Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Of the four adjacent states, only Minnesota and Michigan have lake trout fisheries on the Great Lakes. The commercial harvest of lake trout from Minnesota waters of Lake Superior is limited to a population assessment fishery. In Michigan waters of Lake Superior there is no state-licensed commercial fishery, but tribal harvest is guided by the same modeling approach as in Wisconsin.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The total allowable catch of lake trout in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior is divided among tribal commercial fisheries, state-licensed commercial fisheries, tribal subsistence fishers, and state sport anglers. A ten-year State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement specifies annual allowable lake trout harvests, defines refuges and special fishing areas, and establishes other terms and arrangements for state and tribal commercial fishing. The allowable lake trout harvests are reviewed by a state-tribal biological committee using the latest available data and modeling results. Based on those results and recommendations from the biological committee, the Agreement is re-negotiated as needed to change the total annual harvest of lake trout by all fishers, and possibly to address other issues related to shared harvest of lake trout and other species by state and tribal fishers.

There has been a steady decline in lean lake trout abundance in Lake Superior since the early 2000s. This decline has been confirmed by independent surveys conducted by the Department and has been projected by models used to set safe harvest levels. Some level of decline was expected due to high harvest limits in the early 2000s, which were in response to several large year classes (numbers of fish spawned in the same year) predicted to enter the fishery. However, these year classes were not as large as predicted. This combination of increased harvest and lower than predicted population size has caused lake trout abundance to decline. While relatively stable abundances of spawning lake trout suggest that this decline is still reversible, action needs to be taken to arrest the lean lake trout population's decline. The decline in lake trout population abundances and predicted further declines necessitate the harvest reductions in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.

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

There would be no implementation costs for the Department. State-licensed and tribal commercial fishers may be affected by the amount of fish they are able to harvest. It is not expected that fishers will have any compliance expenditures or reporting changes associated with the rule.

The decline in lean lake trout abundance in Lake Superior has been confirmed by surveys conducted by the Department and has been projected by models used to set safe harvest levels. Rule changes are necessary in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.

Effects on small business

The proposed rule change would impact state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal commercial fishers, fish wholesalers, and others whose interests or businesses are affected by commercial fishing. Based on data available to the Department, minimal impact is expected for businesses or business associations. No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed on small businesses as a result of these rule changes.

If the rule is not put in place, the negative economic impact would be much greater. Allowing harvest at current quota limits is not biologically sustainable. If no action is taken, the continued decline and potential collapse of the lake trout fishery in Lake Superior would result in greater income losses to both state and tribal commercial fishers, as well as businesses that support recreational lake trout fishing.

The rule will be enforced by Department conservation wardens under the authority of ch. 29, Stats., through routine patrols, record audits of wholesale fish dealers and commercial fishers, and follow up investigations of citizen complaints.

The Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail], or by calling 608-266-1959.

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 Summary

The proposed rules do not impose any compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rules. Public utility rate payers and local governmental units will not be affected by the rules.

Based on data available to the Department, minimal impact is expected for businesses or business associations. The rules may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2012 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. However, the result of this rule may also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish because lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $145,000 in 2012. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $36,250 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. The exact amount of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000.

Agency Contact

Peter Stevens

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Fisheries Management

141 S. Third Street, Bayfield WI, 54814

Phone: [phone], ext. 12

Email: [e-mail]

Internet: Use the Administrative Rules System Web site accessible through the link provided

