In the past, the regular Canada goose season was based on the allowable Mississippi Valley Population (MVP) harvest which was determined based on the spring breeding population estimate obtained from an aerial survey of the MVP breeding range as prescribed by the Mississippi Flyway MVP management plan. However, because locally produced giant Canada geese now constitute a considerable portion of the harvest in all states that also harvest Mississippi Valley Population birds, the Mississippi Flyway Council is testing the use of a standard season framework for 5 years. Beginning in the fall of 2007 and continuing through 2011, season lengths and bag limits for each MVP harvest state will remain unchanged. Each state retains the flexibility to schedule the timing of their Canada goose season. In addition, if the MVP spring population numbers dropped to a predetermined low level during the 5-year period, the stable season framework would be adjusted.
All proposed modifications included in this rule order are consistent with these parameters and guidelines which are annually established by the USFWS in
50 CFR 20
.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Since migratory bird species are managed under international treaty, each region of the country is organized in a specific geographic flyway which represents an individual migratory population of migratory game birds. Wisconsin along with Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and Iowa are members of the Mississippi Flyway. Each year the states included in the flyways meet to discuss regulations and guidelines offered to the flyways by the USFWS. The FWS regulations and guidelines apply to all states within the Flyway and therefore the regulations in the adjoining states closely resemble the rules established in this rule order, and only differ slightly based on hunter desires, habitat and population management goals. However, these variations fall within guidelines and sideboards established by the USFWS.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
For the regular duck season, a data based process called Adaptive Harvest Management is used annually by the USFWS and the Flyways to determine which of 3 framework alternatives best matches the current year's data on populations and habitat (data from the spring pond and duck survey). The option of a closed season is also possible if survey conditions indicated that this is necessary for the management of duck populations. The determination of which alternative is selected is based in part on the spring wetland conditions on the breeding grounds and the Mid-Continent Mallard population. These data come from the May Pond and Breeding Waterfowl Population Surveys conducted by the USFWS and Canadian Wildlife Service on traditional survey areas as well as surveys from select states, including Wisconsin.
Wisconsin's regular Canada goose season harvest consists of close to a 50:50 ratio between resident giant and MVP population Canada geese. As a result, the parameters of Wisconsin's regular goose seasons are guided by the Mississippi Flyway management plans for the MVP and giant Canada goose populations and approved by the Mississippi Flyway Council and the USFWS. The health of these populations was measured with spring breeding population surveys, survival data and harvest rates obtained from banding and production studies. The surveys and studies are conducted annually and are supported by the State of Wisconsin as part of the MFC. The result of this work is reviewed annually by the MFC committee and the USFWS to measure the impact of the stable season framework trial period.
The primary elements of Wisconsin's waterfowl regulatory process include conducting spring waterfowl surveys, participation in MFC meetings, commenting on federal proposals, and soliciting input from the public. The state process begins with Flyway meetings in February and March each year where staff provide input to the development of federal framework alternatives and requests related to the early seasons. In spring and summer, breeding waterfowl surveys and banding are conducted in support of the regulatory process.
In early July, staff will conduct a public meeting to solicit input from interest groups, including representatives of the Conservation Congress Migratory Committee. At this meeting staff will provide the attendees with breeding status information and ask for any items that they wish the department to pursue at the MFC meeting in mid July. Department staff then attended the MFC Technical and Council meetings. At this meeting, staff will be provided status information and the proposed framework alternative from the USFWS. Department staff will then work with the other states in our Flyway to discuss and develop proposals and recommendations to be voted upon by the MFC. Proposals that pass at the MFC meeting will be forwarded to the USFWS for consideration by the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) at their meeting. The USFWS will announce its final waterfowl season framework recommendation on July 30. Department staff will summarize waterfowl status and regulation information for Wisconsin citizens and present this information to the Migratory Committee of the Conservation Congress and at a public meeting (Post-Flyway Meeting) of interest groups and individuals on July 31. Staff will gather public input at these meetings regarding citizen suggestions for the development of Wisconsin's waterfowl regulations given the federal framework. Public hearings will be held during the first week of August around the state to solicit additional input on the proposed annual waterfowl rule.
