising ch. ILHR 290, relating to the determination of prevailing wage rates for workers employed on state or local public works projects.
Finding of Emergency
The Department of Workforce Development finds that an emergency exists and that rules are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. A statement of the facts constituting the emergency is:
On December 11, 1996, this Department adopted an emergency rule and began permanent rulemaking to amend the former ch. ILHR 290, Wis. Adm. Code, in accordance with 1995 Act 215, which enacted changes in the laws governing the determination of prevailing wage rates for state and local public works projects. Among the provisions of that emergency rule was a section on the classification of subjourneypersons.
The initial emergency rule will expire on May 10, 1997. The Department has developed a different provision on subjourneypersons which it is submitting for legislative committee review as a part of the permanent rule in its proposed final draft stage. In the meantime, it is necessary to have a formal policy on subjourneypersons in effect so that the Department may continue to issue wage determinations on state and local public works projects without causing the projects to be delayed. Therefore, the Department is adopting the new subjourneyperson policy, and related procedural provisions, as an emergency rule.
Publication Date:
May 10, 1997
Effective Date:
May 10, 1997
Expiration Date:
October 8, 1997
Hearing Date:
June 19, 1997
Statements of Scope of Proposed Rules
Financial Institutions
(Securities)
Subject:
DFI-Sec Code - Rules relating to the Wisconsin Uniform Securities Law and the Wisconsin Franchise Investment Law.
Description of policy issues:
Description of the objective of the rule:
The Division's annual rule revision process is conducted for the following purposes:
1) Making changes to simplify and streamline the process by which securities and franchise issuers register offerings of their securities and franchises;
2) Developing new securities registration exemptions or making modifications to existing securities registration exemptions to reflect new legal or interpretive issues under the federal and state securities laws;
3) Adopting new rules or amending existing rules, relating to the securities broker-dealer, agent and investment adviser licensing requirements, procedures and sales practices to effectively regulate new licensing developments that have occurred in the securities industry and marketplace that require regulatory treatment;
4) Making clarifications to any current securities or franchise rule provisions where language is vague or ambiguous.
Description of existing relevant policies and new policies proposed to be included in the rule and an analysis of policy alternatives:
The Division's annual rule revision process for 1997 will be particularly important in view of recent federal securities legislation, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA,” enacted October 11, 1996) which preempted state securities law regulatory authority in several respects. In addition to legislative changes that the Division will be proposing during 1997, a number of administrative rule changes will be necessary, particularly with regard to the investment adviser, broker-dealer, and agent licensing rules that are impacted by NSMIA. Additionally, recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rule-making under NSMIA, (most significantly, a comprehensive series of new rules applicable to investment advisers that will become effective July 8, 1997) will require numerous amendments to the existing Wisconsin rules regarding investment adviser licensing requirements.
Statutory authority for the rules:
Sections 551.63 (1) and (2), 553.58 (1) and (2), Stats.
Estimate of the amount of time state employes will spend to develop the rule and other resources necessary to develop the rule:
Estimated time to be spend by state employes--150 hours. No other resources are necessary.
State Fair Park Board
Subject:
Wisconsin State Fair Park serves the citizens of Wisconsin by providing a permanent location for the annual state fair and other programs of civic interest. Development of this unique park is made possible through procedures enabling the park to be financially self-supporting. Its contractual involvement with private enterprise is consistent with its legislative purpose.
Description of policy issues:
Existing policy and purpose was implemented effective October 1, 1996, to parallel the municipal code with the processing municipality. The current requested revisions address two issues:
1) Section 1, s. SFP 2.07 (3); Section 2, s. SFP 2.16 (4) (b); Section 3, s. SFP 2.16 (5) (b); and Section 4, s. SFP 2.18 are amended to change the legal age from 18 to 17, to coincide with current state and municipal statutes.
2) Section 5, s. SFP 7.02 is amended to repeal the old bond schedule and recreate the new bond schedule to coincide with current processing municipalities.
Statutory authority for rule-making:
SS. 42.01 (1), (2) and (3) and 227.11 (2), Stats.
Estimates of staff time and other resources needed to develop the rules:
Estimated hours of staff time - 126 hours.
Transportation
Subject:
Ch. Trans 300 - Relating to the transportation of schoolchildren.
Description of policy issues:
Description of the objective of the rule:
The proposed rule change to ch. Trans 300, relating to the transportation of schoolchildren, will provide school bus manufacturers flexibility to use alternative materials in the construction process. The current rule has specific requirements for the thickness of metal used in the construction of the floor and rub rails. In addition, several corrections and revisions will also be proposed to allow new safety technologies and make Wisconsin school bus rules more uniform with federal school bus standards.
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 Department proposes to allow alternative school bus construction material. The current rule requires specific steel thicknesses for the floor and rub rails. To keep the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) at or below 10,000 lbs., the revision would allow “other metal or material with strength at least equivalent to all-steel as certified by the bus body manufacturer.” There are estimated to be 60 buses on order by operators. Without the proposed changes, these buses could not be used in Wisconsin, and schools will start using alternative vehicles (production vans) when the school year begins in August 1997 because of the unavailability of the smaller school buses built to the safer school bus standards.
Statutory authority for the rule:
S. 110.06 (2), Stats.
Estimates of the amount of time that state employes will spend developing the rule and of other resources necessary to develop the rule:
It is estimated that state employes will spend 45 hours on the rule-making process, including research, drafting and conducting public hearing(s).
University of Wisconsin System
Subject:
Ch. UWS 18 - Relating to conduct on University of Wisconsin System lands.
Description of policy issues:
Objectives of the rules:
Under s. 36.11 (1) (c), Stats., the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System has promulgated rules governing conduct on university lands. These rules are enforced by university police officers in accordance with the citation procedure provided under s. 778.25, Stats. The proposed rules would amend existing provisions and create new provisions to address current campus law enforcement problems.
Policy analysis:
The last major revision to these rules was completed in 1991. Since that time, campus police officers have experienced new problems and have recommended that the rules be amended to deal with these situations. The changes would be consistent with modifications in certain state criminal statutes and municipal ordinances. New provisions under the rules would address specified fire safety issues, possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting or obstructing police officers, abuses of telephones, assaultive behavior, the operation of motor vehicles off roadways, misuse of parking permits, damage to computers and related equipment, abuse of computer communication equipment, deposit of human waste, curfew violations by minors, conduct at athletic events and theft of library materials. Inclusion of these new provisions in ch. UWS 18 would allow university police to invoke the citation procedure for enforcement purposes in a manner parallel to that used by municipalities to deal with ordinance violations for similar offenses.
Policy alternatives to the rules:
The principal alternative to the proposal is to make no changes in the rules. If no changes are made, the law enforcement problems listed above either would not be actionable at all, or would have to be addressed through state criminal proceedings. Use of the state criminal process to address these relatively minor offenses is problematic because it is a more complex process than the citation process, and because using it places additional burdens on other law enforcement agencies and officials. Further, invoking the criminal process can lead to inequitable treatment of individuals charged with misconduct, since a person apprehended on university lands may be charged with a crime, while the same offense could be treated as an ordinance violation if it occurred in the neighboring municipality.
Statutory authority for the proposed rules:
Section 36.11 (1) (c), Stats.
State employe time required for development of the rules:
