Comparison with federal regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation defining the terms.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Iowa:
The term "in responsible charge" as used in this chapter means direct control of and personal supervision over any land surveying work or work involving the practice of engineering. A licensee shall not place the licensee's signature or seal on any engineering document or land surveying document unless the licensee was in responsible charge of the work, except that the licensee may do so if the licensee contributed to the work and the licensee in responsible charge has signed and certified the work. Iowa § 542B.2(4)
Illinois:
"Direct supervision or responsible charge" means work prepared under the control of a licensed professional engineer or that work as to which that professional engineer has detailed professional knowledge. 225 ILCS 325
Michigan:
The term "responsible charge" is defined as the person who determines technical questions of design and policy; advises the client; supervises and is in responsible charge of the work of subordinates; is the person whose professional skill and judgment are embodied in the plans, designs, plats, surveys, and advise involved in the services; and who supervises the review of material and completed phases of construction, but is referenced in the requirements for sealing documents for projects involving overlapping architecture and engineering professions; a licensee shall not seal a plan, drawing, map, plat, report, specification, or other document not prepared by the licensee as the person in responsible charge. §
339.2001
(d), Michigan Admin. Code.
Minnesota:
A person in responsible charge of architectural, engineering, land surveying, or landscape architectural work means the person who determines design policy, including technical questions, advises with the client, superintends subordinates during the course of the work and, in general, the person whose professional skill and judgment are embodied in the plans, designs, and advice involved in the work. A person in direct supervision of work means that person who is the employer, an employee of the same firm, or who is under contract to or from another firm and who is in responsible charge of technical, architectural, engineering, land surveying, or landscape architectural work in progress, whose professional skill and judgment are embodied in the plans, specifications, reports, plats, or other documents required to be certified pursuant to that subdivision. MN Rule § 1805.1600
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
There have been changes in the profession that require updating of this rule. This rule change will provide additional clarification of "responsible charge" and similar terms used in s.
A-E 8.03 (5)
as it relates to the practice of architecture, landscape architecture, professional engineering, designing or land surveying.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
This rule change will not affect or impact adversely small businesses or the private sector. No written analysis or formal research was involved in reaching this conclusion.
Section
227.137
, Stats., requires an "agency" to prepare an economic impact report before submitting the proposed rule-making order to the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The Department of Regulation and Licensing is not included as an "agency" in this section.
Small Business Impact
These proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by email at
hector.colon@wisconsin.gov
, or by calling 608-266-8608.
Fiscal Estimate
The department estimates that the proposed rule will have no significant fiscal impact.
Anticipated costs incurred by the private sector
The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
Agency Contact Person
Pamela Haack, Paralegal, Department of Regulation and Licensing, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 152, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-266-0495; email at
pamela.haack@wisconsin.gov
.
Notice of Hearing
Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors in ss.
15.08 (5) (b)
,
227.11 (2)
and
443.015
, Stats., the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to create ch.
A-E 10
, relating to continuing education for land surveyors.
Hearing Information
Date:
May 27, 2009
Time:
1:45 P.M.
Location:
1400 East Washington Avenue
(Enter at 55 North Dickinson Street)
Room 121C
Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing and Submission of Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received by June 5, 2009, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Copies of Proposed Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available upon request to Pamela Haack, Paralegal, Department of Regulation and Licensing, 1400 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email at
pamela.haack@wisconsin.gov
.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors may approve and adopt rules proposed by any section of the board.
Related statute or rule
There are no other statutes or rules other than those listed above.
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule-making order creates continuing education requirements for renewal of a credential for land surveyors within the jurisdiction of the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors as permitted in s.
443.015
, Stats., by recently enacted
2007 Wisconsin Act 47
.
Comparison with federal regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Iowa:
Continuing education requirements are 30 hours for each biennial renewal.
Illinois:
Continuing education requirements are 20 hours for each biennial renewal.
Michigan:
There are no continuing education requirements for land surveyors.