This rule proposal will eliminate the Collins Canada goose hunting zone in 2011. The Collins zone in Manitowoc County was established in 1988 because it was a site specifically used by the Mississippi Valley Population of Canada geese and was hunted intensively. With the expansion of the Giant Canada goose population in Manitowoc County and the decreased interest in hunting the Collins zone, there is no longer a need for special restrictions. Staff have already collected public input and Mississippi Flyway Council review for the elimination of this zone with favorable results. As part of the annual harvest management of the Collins zone, all hunting permit holders are mailed a questionnaire. For the 2009 season, we included a question asking the permit holders if they would favor eliminating the Collins Zone and 80% favored elimination of the zone. Only 14% opposed elimination and 6% did not respond. We can increase efficiency and collect input from waterfowl hunters statewide by taking the proposal through the 2010 summer waterfowl rule hearings.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector or small businesses. Additionally, no significant costs are associated with compliance to these rules.
Small Business Fiscal Impact
These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule.
It is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses.
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
This proposed migratory bird season rule is similar to the season in previous years and will not result in any significant changes in spending or revenue. There are no new government costs anticipated due to the provisions of this rule.
Agency Contact Person
Kent Van Horn
101 S. Webster Street
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—
(DNR # ER-10-10)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
23.27 (3) (b)
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to Chapter
NR 29
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to fees for providing endangered resources information to those who request it for specific authorized purposes.
The Department proposes to update fees for providing Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) information and data to the public, establish a new expedited endangered resources review service; require education, training, experience, and an exam for requesters of detailed NHI data; establish a pilot certification program; and charge fees for training, exams, and certification to cover Department costs.
Hearing Information
The hearings will be held on:
July 13, 2010
Glaciers Edge and Gathering Waters Rms.
Tuesday
DNR South Central Region Headquarters
at 11:00 a.m.
3911 Fish Hatchery Road
Fitchburg
July 14, 2010
Room 163, DNR Service Center
Wednesday
141 NW Barstow
at 11:00 a.m.
Waukesha
July 16, 2010
DNR/DMV Conference Room
Friday
DNR Service Center
at 11:00 a.m.
5301 Rib Mountain Drive
Wausau
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Sarah Carter at (608) 264-8968 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Copies of Proposed Rule and Fiscal Estimate and Submittal of Written Comments
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov
. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Ms. Carter at the address listed below.
Comments may also be submitted via an online form at:
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/review/NR29form.asp
Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Ms. Sarah Carter, Bureau of Endangered Resources, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to
sarah.carter@wisconsin.gov
. Comments may be submitted until
July 16, 2010
. 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.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
In promulgating this rule, s.
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., has been interpreted as allowing the department the authority to develop rules to implement a program to provide natural heritage inventory information to the public. Section
23.27 (3) (b)
, Stats., has been interpreted as directing the department to share natural heritage inventory information and data with those who request it for specific authorized purposes.
Statutory authority
The state statutes that authorize the promulgation of this rule include section
23.27 (3) (b)
, Stats., and section
227.11
, Stats.
Explanation of agency authority
These sections grant rule-making authority and fee establishment to the department and direct the department to make natural heritage inventory information and data available to those who request it.
Plain language analysis
Ch.
NR 29
, Wis. Adm. Code, outlines mechanisms and fees for sharing Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) information on rare species and high-quality natural communities with the public. The proposed changes to Ch.
NR 29
, Wis. Admin. Code, represent recommendations made by stakeholders during a comprehensive program review conducted in 2008-2009.
Fees in Ch.
NR 29
, Wis. Adm. Code, have not been updated in 20 years. The proposed rule updates fees for one-time NHI information requests (commonly referred to as Endangered Resources (ER) Reviews) from $20/hour to $75/hour, and reduces the minimum charge from three hours of staff time (currently $60) to one hour of staff time ($75). Wisconsin's proposed $75 minimum fee is low to average when compared to fees charged by other states both nationally and in the Midwest. Fees for providing access to the detailed NHI data via a formal NHI Data License are updated from a minimum of $500 to a minimum of $850, and from a maximum of $1000 to a maximum of $1500. The range in fees allows the Department to provide flexibility in costs for users depending on the format and geographic extent of the data requested.