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
Chs. NR 20, Fishing-Inland Waters Outlying Waters, and NR 25, Commercial Fishing-Outlying Waters
3. Subject
Amending Lake Superior lake trout harvest limits as required by revisions to the State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement: The rule would reduce the annual commercial fishing harvest limit for lake trout on Lake Superior and list potential limitations on recreational fishing limits.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
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 ⍽ Local Government Units		X Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers X 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
The rule is being submitted to address a decline in the lake trout population in the Apostle Islands vicinity of Lake Superior that threatens harvest capability of state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal commercial fishers, and recreational anglers.
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.
For comments on the economic impact of the rule, the department contacted the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Wisconsin Association of Lakes, WI Federation of Great Lakes Sport Fishing Clubs, WI Council of Sport Fishing Organizations, Musky Clubs Alliance of Wisconsin, Inc., Salmon Unlimited, Sturgeon for Tomorrow, Trout Unlimited - WI Council, Walleyes for Tomorrow, WI Bass Federation, Izaak Walton League-Wisconsin Division, Lake Michigan Fisheries Forum, WI Commercial Fisheries Association, American Fisheries Society-Wisconsin Chapter, Natural Resources Foundation of WI, Gathering Waters, River Alliance of Wisconsin, UW Sea Grant, League of WI Municipalities, WI Towns Association, WI Counties Association, NE WI Great Lakes Sport Fishermen, Great Lakes Sport Fishermen of Milwaukee, and the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior Commercial Fishing Boards.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
The EIA comment period was conducted from October 25 to November 8, 2013. No local governments indicated that they would like to participate in the development of the final EIA.
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 proposed rule does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. The rule does not allow for the potential to establish a reduced fine for small businesses, nor does it establish “alternative enforcement mechanisms" for “minor violations" of administrative rules made by small businesses. Public utility rate payers and local governmental units will not be affected by the rule. Based on data available to the Department, minimal impact is expected for businesses or business associations. The rule may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2012 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. However, the result of this rule may also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish because lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $145,000 in 2012. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $36,250 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. The exact amount of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000. The Department received two comments during the EIA comment period that suggested the impact would be greater than estimated. The comments are summarized below: Halvorson Fisheries, LLC, (Bayfield, WI): •   In the years prior to 2013 we had received 1075 lake trout tags per license. In March of 2013, that number was reduced to 800 tags and footage was reduced by 26,442 feet of net. Based on this new proposal, each license would see cuts of an additional 300 tags and the loss of 20,000 feet more of gill net effort. The impact of this new proposal would almost certainly force us to lay off or let go employees, potentially lose clients to whom we supply fish and absolutely result in money loss in fish sales. •   The estimated dockside value of lake trout in the draft EIA is based on the fish prices in 2011, which were considerably lower than they are at present, or at any time in the past year. Furthermore, these estimates of the lake trout dockside value are not valid to our business, as we fillet all of our lake trout. Lake trout fillets, or fillets of any other type of fish, are far more profitable than the whole, dressed fish. Our business estimates a loss of $15,000 based on the sale of lake trout fillets in 2013. This figure is just for our business with five licenses, and still is three times higher a loss than the numbers in the draft EIA for all ten state licenses! The proposed decrease in gill net footage would only amplify our business' profit loss. I calculate that a reduction of about 20,000 feet of gill net footage per license would result in a loss of 5000 pounds of whitefish and a current dockside value of $10,000. Considering the five licenses within our business, we stand to lose around $50,000 from the sale of whitefish. This figure is just a rough estimate based on an average of the prior years' catch, and is subject to how much fish is caught and the market value. •   Halvorson Fisheries would also be affected by cuts to tribal quotas. Numerous local restaurants depend on our business to supply them with Lake Superior lake trout and whitefish. In order to meet the demand for trout fillets from our restaurant trade and retail store, we must purchase lake trout from Native American fisherman. A reduction to tribal quota has the potential to decrease the amount of available lake trout to purchase by our business, making it impossible for us to meet the demands of restaurant orders and consumer requests. Again, our business would experience monetary loss, but so too would Native American fishermen who supply us with lake trout, and potentially the local restaurants that serve our products. •   The rule would not only result in profit loss for our business, but for other local businesses, persons employed in the fishing industry and quite possibly persons who rely on local tourism to make a living.
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa: •   The Fiscal Estimate provided by the State is narrowly focused and largely underestimates the economic impact to Bayfield and Ashland Counties. Bayfield and Ashland Counties: •   When developing the fiscal estimate, only state harvest was considered, and even those calculations seem low. State fishermen harvested 170,770 lbs. of whitefish with gillnets in 2011. Whitefish wholesale averaged $1.60/lb. through most of 2013, and the economic impact needs to consider current price structure. This would put the value of the 170,770 pound catch for whitefish caught in state gillnets at $273,232, and this does not include the harvest from the trap net fishery by state license holders. •   The economic impact does not even attempt to address the impact to the tribal commercial fishery. In 2013, 100% of the tribal fishery in Wisconsin was by gillnet harvest. Because of the effort restrictions on gillnets that are based on the lake trout quota, a lake trout quota reduction will lead to severe reduction in tribal whitefish harvest. In 2011, Red Cliff harvested 377,407 pounds of whitefish and 74,536 pounds of lake trout. Bad River harvested 264,906 pounds of whitefish and 83,007 pounds of lake trout that same year. •   A true economic impact analysis cannot simply multiply pounds harvested by wholesale price per pound. The fishing industry circulates dollars throughout the counties through employment, dock fees, equipment purchases, fuel and maintenance costs, direct sales to restaurants, etc. The State's estimate that, “the exact estimate of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000" is almost comical in its inaccuracy. Especially since the EIA doesn't even consider the loss of tourism dollars that would occur if the recreational fishery faced emergency closure. •   Estimating the direct economic costs should be undertaken through a focus group consisting of tribal fishermen, state fishermen, fish processors, retailers and biologists. Response from the Department: The Department thanks both Halvorson Fisheries, LLC, and the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa for their comments. The Department will work with both groups as it moves through the rule making process. Comments received from these state and tribal commercial fishers assume the economic impact of the permanent rule is greater than the Department's estimate. The economic impact was estimated by the Department using available reported data from 2012 dockside values of lake trout and whitefish sales, as well as commercial fishing harvest reports submitted to the Department. Commercial fishers and tribes are not required to submit any additional economic information to the Department, therefore the estimate of minimal economic impact was the best analysis based on available data. If the rule is not put in place, the estimate of negative economic impact would be much greater. Allowing harvest at current quota limits is not biologically sustainable. If no action is taken, the continued decline and potential collapse of the lake trout fishery in Lake Superior would result in greater income losses to both state and tribal commercial fishers, as well as businesses that support recreational lake trout fishing. In addition, lake trout harvest limits were negotiated in October 2013 among the Department and the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa and those changes are reflected in this rule. This State-Tribal Agreement amendment was agreed to by all parties. While negotiations do not preclude the Red Cliff Band from providing EIA comments, it was assumed that they were aware of the economic effects of the harvest limit when the Agreement amendment was made.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
A predicted continued decline in lake trout population abundances necessitates the current reductions in harvest numbers to support a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term. Allowing harvest at current quota limits - an alternative to implementing the rule - is not biologically sustainable and could create negative economic impacts for commercial fishers.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Reducing quota limits for commercial fishers, authorizing harvest limits on recreational fishers, and monitoring lake trout populations will support a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Authority to promulgate fishing regulations is granted to states. None of the proposed changes violate or conflict with federal regulations.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Of the four states, only Minnesota and Michigan have lake trout fisheries on the Great Lakes. The commercial harvest of lake trout from Minnesota waters of Lake Superior is limited to a population assessment fishery. In Michigan waters of Lake Superior there is no state-licensed commercial fishery, but there is a tribal harvest guided by the same modeling approach as Wisconsin.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Peter Stevens, Lake Superior Fisheries Supervisor				715-779-4035 ext. 12