Minnesota:
Land surveyors require 24 hours of continuing education for each biennial renewal.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Land Surveyor Section of the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors examined models of continuing education from national organizations related to their profession, as well as from other Wisconsin regulatory boards. In addition, the section received input from the Wisconsin Society of Land Surveyors, whose nine chapters met and discussed how the continuing education program should operate so that it is beneficial to the public and land surveyors, noting also that Iowa and Illinois requirements were reviewed in preparing the input they provided.
The comparison information with the rules in adjacent states was obtained directly from contact with those states and a review of their rules. The comparison to the adjacent states demonstrates that the proposed rules are substantially consistent with the rules in those states.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
Data was obtained from the Department of Regulation and Licensing's Credentialing Division Renewal Unit, additional information was obtained from the Wisconsin Society of Land Surveyors and research was conducted regarding the availability of continuing education credits offered via online courses, trade association sponsored seminars and other means, as well as the costs associated therewith. That data was compared with the requirements outlined in the proposed rules and based thereon, appears that these rules will have no significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Section
227.137
, Stats., requires an "agency" to prepare an economic impact report before submitting the proposed rule-making order to the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The Department of Regulation and Licensing is not included as an "agency" in this section.
Small Business Impact
These proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The department estimates that this rule will require staff time in the Office of Education and Exams and the Division of Management Services. The total one-time salary and fringe costs are estimated at $7,685. The total on-going salary and fringe costs are estimated at $3,683.
Anticipated costs incurred by the private sector
The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
Agency Contact Person
Pamela Haack, Paralegal, Department of Regulation and Licensing, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 152, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708; telephone 608-266-0495; email at
pamela.haack@wisconsin.gov
.
Notice of Hearings
Children and Families
Family and Economic Security, Chs. DCF 101-153
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
49.22 (9)
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Department of Children and Families proposes to hold 2 public hearings to consider rules revising Chapter
DCF 150
, relating to medical support and child support guidelines review.
Hearing Information
June 2, 2009
|
MILWAUKEE
|
Tuesday
|
State Office Building
|
3:00 p.m.
|
819 N. 6
th
Street, Room 40
|
|
|
June 3, 2009
|
MADISON
|
Wednesday
|
GEF 1 Building
|
1:30 p.m.
|
201 E. Washington Avenue Room D203
|
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 audio format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Appearances at Hearing and Submission of Written Comments
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.
Written comments on the proposed rules received at the address shown below, email, or through the
http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov
web site no later than June 5, 2009, 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:
Elaine Pridgen — Office of Legal Counsel
Department of Children and Families
201 E. Washington Avenue
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-9403
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted
Related statutes or rules
Explanation of agency authority
Section
49.22 (9)
, Stats., provides that the department shall promulgate rules that provide a standard for courts to use in determining a child support obligation based upon a percentage of the gross income and assets of either or both parents. According to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, medical support is a subset of child support.
Summary of the proposed rule
The proposed rules will adopt provisions of a new federal regulation on medical support in child support cases, recommendations of the Department's child support guidelines review, and a recommendation by the Child Support Policy Advisory Committee.
Medical Support
Under s.
767.513
, Stats., the court shall specifically assign responsibility for and direct the manner of payment for the child's health expenses in addition to ordering child support for a child. The court must consider the availability of health insurance to each parent, the extent of coverage available to a child, and the cost to the parent for the coverage.
Under the proposed rules, the court may order either or both parents to enroll a child in a private health insurance plan that is accessible to the child and available at a reasonable cost.
•
The court may consider a private health insurance plan to be accessible to the child if the plan's service providers are located within a reasonable distance from the child's home. In general, service providers may be considered within a reasonable distance if they are located within 30 minutes or 30 miles of the child's residence, with a greater distance allowed in some rural areas.
•
The court may consider a private health insurance plan to be available at a reasonable cost if the cost to enroll the child or children does not exceed 5% of the insuring parent's monthly income available for child support. In applying this 5% standard, the cost to enroll the child or children in a private health insurance plan is the cost to add the child or children to existing coverage or the difference between the cost of self-only coverage and the cost to that parent after adding the child or children.
•
The court may order the non-insuring parent to contribute to the cost to enroll the children in a private health insurance plan in an amount that does not exceed 5% of the non-insuring parent's monthly income available for child support.