The rule also creates a new expedited endangered resources review service to meet the needs of customers faced with very short deadlines for commencing project activities. The product is provided in a guaranteed, short timeframe (7 working days) for a higher fee: $140/hour with a minimum charge of three hours ($420). The ER Review Program has been piloting this service for the last six months. The pilot was accomplished via contract for a similar but slightly lower fee ($100/hour, $360 minimum). Based on the success of the initial pilot and consistent requests from stakeholders for this service, the Department is now proposing this change to allow Department staff to provide this service on a regular basis.
The proposed rule clarifies that users with access to detailed NHI data may be required to take training and/or an exam to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to correctly access, interpret, apply and ensure the security of these sensitive data, and establishes that the Department may charge fees for training and exams to cover Department costs. The rule also directs the Department to establish a pilot certification program to allow external individuals with a documented biological background who demonstrate specific skills and knowledge be authorized to conduct preliminary evaluations of potential impacts of proposed projects on endangered resources. These changes are a response to training needs that have been identified consistently by both customers and Department staff, and were reiterated by stakeholders in the recent program review. Those requesting direct access to the NHI data are currently required to take online training and an exam before being provided access to the data. However, there is a need to create better and more comprehensive training to allow users to better understand, interpret, and apply these data to their specific projects and uses. There is also a need to continue to ensure that this information has been effectively conveyed and understood through completion of an exam. In anticipation of this proposed rule change, the ER Review Program has been working with two groups of stakeholders since Fall 2009 to develop the certification program. The exam, training, and certification program will all be guided by the recommendations of these two groups. More information about this initiative is available online at
http://dnr.wi.gov/
org/land/er/review/proposedChanges.asp
.
Related statute or rules and plain language analysis
Section
23.27 (3) (b)
, Wis. Stats., requires the Department to share Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) information with those who request it for research, educational, environmental, land management or similar authorized purposes. Ch.
NR 29
, Wis. Admin. Code, outlines mechanisms and fees for sharing this information. The proposed changes to Ch.
NR 29
, Wis. Admin. Code, will update fees for providing NHI information to customers to reflect the actual cost of collecting, storing, managing, compiling and providing this information and data as required by s.
23.27(3)(b)
, Stats. The rule will also create a new expedited endangered resources review service and establish a pilot certification program.
Fees in Ch.
NR 29
, Wis. Adm. Code, have not been updated in 20 years. The proposed rule updates fees for one-time NHI information requests (commonly referred to as ER Reviews) from $20/hour to $75/hour, and reduces the minimum charge from three hours of staff time (currently $60) to one hour of staff time ($75).
It should be noted that generalized NHI information is available for free to the public on our website at
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/review/
under `Free, Online Resources'. The data are available in several formats, including printouts by township. These data are used frequently by consultants, students, land use planners, landowners, non-profit organizations, local units of government, educators, and others for a variety of purposes including research, pre-screening projects for regulatory purposes, gathering information for community/land use planning initiatives, and informing conservation and restoration efforts.
Comparison with federal regulations
The proposed rules are related to provision of information on rare species (including those classified as endangered and threatened at the state and federal levels) and high-quality natural communities. These rules do not relieve individuals from any restrictions, requirements or conditions of federal statutes or regulations related to endangered species. In fact, providing this information to the public facilitates compliance by the regulated community with existing state and federal endangered species laws.
All projects that the Department conducts, funds or approves must also be in compliance with federal and state endangered species laws. Examples include land acquisition, land and water planning and development projects, sustainable forestry certification, Managed Forest Law plan development, NEPA compliance for receipt of federal aid, and Department permit review. Because federal compliance is required for receipt of federal grants (federal Sport Fish Restoration and Pittman-Robertson funds granted to the Department totaled nearly $23 million last year), the ER Review Program has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop procedures for screening proposed projects for potential impacts to endangered resources. The foundation of the screening procedure is the NHI database. The provision of timely and accurate NHI data through the NHI Portal along with the technical support and services provided by the ER Review Program help ensure that federal grants are not held up by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for noncompliance, that all Department programs comply with state and federal endangered species laws, and that Department permits are issued in a timely manner.
