Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

One goal of the proposed rule change is to avoid undue regulatory cost. In accordance with s. 227.137, Wis. Stats., the Department solicited information and advice from affected sources and stakeholders concerning the economic impacts of the proposed rule. The Department received comments from two affected utilities which supports the conclusion that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and cost. This information was considered in preparing the fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis.

Effect on Small Business

The proposed rule will only affect electric utilities generating electricity and will not affect small businesses.

Environmental Analysis

The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on comments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis Summary

Fiscal estimate

1. Fiscal effect on state and local government

The proposed rule will not result in additional cost to state and local government. The proposed rule is intended to avoid additional compliance costs for coal-fired electric generating units. Manitowoc Public Utility, the one local government entity that is affected by the rule change, has commented that the proposed rule will reduce compliance burden and avoid additional costs.

2. Fiscal effect on the private sectors

The proposed rule is intended to avoid additional compliance costs to coal-fired electric generating units, and therefore, the private sector will incur no additional cost that is related to this rule change. The non-government electric utility companies affected by the rule change include Dairyland Power Cooperative, Wisconsin Power and Light, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, We Energies and Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy and Dairyland Power Cooperative provided comments supporting the conclusion that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and avoid additional costs.

Economic impact analysis (EIA)

1. Summary of analysis under s. 227.137 (4), Wis. Stats.

The objective of the proposed rule change is to aid transition of mercury emission regulation from under state rule to federal rule and therein reduce potential compliance costs and burden. As a result, there is no increase in the costs incurred by affected EGUs and electric rate payers. Likewise, there is no negative impact on the state's economy.

2. Summary of revised analysis

The Department received comments from three affected EGUs which supports the original conclusion provided in the EIA that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and cost. No other comments were received.

3. Summary of report prepared by the Department of Administration (DOA) for purposes of s. 227.137(6), Wis. Stats.

A report from the DOA is not required by s. 227.137 (6), Wis. Stats., for this proposed rule change.

Agency Contact Person

Tom Karman

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Air Management (AM/7)

101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI 53703

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
⍽ Original   X Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter NR 446 Subchapter III - Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electric Generating Units
3. Subject
Revision of the initial compliance date under subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			NA
6. 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 Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy X Local Government Units		X Specific Businesses/Sectors X Public Utility Rate Payers ⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Mercury emitted by coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) in the state will be regulated under recently promulgated federal rules beginning on April 16, 2016. According to s. 285.27(2)(d), Wis. Stats, these same EGUs will be exempt from the state mercury rule requirements under subch. II and III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, when mercury emissions are regulated under the federal rules. The Department is proposing to change the initial compliance date under subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016 to aid the transition of regulating mercury emissions from under the state rule to the federal rules.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
The state mercury rule affects EGUs operated by six electric utilities: Alliant Energy, Dairyland Power Cooperative, Manitowoc Public Utilities (MPU), Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, We Energies, and Xcel Energy. The Department solicited information from the affected utilities, local units of government, and individuals in finalizing the economic impact assessment. The Department received comments from three of the affected utilities, Dairyland Power Cooperative, MPU and Xcel Energy.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Manitowoc Public Utility (MPU) is owned and operated by the City of Manitowoc. MPU provided comments supporting the conclusion that the rule change will reduce compliance burden and cost.
12. 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 objective of the proposed rule change is to aid transition of mercury emission regulation from under state rule to federal rule and therein reduce potential compliance costs and burden. As a result, there is no increase in costs to the affected EGUs and electric rate payers. Likewise, there is no negative impact on the state's economy. The Department received comments supporting this conclusion from three of the affected EGUs. The Department received no other comments.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The proposed rule change is intended to reduce potential compliance cost and burden. The alternative is to take no action which will result in electric utilities complying with state rule requirements in subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, on January 1, 2015 and then federal rule requirements beginning on April 16, 2015. These dual, staggered compliance requirements with both the state and federal rules will result in additional undue cost and use of resources. The proposed rule change modifies the initial compliance date for requirements in subch. III of ch. NR 446, Wis. Adm. Code, from January 1, 2015 to April 16, 2016. This approach accomplishes two goals; 1) it allows EGUs to comply first with federal requirements and thereby be exempt from the state rule requirements and 2) it ensures that mercury emission reductions are achieved in a timely fashion in the event that federal rules are delayed past April 16, 2016.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
According to s. 285.27(2)(d), Wis. Stats., mercury emitted by electric utilities will no longer be regulated under state rules once emissions are regulated under federal rules. This means that in the long-term, mercury emitted by electric utilities will be regulated under federal rules. This proposed rule change is intended to facilitate this transition to regulation under the federal rules. Therefore, the proposed rule does not change the long-term outcome for regulating mercury emitted by coal-fired electric utilities.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
This rule action is consistent with federal rules regulating electric utility mercury emissions.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Mercury emitted by electric utilities in neighboring states will also be regulated by the same federal rules affecting Wisconsin electric utilities.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Tom Karman				[phone]

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

The proposed rule change does not have a fiscal impact on small business for purposes of this EIA.

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements ⍽ Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting ⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements ⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards ⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements ⍽ Other, describe:

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

⍽ Yes ⍽ No

Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing

Public Instruction

rulemaking_notices CR 13-083 CR 13-083

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction proposes to repeal ss. PI 21.01 (Note), 21.04 (4) (Note), and 21.05 (1) (Note), (2), and (2) (Note); amend s. PI 21.04 (intro); and to repeal and recreate s. PI 21.04 (4), relating to driver education programs.

The rules are being adopted under s. 227.16 (2) (e), Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule and fiscal estimate are published in the notice section of the Administrative Register and the required petition is not received by the agency within 30 days after publication of the notice.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

As provided in s. 227.16 (2) (e), Stats., a public hearing will not be held for this rule change unless the required petition is received by the Department.