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)

Based on data available to the Department, minimal impact is expected for businesses or business associations. The rule may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2012 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. The result of this rule may also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish because lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $145,000 in 2012. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $36,250 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. Economic impact comments were provided during the comment period suggesting the impact to small businesses would be greater than the Department's estimate. However, if the rule is not put in place, the negative economic impact would be much greater. Allowing harvest at current quota limits is not biologically sustainable. If no action is taken, the continued decline and potential collapse of the lake trout fishery in Lake Superior would result in greater income losses to both state and tribal commercial fishers, as well as businesses that support recreational lake trout fishing.

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

Dockside values of fish; commercial fishing harvest reports

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

X 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

No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed on small businesses as a result of these rule changes.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

The rule will be enforced by Department Conservation Wardens under the authority of chapter 29, Stats., through routine patrols, record audits of wholesale fish dealers and commercial fishers, and follow up investigations of citizen complaints.

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

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Public Service Commission

rulemaking_notices CR 13-101 CR 13-101

(PSC DOCKET # 1-AC-242 )

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to amend section PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2., regarding the electronic delivery of applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN).

This rulemaking will be done without a hearing because, under s. 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., no hearing is required when an existing rule is being brought into conformity with a statute that has changed. However, written comments will be accepted.

Written Comments

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Tuesday, January 14, 2014, at 12:00 noon. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-242. File by one mode only.

Industry: File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's website (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-242.

•Mail Comment. All comments submitted by U.S. mail must include the phrase “Docket 1-AC-242 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.

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), 196.491 (3) (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 196.491 (3) (a), Stats., references commission rules about certificates of public convenience and necessity.

Statutes interpreted

This rule interprets s. 196.491 (3), Stats.

Related statutes or rules

None.

Brief summary of rule

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).

Comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations

The commission is not aware of any existing or proposed federal regulations on this matter.

Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states

The Illinois Commerce Commission generally uses electronic filing and services of records related to their proceedings, however, their administrative code does not specify the manner in which CPCN applications will be served upon interested persons. (Ill. Admin. Code tit. 83, pt. 200.150 (h)). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requires applicants to file paper copies of CPCN applications and serves those paper copies on interested agencies of government. Minn. R. 7849.0200 (2). The Michigan Public Utilities Commission's administrative rules do not identify the manner in which CPCN applications will be provided to local units of government (Mich. Admin. Code. r. 460.7601), but generally require parties serve paper copies upon interested parties (Mich. Admin Code r. 460.17105). The Iowa Utilities Board requires applicants to file paper copies of applications for CPCN in paper form and transmits those forms on behalf of the applicant to other “regulatory agencies." Iowa Admin. Code r. 199-24.3(476A).