We are not aware of a federal law requiring provision of information on federally protected rare species and habitats to the public. As with Wisconsin, generalized information on rare species locations in Wisconsin is available for free at the US Fish and Wildlife Service website:
http://www.fws
. gov/midwest/Endangered/lists/Wisc-cty.html
. However, information in this table is generalized much more broadly: species locations are generalized to the county level. In contrast, locational information for species in Wisconsin is available to the township level on the Department website at
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/review/
under `Free, Online Resources'. In addition, it should be noted that most information US Fish and Wildlife Service provides in their table comes from NHI data that the Department shares with US Fish and Wildlife Service via a formal NHI Data License.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Fees for provision of NHI information vary across the Midwest and across the nation. The majority of states use some variety of fee formula, usually based on an hourly rate for time needed to complete the request or a per quadrangle fee. Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia all charge $75/hr, with a one-hour minimum. Several other states such as Delaware and New Jersey follow this formula, although the fees range from $20 to $100/hr. Four states plus the Navajo Nation base their fees on the number of quadrangles reviewed, with charges ranging from $20 to $45 per quadrangle. New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado utilize a tiered fee structure, charging a base fee and adding additional charges based on variables such as whether the search returned any results, project area, number of species found, etc. All three states have a base fee of around $100; the maximum charge can range up to $25,000 in Wyoming.
Fees for NHI information in the Midwest also vary, as in the country as a whole. Illinois and Iowa both provide free reports upon request. Michigan charges a $100 base fee plus $.607/mi
2
, while Indiana and Ohio both charge around $50 per half hour. South Dakota charges $30 for a computer search and $30/hr for a manual search. Minnesota uses a tiered system similar to New Mexico's, charging a base fee of $60 plus an additional $30/hr or $25 for queries by species plus $5 per additional species. Wisconsin's $75 minimum fee is low to average when compared to states both nationally and in the Midwest.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rules are related to provision of information on rare species (including those classified as endangered and threatened at the state and federal levels) and high-quality natural communities. The proposed rules seek to provide information to the public facilitating compliance by the regulated community with both state and federal endangered species laws. This information is also provided to other Department staff, facilitating Department compliance with state endangered species laws (see above). These rules do not relieve individuals from any restrictions, requirements or conditions of state statutes or regulations related to endangered species.
These rules were developed with the assistance of the Bureau of Endangered Resources, Legal Services and with input from stakeholders of the ER Review Program. A group of ER Review Program stakeholders met several times between Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 to consider and recommend changes to the ER Review Program that would better serve its customers. This proposed rule change represents several changes recommended by the group. Stakeholders included other state and federal agencies, local units of government, developers, private and county forests, utilities, non-profit conservation organizations, private consultants, and others. Specific organizations represented included Alliant Energy, American Transmission Company, Madison Audubon Society
,
Metropolitan Builders Association, Natural Resources Consulting, Inc., The Nature Conservancy, US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, We Energies, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Wisconsin Towns Association, and others. Internal stakeholders were also consulted about ways to facilitate coordination across programs and shorten permit turnaround time related to the endangered resources review required for all actions that the Department conducts, funds, or approves. The Division of Forestry, Office of Energy, and Bureaus of Science Services and Watershed were represented on the internal stakeholder group. Another stakeholder meeting is scheduled for April 23, 2010 to share information about the rule process. One more stakeholder meeting will be held after the anticipated July 2010 public hearings to share input received at the public hearings with stakeholders.
Fees for providing access to the detailed NHI data (provided via a formal NHI Data License) are updated from a minimum of $500 to a minimum of $850, and from a maximum of $1000 to a maximum of $1500. Most other states do not provide external customers with direct access to the underlying NHI database (the same database used by the Department for regulatory and conservation purposes). The Department feels this is a critical service, providing trained and knowledgeable users with the detailed data they need to better protect endangered resources, often accomplished by better siting and planning projects which may cover large geographic areas (e.g., utility lines) to take into account endangered resources. The range in fees provided by the updated values allows the Department to provide flexibility in costs for users depending on the format and geographic extent of the data requested.
The rule also creates a new expedited service (Expedited ER Reviews) to meet the needs of customers faced with very short deadlines for commencing project activities. The product is provided in a guaranteed, short timeframe (7 working days) for a higher fee: $140/hour with a minimum charge of three hours ($420). Stakeholders, both internal and external, requested this service to help enable projects on very short deadlines (e.g., stimulus projects) to comply with endangered species laws. The program has been piloting this service for the last six months to provide a mechanism for quickly reviewing proposed stimulus projects. The pilot was accomplished via contract for a similar but slightly lower fee ($100/hour, $360 minimum), and quality products were provided on time to customers. Based on the success of the initial pilot and consistent requests from stakeholders for this service, the Department is now proposing this change to allow Department staff to provide this service as a regular function of the ER Review Program.