The court may not order a parent whose income is below 150% of the federal poverty level to enroll a child in a private health insurance plan or contribute to the cost of private health insurance unless there is no cost to the parent.
If there is no private health insurance plan available that is accessible to the child and reasonable in cost, the court may order enrollment in a private health insurance plan as a deviation under s.
767.11 (1m)
, Stats.; responsibility for a contribution to the cost of the other parent's premium for the BadgerCare Plus program, unless the parent's income is below 150% of the federal poverty level; and enrollment in a private health insurance plan if a plan that meets these requirements becomes available to the parent in the future.
If a child is already enrolled in an accessible private health insurance plan that covers hospitalization and other medical costs without large out-of-pocket deductibles or copayments, the court may determine whether to order a parent to enroll the child in a private health insurance plan.
The court shall also establish an order for medical expenses that are not covered by insurance. The court shall consider each parent's ability to pay these medical expenses.
Guidelines Review
45 CFR 302.56
(e) requires states to review, and revise, if appropriate, the state's child support guidelines at least once every 4 years to ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts. The Department submitted the latest review of the Wisconsin child support guidelines to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in January 2008. This review included the following 2 recommendations for changes to the child support guidelines in DCF 150:
•
Extend the application of the special provision for low-income payers in s.
DCF 150.04 (4)
and Appendix
C
from below 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to below 150% of the federal poverty guidelines. The current rule provides a schedule with reduced percentage rates to be used to determine the child support obligation for payers with an income below approximately 125% of the federal poverty guidelines if the court determines that the payer's total economic circumstances limit his or her ability to pay support at the level determined using the full percentage rates. For income between approximately 75% and 125% of the federal poverty guidelines, the percentage rates gradually increase as income increases. The proposed rule will extend use of the reduced percentages to payers with an income below 150% of the federal poverty guidelines.
•
Change the term "serial-family payer" to "serial-family parent" to conform the rule to the intent for serial family cases with a previous shared-placement obligation. The concept behind the special provision for shared-placement parents is that the order is smaller than a full percentage order because the parent has significant placement and is covering the child's basic support expenses while with that parent. The concept behind the special provision for serial families is to give credit for the amount spent on the first family before determining the order for children in the next family. The current serial family provision refers to the "payer" in a shared-placement order in giving credit for the amount spent on the earlier children. The Department proposes to change "payer" to "parent" so a parent who did not owe child support under the shared-placement provision will clearly still be entitled to credit for pre-existing obligations in the determination of support under the serial family provision.
Other Recommendation by the Child Support Policy Advisory Committee
When parents have 2 or more children and each parent has placement of one or more but not all of the children, the parents have split placement. Under the current rule, the child support obligation for split-placement parents may be determined by multiplying each parent's monthly income available for child support by the appropriate percentage standard for the number of children placed with the other parent and offsetting the resulting amounts against each other.
If each parent has placement of one child, the support obligation would be determined by multiplying each parent's income by 17%, the percentage standard for one child, and offsetting the results. If one parent had placement of both children, the other parent's child support obligation would be determined by multiplying that parent's income by 25%, the percentage standard for 2 children. Some parents with split placement believe that they are unfairly being required to pay a higher level of support under the current rule on split placement since the total support paid for 2 children would be 34% of the parents' income.
The proposed rule provides a new method for determining the child support obligations of split-placement parents. Under the proposed rule, each parent's income will be multiplied by the pro rata percentage standard for the number of children in split placement who are placed with the other parent. The pro rata percentage standard is calculated by determining the appropriate percentage standard for the total number of children, dividing by the total number of children, and adding together the percentages for the children in split placement who are placed with the other parent. If each parent has placement of one child, the support obligation would be determined by multiplying each parent's income by 12.5% (25% percentage standard for 2 children
÷
2) and offsetting the results.
Other proposed rule changes are for clarification and are not substantive.
Summary of related federal requirements
Background on Medical Support
The first federal requirement that medical support be addressed in child support cases was in the Child Support Amendments of 1984. States were required to petition for medical child support in cases enforced under Section IV-D of the Social Security Act (IV-D cases) if health care coverage was available to the noncustodial parent at a reasonable cost. Reasonable cost was defined as coverage available through the noncustodial parent's employment. The IV-D cases included custodial parents receiving AFDC or Medicaid and non-AFDC cases with the custodial parent's consent.