Analysis by the Department

Statute interpreted

Section 115.28 (11), Stats.

Statutory authority

Section 227.11 (2) (a) (intro), Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

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." Under s. 115.28 (11), Stats., the DPI is required to approve driver education course plans that meet certain guidelines.

Related statute or rule

N/A.

Plain language analysis

Section PI 21.05 requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to issue certificates. This will soon be unnecessary since the Department of Transportation (DOT) is going to issue on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will not take effect until DOT begins issuing these on-line certificates.

Additionally, s. PI 21.04 requires DPI to approve driver education course plans. However, to be more efficient, DPI is modifying the way it reviews driver education course plans. The DPI proposes modifying s. PI 21.04 to state that a public or private high school, county children with disabilities education board, or a CESA submitting on behalf of a district that it has contracted with to provide driver education instructional services, must submit an assurance stating it is complying with the program requirements in s. PI 21.04 in order to receive DPI approval. This assurance will substitute for DPI actively approving the specific program components. The DPI will continue to review each program's instructors to verify that their departmental driver education certification is current and valid.

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

N/A.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

No information.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

These changes are designed to update the rule to reflect future practice. If these changes are not made, the rule may not align with agency practice.

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

First, this rule change will avoid duplication of effort on the DPI's part because the DOT will be issuing on-line certificates for students in school driver education programs. Second, this rule change will make the approval process for driver education course plans faster because public or private high schools, county children with disabilities education boards, and CESAs will provide an assurance that their driver education course plans meet the necessary requirements and then the plans are approved. It will also save the DPI resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.

Anticipated Costs Incurred by Private Sector

There is not expected to be a cost to the private sector.

Effect on Small Business

The proposed rules will have no economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats.

Agency Contact Person

Katie Schumacher

Budget and Policy Analyst

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

[e-mail]

[phone]

Text of Rule

SECTION 1. PI 21.01 (Note) is repealed.

SECTION 2. PI 21.04 (intro) is amended to read:

PI 21.04 (intro)   A public school, private school, CCDEB, or CESA driver education program shall be is approved by the department under s. 343.06 (1) (c), Stats., if the program uses vehicles which meet the requirements of s. PI 21.03 and the program meets all of the following requirements:

SECTION 3. PI 21.04 (4) is repealed and recreated to read:

PI 21.04 (4)   Required assurance. A public or private school, CCDEB, or CESA shall electronically submit to the department an assurance that its driver education course plan complies with the requirements of this subsection along with a list of their driver education instructors and their DPI teacher file numbers.

SECTION 4. PI 21.04 (4) (Note) is repealed.

SECTION 5. PI 21.05 (1) (Note) is repealed.

SECTION 6. PI 21.05 (2) is repealed.

SECTION 7. PI 21.05 (2) (Note) is repealed.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE:

The proposed rules contained in this order shall take effect on the first day of the month commencing after the date of publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
PI 21, Driver Education Programs
Subject
Modifying the Course Plan Approval Process and the Driver Education Certificate Process
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect X Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget X 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
PI 21.05 requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to issue certificates. This will soon be unnecessary since the Department of Transportation (DOT) is going to issue on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will not take effect until DOT begins issuing these on-line certificates. Additionally, PI 21.04 requires DPI to approve driver education course plans. However, to be more efficient, DPI is modifying the way it reviews driver education course plans. The DPI proposes modifying PI 21.04 to state that a public or private high school, county children with disabilities education board, or a CESA submitting on behalf of a district that it has contracted with to provide driver education instructional services, must submit an assurance stating they are complying with the program requirements in PI 21.04 in order to receive DPI approval. This assurance will substitute for DPI actively approving the specific program components. The DPI will continue to review each program's instructors to verify that their departmental driver education certification is current and valid.
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)
Local: None. School districts would only need to provide DPI with the names and teacher file numbers of driver education instructors as well as an assurance that they are complying with the program requirements. Students in driver education programs would still receive credit for completing these programs but DOT, instead of DPI, would be in charge of that process. Additionally, this eliminates the need for storage of paper completion certificates; schools were required to store paper copies for 7 years but now local completion records will be able to be maintained and stored electronically. State: This rule change will avoid duplication of effort on DPI's part because DOT is going to be issuing on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. This rule change will eliminate printing costs associated with the printing of PI 1714 forms; eliminate shipping and postage associated with getting certificates to schools; and eliminates the time required to ship and mail certificates to schools. It will also save the Department resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
This rule change will avoid duplication of effort on DPI's part because DOT is going to be issuing on-line certificates which will apply to students in school driver education programs. It will also save the Department resources because employees will not need to spend time reviewing driver education course plans.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The Department will reduce its role with regards to driver education programs while the roles of the DOT and those submitting driver education course plans will increase.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
No information.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
No information.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Katie Schumacher, Department of Public Instruction Administrative Rules Coordinator, [phone].

Notice of Rule Making Without Public Hearing

Public Instruction

rulemaking_notices CR 13-084 CR 13-084

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction hereby proposes an order to repeal Chapter PI 29, relating to grants for Preschool Through Grade 5 programs.

The rules are being adopted under s. 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., which provides that rulemaking does not need to be preceded by notice and public hearing if the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.

Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

As provided in s. 227.16 (2) (b), there is no requirement that a public hearing be held for this rule because the proposed rule brings an existing rule into conformity with a statute that has been changed.

Analysis by the Department

Statute interpreted

None. 2011 Wisconsin Act 32 eliminated s. 115.45, Stats.

Statutory authority

None.

Explanation of agency authority