The proposed rule clarifies that users with access to detailed NHI data may be required to take training and/or an exam to ensure that they have the knowledge and skills to correctly access, interpret, apply and ensure the security of these sensitive data, and establishes that the Department may charge fees for training and exams to cover Department costs. The rule also directs the Department to establish a pilot certification program to allow external individuals with a documented biological background who demonstrate specific skills and knowledge be authorized to conduct preliminary evaluations of potential impacts of proposed projects on endangered resources. These changes are a response to training needs that have been identified consistently by both customers and Department staff, and were reiterated by stakeholders in the recent program review. Those requesting direct access to the NHI data are currently required to take online training (approximately four hours) and an exam before being provided access to the data. However, there is a need to create better and more comprehensive training targeting specific user groups to allow each to better understand, interpret, and apply these data to their specific projects and uses. And, there is a need to continue to ensure that this information has been effectively conveyed and understood through completion of an exam. In anticipation of this proposed rule change, the ER Review Program has been working with two small groups of stakeholders since Fall 2009 to develop a list of competencies, an exam, and a training plan for providing users of these data with the skills, tools, and information that they need to best use the data. One group consists of forestry users, while the second group encompasses other types of users (utilities, agencies, non-profit organizations, private consultants, and others). These groups are expected to finish their work in Fall 2010. The exam, training, and certification program will all be guided by the recommendations of these two working groups. More information about this initiative is available online at
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/review/proposedChanges.aspsarah.carter
@wisconsin.gov
.
Small Business Fiscal Impact
Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses.
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
State fiscal effect
Increase existing revenues.
Increase costs - will not be possible to absorb within agency's budget.
Local government fiscal effect
Indeterminate.
Increase Costs — Permissive.
Types of local governmental units affected
Town, Villages, Cities, Counties.
Fund sources affected
SEG.
Affected Ch.
20
appropriations
Agency Contact Person
Sarah Carter
101 S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Phone: (608) 264-8968
Notice of Hearing
Public Instruction
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
119.23 (2) (a) 6. c.
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing to consider emergency rules creating section
PI 35.07
, relating to establishing a nonrenewable waiver from the requirement that a teacher have a bachelor's degree in order to teach in a private school under the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held as follows:
Date:
July 12, 2010
Time:
1:00 - 2:00 p.m.
Location:
Madison
GEF 3 Building
125 South Webster Street
Room 041
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Robert Soldner, Director, School Management Services, (608) 266-7475 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Emergency Rule and Fiscal Estimate
Lori Slauson, Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Submittal of Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than
July 15, 2010
, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Public Instruction
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section
119.23 (2) (a) 6. c.
, Stats., requires the department to, by rule, implement a process to issue a temporary, nonrenewable waiver to certain teachers that meet specific statutory requirements and who are employed by a private school participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) program.
Section
119.23 (11)
, Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules to implement and administer the MPCP.
Section
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., gives an agency rule-making authority to interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
SECTION 9139 (4r) of the nonstatutory provisions of
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
allows the department promulgate emergency rules without a finding of emergency or a statement as to why the rule is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, safety or welfare.
Related statute or rule
N/A
Plain language analysis
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
, the 2009-11 biennial budget bill, made several modifications to the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program under s.
119.23
, Stats. Several of the modifications require that the department develop rules to implement the statutory provisions. One of those modifications requires the department to develop a rule setting forth the process to issue a temporary, nonrenewable waiver for eligible teachers who have been teaching in a participating private school for at least 5 consecutive years immediately preceding July 1, 2010, but do not have a bachelor's degree.
By statute, a teacher may apply for a temporary, nonrenewable waiver if he or she:
•
Was employed by the private school participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) on July 1, 2010,
•
Has been teaching for at least the 5 consecutive years immediately preceding July 1, 2010, and
•
Does not have a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher education on July 1, 2010.