In 1989, a change to
45 CFR 302.56
required states to establish one set of guidelines for setting and modifying child support award amounts within the state with a rebuttable presumption that the guidelines would apply in all child support cases. Among other things, the regulation required that the guidelines must, at a minimum, provide for the child's health care needs through health insurance coverage or other means. It did not specify how health care needs should be addressed.
The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 required health care coverage in IV-D cases, while previous law merely required States to petition for inclusion of health care coverage. This Act also directed the Secretaries of the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a Medical Child Support Working Group to identify impediments to the effective enforcement of medical support and to make recommendations to eliminate them. The Working Group released their report,
21 Million Children's Health: Our Shared Responsibility
, in August 2000. The report is available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2000/reports/
medrpt/
.
New Medical Support Provisions
Several of the key recommendations of the Working Group were adopted in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and new medical support regulations issued on July 21, 2008. (
Child Support Enforcement Program; Medical Support; Final Regulation
, 73 Federal
Register 42416
). As amended,
42 USC 666
(a)(19) provides that all IV-D child support orders shall include a provision for medical support for the child to be provided by either or both parents. State IV-D agencies now have the option of enforcing medical support against a custodial parent if health care coverage is available to the custodial parent at a reasonable cost.
The new regulation on securing and enforcing medical support obligations at
45 CFR 303.31
is more specific than the previous medical support section. It provides that the State IV-D agency must petition the court to include private health insurance that is accessible to the child, as defined by the State, and is available to the parent responsible for providing medical support at a reasonable cost in new or modified court orders for support.
If private health insurance is not available at the time the order is entered or modified, the State must petition to include cash medical support in new or modified orders until health insurance that is accessible and reasonable in cost becomes available. In appropriate cases, as defined by the State, cash medical support may be sought in addition to health insurance coverage.
Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is considered "reasonable in cost" if the cost to the parent responsible for providing medical support does not exceed 5% of his or her gross income or, at State option, a reasonable alternative income-based numeric standard defined in the state child support guidelines. In applying the 5% or alternative state standard for the cost of private health insurance, the cost is the cost of adding the child or children to the existing coverage or the difference between self-only and family coverage.
"Health insurance" includes fee for service, health maintenance organization, preferred provider organization, and other types of coverage that is available to either parent, under which medical services could be provided to a dependent child.
"Cash medical support" means an amount ordered to be paid toward the cost of health insurance provided by a public entity or by another parent through employment or otherwise, or for other medical costs not covered by insurance.
On pages 42423-42424 of the preamble to the rule, commenters requested clarification on including unfixed, unreimbursed medical expenses in the definition of cash medical support subject to the reasonable cost limitations because this would unfairly place the burden for these costs on the custodial parent. The Administration for Children and Families responded that they agree it would not be appropriate at the time an order is established to include the cost of future, uncertain, and unspecified medical costs when applying the 5% cost-reasonableness standard. They further state that they do not agree that responsibility for extraordinary medical costs set in a subsequent medical support order should be ordered without any consideration of the obligated parent's ability to pay at the time the cost is incurred or reimbursement is sought.
New Medical Support Provision Affects All Child Support Awards
The new medical support regulations affect all child support awards, not just IV-D cases. The amended
45 CFR 302.56
requires that state guidelines for setting and modifying all child support amounts within the state address how the parents will provide for a child's health care needs through health insurance coverage or cash medical support, or both, in accordance with
45 CFR 303.31
, the new medical support regulation.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
All states are required to comply with the new federal regulation affecting medical support.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rules will adopt provisions of a new federal regulation on medical support in child support cases, recommendations of the Department's child support guidelines review, and a recommendation by the Child Support Policy Advisory Committee.
Small Business Impact
The proposed rules do not affect small businesses as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
The proposed rule implements a federal regulation that is intended to increase enforcement of medical support obligations in child support orders. If there is an increase in parents who are enrolling their children in private-pay insurance, BadgerCare Plus enrollment may decrease.
