Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule is required by
2007 Wis. Act 171, section
6. The new law creates a multiple trip permit for certain overweight vehicles or vehicle combinations transporting granular roofing materials. The law establishes certain conditions for the permit and certain limitations on operation.
This proposed rule implements those conditions and limitations:
•
The permit allows excess gross weight of 10,000 pounds, but not to exceed 90,000 pounds.
•
The permit requires that the motor carrier on whose behalf the load is transported be named in the permit.
•
The permit requires a named origin, destination, and designated route of travel.
•
The permit requires that any municipality or county whose highways make up any part of the designated route pass a resolution allowing that transport, and requires the permit applicant to submit copies of all resolutions to the department along with the permit application.
The proposed rule defines “granular roofing material" in order to make eligibility for permit and enforcement clear and uniform.
The proposed rule states that the permit is not valid on the interstate highway system, and is valid on not more than 2.5 miles of the state trunk highway system.
Comparison with federal regulations
Federal law governs overweight transport on certain federal highways, including general prohibition of divisible overweight loads on the interstate highway system. Pursuant to
23 U.S.C. section 127 and
23 C.F.R. section 658, divisible overweight loads are not allowed on the interstate highway system.
2007 Wis. Act 171 provides that a permit under this law may be issued for up to 2.5 miles on any state trunk highway if such issuance of the permit is consistent with federal law. This proposed rule is consistent with federal law because
2007 Wis. Act 171 authorizes permits for this type of divisible load and transport is not allowed on the interstate highway system.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Michigan: Michigan has no rule or statute authorizing overweight loads of granular roofing materials, or similar divisible overweight loads.
Minnesota: Minnesota has no rule or statute authorizing overweight loads of granular roofing materials, or similar divisible overweight loads.
Illinois: Illinois has no rule or statute authorizing overweight loads of granular roofing materials, or similar divisible overweight loads.
Iowa: Iowa has no rule or statute authorizing overweight loads of granular roofing materials, or similar divisible overweight loads.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
This proposed rule implements a newly-enacted law. The Department's implementation of the law, including policies, procedures, and requirements, is the same as the Department applies to all similar multiple trip permits.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This proposed rule implements
2007 Wis. Act 171. The law will allow all businesses, including small businesses, to transport granular roofing materials at weights exceeding state load limits. This would have a beneficial effect on small businesses. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at
ralph.sanders@ dot.state.wi.us, or by calling (414) 438-4585.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on the liabilities or revenues of any county, city, village, town, school district, vocational, technical and adult education district, sewerage district, or federally-recognized tribes or bands.
The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on state or private sector revenues or liabilities.
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
108.225 (16) (a) 3. and
(am) 2.,
108.14 (2), and s.
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider rules creating Chapter
DWD 136, relating to wages exempt from unemployment insurance levy and affecting small businesses.
Hearing Information
July 22, 2008
|
MADISON
|
Tuesday
|
G.E.F. 1 Building, H306
|
10:00 a.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 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 audiotape format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Agency Contact Person
Submission of Written Comments
Written comments may be submitted to Tracey Schwalbe, UI Research Attorney, Dept. of Workforce Development, P.O. Box 8942, 201 E. Washington Avenue, Madison, WI 53707-8942, or
tracey.schwalbe@dwd.state.wi.us. Written comments received at the above address, email, or through the
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov web site no later than July 23, 2008, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Copies of Proposed Rules
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 the department address above.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted
Related statutes and rules
Explanation of agency authority
Section
108.225, Stats., gives the department the power of administrative levy upon any property of the debtor to allow the department to collect forfeitures or benefit overpayments owed under the unemployment insurance program. The individual debtor is entitled to a subsistence allowance of a dollar amount or percent of wages that are exempt from levy by the department.
Levy to recover forfeitures. Pursuant to s.
108.04 (11) (c), Stats., any employing unit that aids and abets or attempts to aid and abet a claimant in committing an act of concealment may be required to forfeit an amount equal to the amount of the benefits the claimant improperly received as a result of the concealment plus an additional forfeiture for each single act of concealment the employing unit aids and abets or attempts to aid and abet. When the department collects the forfeiture by levy, s.
108.225 (16) (a), Stats., provides that an individual is entitled to an exemption from levy of the greater of the following:
1. A subsistence allowance of 75% of the debtor's disposable earnings.
2. An amount equal to 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage for each full week of the debtor's pay period.
3. In the case of earnings for a period other than a week, a subsistence allowance computed so that it is equivalent to 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage using a multiple of the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by rule of the department.
Levy to recover benefit overpayments. When the department collects benefit overpayments by levy, s.
108.225 (16) (am), Stats., provides that an individual is entitled to an exemption from levy of 80% of the individual's disposable earnings, except that:
1. A debtor's disposable earnings are totally exempt from levy if the debtor's wages are below the federal poverty guidelines for a household of the debtor's size or the levy would cause that result.