The statutes further require the applicant to submit to the department a waiver application designed by the department and a plan for satisfying the requirements under s.
119.23 (2) (a) 6. a.
, Stats., including the name of the accredited institution of higher education at which the teacher is pursuing or will pursue the bachelor's degree and the anticipated date on which the teacher expects to complete the bachelor's degree.
The rules include the statutory requirements described above and establish the process for requesting the temporary, nonrenewable waiver. The rules require specific information to be submitted by July 31, 2010, when applying for the waiver, including:
•
Information documenting that the institution of higher education is accredited.
•
The name and contact information of the accredited institution of higher learning.
•
A list of specific classes to be taken to complete the bachelor's degree, including updates of any changes that have occurred in the applicant's plan.
•
If applicable, an official transcript showing courses already completed that count toward the bachelor's degree.
•
Information demonstrating a bachelor's degree from the accredited institution of higher education can be issued within five years under the plan proposed by the applicant.
Finally, no waiver granted under these rules is valid after July 31, 2015.
The Act required permanent rules be submitted to the Legislative Council by October 1, 2009. The permanent rule process is nearly complete but emergency rules are being promulgated to establish the waiver application requirements prior to the July 1, 2010, teacher criteria deadline, established under s.
119.23 (2) (c)
, Stats.
Comparison with federal regulations
N/A
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota do not have rules relating to private school voucher programs.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The waiver granted under these rules is only available to teachers that meet the requirements on July 1, 2010 and valid until July 31, 2015. The information required in the rule is typical of information requested from regular teachers in determining whether they are on-track to receiving proper certification.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
N/A.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A.
Small Business Fiscal Impact
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a)
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The rule sets forth the process to issue a temporary, nonrenewable waiver for eligible teachers who have been teaching in a participating private school but do not meet the new licensing requirement created by
2009 Wis. Act 28
under s.
119.23 (2) (a) 6.
a, Stats.
The rules will have no local fiscal effect and will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a)
, Stats.
The costs associated with the new waiver application process and review will be absorbed by the department.
Agency Contact Person
Robert Soldner, Director
School Management Services
Phone: (608) 266-7475
Notice of Hearing
Transportation
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
85.16 (1)
,
227.11
,
343.02
and
344.66
, Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing to consider the amendment of Chapter
Trans 100
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to license reinstatement.
Hearing Information
Date:
July 21, 2010
Time:
10:30 a.m.
Location:
Hill Farms State Transportation Bldg.
Room 144-B
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
Madison, WI
This hearing is held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call Reginald Paradowski at (608) 264-7002 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in alternative format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability to accommodate your needs.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the rule may be obtained upon request from Reginald Paradowski, Section Chief, Division of Motor Vehicles, Driver Information Section, Room 301, P. O. Box 7983, Madison, WI 53707-7983. You may also contact Mr. Paradowski by phone at (608) 264-7002 or via e-mail:
reginald.paradowski@wisconsin.gov
to obtain copies of the proposed rule. Copies will also be available at the hearing.
Submittal of Written Comments
The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until close of business the day of the hearing to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at the hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to Reginald Paradowski, Section Chief, Division of Motor Vehicles, Driver Information Section, Room 301, P. O. Box 7983, Madison, WI 53707-7983, or by calling (608) 264-7002. You may also contact Mr. Paradowski via e-mail at:
dotuninsuredmotorist@dot.wi.gov
.
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Department is charged with administering the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws contained in Ch.
344
. This rule making deals with reinstatement of operating privileges following suspension for nonpayment of a damage judgment. The Department is also charged with administering provisions of the mandatory insurance law, Subchapter
VI
to Ch.
344
, Stats. This rule making implements that new law.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule making revises those provisions of Ch.
Trans 100
to reflect statutory requirements and to codify DMV practices and procedures that are used in the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. The damage judgment law provides that a driver's operating privilege may be suspended for up to 20 years if the driver fails to pay down the judgment to the same extent it would have been paid had the driver carried the minimum insurance required under Wisconsin's safety responsibility law. The safety responsibility law requires drivers involved in accidents without insurance to post a deposit with the Department to cover potential damages resulting from the accident. Failure to post the deposit results in suspension of operating privileges.
A second objective of this rule making, discussed below, is to establish standards for filings made in lieu of insurance with the Department pursuant to s.