Other changes to the child support guidelines in the proposed rule have no fiscal effect.
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Long-range fiscal implications
None.
Agency Contact Person
Notice of Hearing
Financial Institutions — Banking
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to section
9117
of
2009 Wisconsin Act 2
and section
227.11 (2)
, Stats., the Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking will hold a public hearing to consider an emergency rule to create chapter DFI–Bkg 47 and repeal chapter DFI–Bkg 41, relating to the transition from a registration system to a license system.
Hearing Information
Date:
June 10, 2009
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Location:
Office of the Secretary
Wis. Dept. of Financial Institutions
345 W. Washington Avenue, 5
th
floor
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Financial Institutions — Division of Banking
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Related statute or rule
Chapter DFI – Bkg 41.
Explanation of agency authority
Pursuant to subch.
III of ch. 224
, Stats., and s.
220.02 (2)
and
(3)
, Stats., the division regulates mortgage bankers, mortgage brokers and loan originators.
Summary of proposed rule
The objective of the rule is to create ch. DFI–Bkg 47 and to eventually repeal ch. DFI–Bkg 41.
2009 Wisconsin Act 2
provides that the division shall by rule institute a system of initial license issuance or license renewal that it deems advisable for the purpose of implementing an orderly and efficient transition from the registration system under subchapter III of chapter 224, 2007 Stats., to the license system under subch.
III of ch. 224
, Stats., as affected by
2009 Wisconsin Act 2
. The purpose of this rule is to set forth the transition to that system.
Comparison with federal regulations
Title V, S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act, ss. 1501 – 1517. This act encourages states to participate in the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, and requires states to have in place, by law or regulation, a system for licensing and registering mortgage loan originators that meets the requirements of sections 1505, 1506, and 1508(d) of the act.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois and Iowa have adopted this act; Minnesota and Michigan have not.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The department reviewed its regulatory practices and procedures, solicited input from affected entities to determine the necessary regulations, and worked internally with staff on the mechanics of the transition.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small business
The rule does not have a significant economic impact on small business. The requirement to transition from a registration system to a license system are the result of and set forth in
2009 Wisconsin Act 2
, and not the rule. Fee revisions herein include a proration and refund of fees paid under the current registration system.
Exemption from Finding of Emergency
The legislature by section
9117
of
2009 Wisconsin Act 2
provides an exemption from a finding of emergency for the adoption of the rule.
Fiscal Estimate
The emergency rule may increase costs that may be possible to absorb within the agency's budget. There are no local government costs.
Copies of Proposed Rule, Submission of Written Comments
To obtain a copy of the proposed rule or fiscal estimate at no charge, to submit written comments regarding the proposed rule, or for questions regarding the agency's internal processing of the proposed rule, contact Mark Schlei, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Financial Institutions, Office of the Secretary, P.O. Box 8861, Madison, WI 53708-8861, tel. (608) 267-1705, e-mail
mark.schlei@ wisconsin.gov
. A copy of the proposed rule may also be obtained and reviewed at the Department of Financial Institution's website,
www.wdfi.org
. Written comments must be received by the conclusion of the department's hearing regarding the proposed rule.
Agency Contact Person
For substantive questions on the rule, contact Michael J. Mach, Administrator, Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Banking, P.O. Box 7876, Madison, WI 53707-7876, tel: (608) 266-0451, email:
mike.mach@ wisconsin.gov
.
REVISED Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held on:
May 13, 2009
Wednesday
at 10:00 AM
|
Video conference participation will be available at:
|
Room 139, State Office Building,
718 W. Clairemont Avenue, Eau Claire
Room 618, State Office Building,
200 N. Jefferson Street, Green Bay
(NEW)
Room 315, The Pyle Center
702 Langdon Street, Madison
Room 211, Communication Art Center, UW- Stevens Point, 1101 Reserve Street, Stevens Point
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Kathy Nelson at (608) 266-3545 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Copies of Proposed Rule, Submission of Written Comments, and Agency Contact Person
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov
. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Ms. Kathy Nelson, Forest Tax Section, Bureau of Forest Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until May 29, 2009. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Ms. Nelson.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Summary of proposed rule
The proposed rule:
1.