2. Upon petition by a debtor demonstrating hardship, the department may increase the portion of the debtor's disposable earnings that are exempt from levy.
3. The department may decrease or eliminate the exemption from levy if a final determination has been issued under s.
108.09, Stats., or a judgment has been entered under s.
108.24 (1), Stats., in which the debtor has been found guilty of making a false statement or representation to obtain benefits and the benefits and any assessment under s.
108.04 (11) (cm), Stats., have not been paid or reimbursed at the time that the levy is issued, unless the fund's treasurer has written off the debt under s.
108.16 (3) (a), Stats.
The law requires the department to prescribe by rule a methodology for application of the exemption that provides that a debtor's disposable earnings are totally exempt from levy if the debtor's wages are below the federal poverty guidelines for a household of the debtor's size or the levy would cause that result.
Summary of proposed rule
The proposed rule prescribes the methodology for application of s.
108.225 (16), Stats., and
15 USC 1673, for a third party employer to determine an individual's wages exempt from levy by the department. The proposed rule expresses the calculations necessary to determine the amount of wages excluded from department levy and the maximum amount that may levied by the department to recover benefit overpayments and forfeitures.
•
To calculate the maximum levy amount for collecting forfeitures or benefit overpayments involving fraud or concealment, s.
DWD 136.02 provides that the maximum levy amount shall be 25% of the individual's disposable earnings for the pay period unless by levying that amount, the total aggregate of all levies against the individual will exceed 25% of the individual's disposable earnings plus prior levies for the pay period, or exceed the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage for a week or for equivalent pay periods (the federal garnishment protections). If the department cannot take the full 25% levy amount, the proposed rule provides that the department may levy the lesser of the difference between:
• 25% of the individual's disposable earnings plus prior levies for the pay period, and the amount of prior levies in effect for the pay period, or
• the individual's weekly disposable earnings and 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage (or an equivalent pay period).
•
To calculate the maximum levy amount for collecting benefit overpayments, s.
DWD 136.03 (1) (a) directs that the department may not levy any amount if the individual's wages are below the federal poverty guidelines. The maximum levy amount shall be 20% of the individual's disposable earnings for the pay period unless by levying that amount, the full levy amount will put the individual's disposable earnings below the poverty guidelines for the individual's household size, or if the total aggregate of all levies against the individual will exceed 25% of the total of the individual's disposable earnings plus prior levies for the pay period, or exceed the amount by which the individual's disposable earnings exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage for a week or for equivalent pay periods (the federal garnishment protections). If the department cannot take the full 20% levy amount, the proposed rule provides that the department may levy the lesser of the difference between:
• the individual's gross earnings and the federal poverty guidelines, or
• 25% of the individual's disposable earnings plus prior levies for the pay period and the amount of prior levies in effect for the pay period, or
• the individual's weekly disposable earnings and 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage (or an equivalent pay period).
The proposed rule defines relevant terms and directs the department to use the guidelines adopted by the judicial conference annually under s.
812.34 (3), Stats., or a comparable table. Finally, the proposed rule establishes amounts to be used in the exemption calculations that are equivalent to 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage for a week (for two-week, semi-monthly and monthly pay periods).
Comparison with federal regulations
In addition to the state exemptions from levy, the federal law,
15 USC 1673, prescribes that the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek that is subject to garnishment may not exceed the smaller of the following:
1. 25% of the individual's disposable earnings for that week.
2. The amount by which the individual's earnings for that week exceed 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage in effect at the time the earnings are payable.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Iowa's Administrative Code provides that a garnishment of an individual's wages may not exceed the restrictions imposed by the state garnishment law or by the federal Consumer Protection Act,
15 USC 1671 et seq. 875 IAC 217.39. Iowa law provides maximum amounts of an employee's earnings that may be garnished during one calendar year depending on the earnings of the employee.
Michigan law provides that unemployment levies are subject to the same wage protections as the state's garnishment law.
Minnesota law provides for garnishment for delinquent taxes and unemployment benefit overpayments. The maximum garnishment allowed for any one pay period must be decreased by any amounts payable under any other garnishment action.
Illinois provides that unemployment insurance liens may be made against employers, subject to personal property exemptions which have been interpreted to include wages up to $4,000.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The rule implements the requirements of s.
108.225 (16), Stats., and
15 USC 1673. The Department reviewed forms prepared by the Judicial Conference for implementation of s.
812.34, Stats., regarding exemptions from earnings garnishment based on a judgment debt.
Analysis used to determine effect on small businesses
The substantive provisions are in the statute. The rule merely prescribes the methodology for application of the statutes. Management representatives of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council disseminated the worksheet and forms that will be used to implement the rule to businesses for comments. Two comments were received and will be incorporated into the forms.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The rule affects small businesses as defined in s.
227.114 (1), Stats., but does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
No significant impact was expected from the law change adopting s.
108.226 (16) (am), Stats. The rule implements the statute and no other fiscal impact is expected.
State fiscal effect
None
Types of local governmental units affected