344.63
, Stats., as created by
2009 Wis. Act 28
, and establish any other regulations made necessary by Wisconsin's new mandatory insurance law.
Safety Responsibility and Damage Judgment Law Related Proposed Rules
Section
344.01 (2) (d)
, Stats., sets minimum mandatory insurance limits in Wisconsin of $50,000 because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to such limit for one person, in the amount of $100,000 because of bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any one accident and in the amount of $15,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.
1
Section
344.26 (3)
, Stats., provides that unpaid damage judgments in excess of those amounts are "deemed satisfied" for purposes of the damage judgment law when payments in those amounts have been credited to the judgments. Payments made in settlement of any claims because of bodily injury, death or property damage arising from a motor vehicle accident are credited in reduction of the respective amounts so specified.
1
These dollar amounts can be adjusted in accordance with variance in the consumer price index beginning in 2017. The rule text reflects this fact, but for purposes of the analysis, the current $15,000, $50,000 and $100,000 amounts shall be used to simplify the text and improve the understandability of the analysis.
It should be noted in this regard that the term "satisfied" as used in ss.
344.25
to
344.27
, Stats., is not used in the commonly understood legal parlance of the term. Ordinarily, to lawyers, "satisfaction" of a judgment means the payment of all amounts due under the judgment. In s.
344.26(3)
, Stats., however, the different meaning described in the preceding paragraph is ascribed to the term solely for purposes of the damage judgment law. This is consistent with the safety responsibility law. Under the safety responsibility law, a person who had a contract of insurance with the minimum coverages described in s.
344.01(2)(d)
, Stats., would not be subject to that law's bond requirements. s.
344.14 (2) (a)
, Stats.
This proposed rule making would amend Ch.
Trans 100
to make clear that payment of a judgment to the $15,000 for property damage plus $50,000 or $100,000 level for injuries is sufficient to warrant release of any damage judgment suspension by the Division of Motor Vehicles. It also imposes a requirement that any settlement agreement between the parties state the nature of the damages involved and the amount at which the possibility of re-suspension under the DMV damage judgment law expires.
An additional proposed amendment to Ch.
Trans 100
is intended to resolve a potential ambiguity in ss.
344.25
to
344.27
, Stats. Since the inception of this program, DOT has interpreted those statutes as permitting release of a DMV damage judgment suspension once upon a debtor driver entering into a private repayment agreement and once upon that debtor driver obtaining a court-ordered repayment plan under s.
344.27
, Stats. DMV has required satisfaction of the judgment as a condition of reinstatement following default on any judicial plan because of the s.
344.27(3)
, Stats., requirement that "[I]f the judgment debtor fails to pay any installment as specified by such order, the secretary, upon notice of such default, shall immediately suspend the operating privilege and registrations of the judgment debtor until such judgment is satisfied as provided in s.
344.26
." In drafting this rule, the Department considered whether it could permit these steps to be done in a different sequence and whether multiple agreements could be permitted.
In the end, the Department concluded that the above-quoted language of s.
344.27(3)
, Stats., prevents DMV from permitting reinstatement of operating privileges following default on a court-ordered repayment plan unless the driver (or someone on the driver's behalf) actually pays $15,000, $50,000 or $100,000, as appropriate, to the judgment creditor. DMV also concluded that it would not permit repeated private repayment agreements for a single damage judgment. The proposed rule reflects these determinations.
Amendments to s.
Trans 100.08(1)
are proposed merely to eliminate inconsistent use of language in the amended paragraphs. The paragraphs amended used alternatively the term "check" or the term "draft," when either a check or a draft is adequate in any of those instances and either is accepted by DMV. The amendments simply make it clear that either is acceptable in lieu of cash.
Finally, the unencumbered asset base formula amount required for self-insurance in s.
Trans 100.16(4)(a)
is raised from $60,000 to $115,000 to match the new minimum liability limits required under state law. The formula is expressed in a manner that will allow the amount to rise or fall as minimum insurance limits rise or fall under s.
344.11
, Stats.
Mandatory Insurance Related Proposed Rules
As stated above, one purpose of this proposed rule making is to set interim standards for filings made in lieu of insurance with the Department pursuant to s.