Revises the annual stumpage rates for the period between November 1, 2009 and October 31, 2010 as required in ss.
77.06(2)
and
77.91(1)
, Stats. While the statewide averages increased slightly, there are fluctuations between market zones and individual prices. Of all total 624 prices calculated, 173 (28%) increased, 188 (30%) decreased and 263 (42%) stayed the same.
2.
Amends the petition requirements in NR 46.16 (5). Petition requirements are being changed to streamline the administration and processing of new MFL entries. The rule would be modified to allow entries of land per municipality except in cases where lands must cross municipality lines to meet eligibility requirements.
3.
Amends management plan requirements in NR 46.18 (5): Deadlines to submit management plans for DNR approval are being changed to make the two application deadlines similar to each other. Landowners with management plans prepared by DNR foresters must return their signed plans by August 1. A change in this deadline to August 15 is proposed to make the certified plan writer and DNR deadline the same for landowners to turn in completed management plans.
Small Business Impact
The proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
Types of small businesses affected:
Any business with land enrolled in either the Managed Forest Law or the Forest Crop Law or wishing to enroll land under the Managed Forest Law.
Description of reporting or bookkeeping procedures required:
No procedures not already required.
Description of professional skills required:
No new skills are required.
Small business regulatory coordinator
The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator for this rule may be contacted at
quinn.williams@ wisconsin.gov
or by calling (608) 266-1318.
Environmental Impact
The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150
, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
Assumptions used in arriving at fiscal estimate
This proposed rule change addresses the annual stumpage rate changes used in the calculation of severance and yield tax collections under Forest Cop Law (FCL) and Managed Forest Law (MFL) when timber is harvested from the private lands enrolled in the programs.
There is an undetermined impact in revenues to local municipalities. Timber prices have been variable from 2007 through 2008. The average statewide prices for sawlogs have increased 3%, with a range of a 21% increase to a 15% decrease. The average statewide prices for cords have increased 1%, with a range of a 10% increase to a 7% decrease. Prices for mixed products (mixture of sawlogs and cords for red pine, white pine and spruce) have dropped 12%, with a range of a 14% increase and a 31% decrease. Piece products (posts and poles) had a 12% increase in prices, with some market zones having an increase in prices of 96%. The increase in piece prices appears to be due to the additional reporting of piece products more than fluctuations in the markets. Only 12 of the available 143 piece product values were reported in the past year. This reporting is more than past years' reporting, so it is possible that piece products may be undervalued in some market zones.
While the statewide averages increased slightly, there are fluctuations between market zones and individual prices. Of all total 624 prices calculated, 173 (28%) increased, 188 (30%) decreased and 263 (42%) stayed the same.
The severance and yield tax collected in CY 2008 was $1,734,479. This value is 17% lower than it was in CY 2006. Timber harvest volumes are down since CY 2007 by the following amounts:
Cordwood
|
Down 11%
|
Fuelwood
|
Down 5%
|
Sawlogs
|
Down 11%
|
Mixed Product
|
Up 510%
|
Piece Products
|
Down 43%
|
Christmas Trees
|
Down 16%
|
Reporting of mixed products increased most likely due to the awareness that private land owners may sell red pine, white pine and white spruce in this fashion. Based on the very small statewide increase in timber prices an estimated $3,090.00 will be collected for municipalities.
Estimates are based on the average change in rates for private land timber sales across species and zone for each product type (cordwood, sawtimber and mixed), the volumes reported and paid for in CY 2008, and the assumption that the volume and the ratio of the cordwood and sawtimber will remain the same. Actual impact for a county and municipality will vary by the number of harvests completed and the actual species and products cut.
Other requested changes in NR 46 will streamline the implementation of the MFL program. Requests to enter lands based on municipal lines except for when lands must be combined with other lands in adjacent municipalities will have no impact on local or state finances.
Requests to change the plan completion dates will have no financial impact on local or state finances.
State fiscal effect
None.
Types of local governmental units affected
Towns, villages, cities, counties.
Fund sources affected
SEG.
Affected Chapter
20
appropriations
Long-range fiscal implications
None.