Effect on Small Business

This rulemaking will not have an effect on small business. The s. 227.114 (12), Stats., definition of “small business" states that to be considered a small business, the business must not be dominant in its field. Since electric utilities are monopolies in their service territories, they are dominant in their fields and, so, are not small businesses.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rulemaking will not have an effect on small business. The s. 227.114 (12), Stats., definition of “small business" states that to be considered a small business, the business must not be dominant in its field. Since electric utilities are monopolies in their service territories, they are dominant in their fields and, so, are not small businesses.

Fiscal Estimate

This rule will result in no fiscal impact since it only changes how CPCN copies are delivered by the commission. Further, even if there were a fiscal impact, it would be the result of the law change and not this rulemaking.

The Economic Impact Analysis for this rulemaking follows below.

Contact Person

Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Justin Chasco at [phone] or [e-mail]. Small business questions may be directed to Anne Vandervort at [phone] or [e-mail]. Media questions should be directed to Nathan Conrad, Communications Director at [phone]. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may also use the commission's TTY number, if calling from Wisconsin [phone], if calling from outside Wisconsin [phone].

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.

Text of Proposed Rule

SECTION 1. PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. is amended to read:

PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. As soon as is practicable, but no more than 30 days after the commission has determined that a CPCN application is complete, the commission shall send a paper an electronic copy of the complete application to the clerk of each municipality and town in which the proposed facility is to be located and to the main public library in each county in which the proposed facility is to be located.

SECTION 2. Effective date. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

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
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter PSC 111, Requirements For Strategic Energy Assessments, Certificates Of Public Convenience And Necessity, And Fixed Financial Parameters For Certain Rate Base Electric Generating Facilities1
3. Subject
The electronic delivery of applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
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 ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ 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
This rulemaking is intended to harmonize PSC regulations with 2013 Wisconsin Act 10 which requires the Commission to send a electronic copy of an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to clerks and public libraries.
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.
Citizens' Utility Board, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Municipal Electrical Utilities of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Wisconsin Towns Association, Wisconsin Utilities Association, Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, all electric utilities
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Members of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Wisconsin Towns Association, and Wisconsin Alliance of Cities.
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)
None.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rulemaking with will bring Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. into conformity with 2013 Wisconsin Act 10.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The rulemaking with will bring Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. into conformity with 2013 Wisconsin Act 10.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Not applicable.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
The Illinois Commerce Commission generally uses electronic filing and services of records related to their proceedings, however, their administrative code does not specify the manner in which CPCN applications will be served upon interested persons. (Ill. Admin. Code tit. 83, pt. 200.150 (h)). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requires applicants to file paper copies of CPCN applications and serves those paper copies on interested agencies of government. Minn. R. 7849.0200 (2). The Michigan Public Utilities Commission's administrative rules do not identify the manner in which CPCN applications will be provided to local units of government (Mich. Admin. Code. r. 460.7601), but generally require parties serve paper copies upon interested parties (Mich. Admin Code r. 460.17105). The Iowa Utilities Board requires applicants to file copies of applications for CPCN in paper form and transmits those forms on behalf of the applicant to other “regulatory agencies." Iowa Admin. Code r. 199-24.3(476A)
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Lisa Farrell				608-267-9086

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

Notice of Hearing

Revenue

rulemaking_notices CR 13-102 CR 13-102

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That, pursuant to section 70.32 (2) (c) 1i., Stats., the Department of Revenue will hold a public hearing to consider permanent rules revising Chapter Tax 18, relating to assessment of agricultural property.

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Time:   1:30 p.m.
Location:   Events Room
  State Revenue Building
  2135 Rimrock Road
  Madison, Wisconsin 53713

Handicap access is available at the hearing location.

Appearances at the Hearing and Submittal of Written Comments

Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and may make an oral presentation. It is requested that written comments reflecting the oral presentation be given to the department at the hearing. Written comments may also be submitted to the contact person listed below or to adminrules.wisconsin.gov no later than January 14, 2014, and will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.

Place where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

Comments may be submitted to the contact person shown below no later than the date on which the public hearing on this proposed rule order is conducted. Information as to the place, date, and time of the public hearing will be published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register.

Dale Kleven

Department of Revenue

Mail Stop 6-40