344.63
, Stats., as created by
2009 Wis. Act 28
. The statutes require the Department to accept and release deposits made in lieu of mandatory insurance under particular circumstances, and these rules cannot modify those statutorily established requirements. The Department believes the legislature may wish to consider modifying some of those requirements in the future because the effects of some of the provisions may undermine the legislature's apparent intentions in enacting the laws. These effects are explained below.
One deposit accepted in lieu of insurance under s.
344.63
, Stats., is $60,000 cash. The $60,000 amount is set in the statutes and is far less than the minimum insurance required under the law. U.S. currency, cashiers and certified checks, money orders, bank checks, and attorney trust fund checks may be accepted as a cash deposit by the Department. In addition to depositing cash, the depositor must prove no judgments are outstanding against the depositor in the depositor's county of residence. s.
344.37(1)
, Stats.
A second deposit accepted by the Department is a bond. There are two types of bonds. First, a bond issued by a surety company for the minimum liability coverage amounts required by law (currently $15,000 property, $50,000 personal injury to one person, $100,000 personal injury of multiple persons). The bond will need to be in a form approved by the Department. The other form of bond permitted under the statutes is a judicial bond. If requested, judges will have to approve or disapprove of applications to create a bond secured by $330,000 in real estate (twice the amount of the bond).
The third mechanism available under the statute is posting securities. Securities are the most problematic from an administrative and enforcement standpoint. The value of securities can vary greatly over time. The Department cannot and will not know the value of securities after deposit. The burden will be on the depositor to be able to prove the value of any securities deposited with the Department to police when asked. Deposits of securities must be accompanied by an opinion of counsel verifying that the securities meet the statutory requirements for use in lieu of insurance. The depositor will need to provide an affidavit as to the value of the securities at the time of deposit and will need to pledge the securities in a manner that permits the Department to sell them in order to use the proceeds to satisfy damages resulting from accidents. The share or bond certificates will need to be physically deposited with the Department. The Department proposes in this rulemaking to require that the securities be of a type readily sold on a recognized market, such as the NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange, so that DMV has a means of converting the securities to cash if the securities must be used to pay damages resulting from an accident. Securities in closely held corporations, certificates of deposit that are subject to early withdrawal penalties, and other types of securities that are not readily converted to cash would not be accepted. Minimum standards of capitalization and liquidity are suggested as mechanisms for ensuring that penny stocks and unmarketable securities that are difficult to sell will not be accepted.
As set forth at the outset of this plain language analysis, there are some issues related to the return of deposits made in lieu of mandatory insurance established by the new mandatory insurance law that may merit further legislative attention. For example, s.
344.63(3)(a)
provides that any bond, cash or securities deposited in lieu of insurance with the Department would have to be returned to the depositor if the owner or operator of the vehicle for whom the deposit was made obtains insurance, dies, becomes permanently incapacitated to operate a motor vehicle, no longer holds a valid operator's license or no longer owns a motor vehicle registered with the Department. The Department lacks authority under that statute to retain any bond or deposit to satisfy damages resulting from an accident once any of those events triggering return of the deposit occurs.
Because of this statutory requirement, the person posting the bond or deposit will have ample opportunity to withdraw any deposit prior to the Department being able to apply it to any judgment for damages for the injured party's benefit. For example, if the depositor were to be involved in an accident, he or she could walk into any DMV service center, surrender his or her license and demand return of the deposit. Under the new law, DMV has a ministerial non-discretionary responsibility to return the deposit, even if the Department knows that the accident has occurred. Once the deposit is returned, the driver can request DMV reinstate his or her license, and DMV is required to do so. Similarly, if the driver who made the deposit in lieu of insurance killed himself by negligently causing an accident injuring others, the Department is required to return the deposit to the depositor's estate and cannot retain the deposit for the benefit of the persons the depositor negligently injured. In these and other foreseeable types of situations, the deposit made in lieu of insurance would not be available to satisfy the damages suffered by those injured in the accident. The legislature may wish, at some point, to consider amending the statutory provisions that lead to such results so that deposits made in lieu of insurance could be held by the Department in order to help offset damages caused by drivers using deposits in lieu of insurance.
Comparison with federal regulations
There are no existing or proposed federal regulations on this issue.
Comparison with rules in the following states
Michigan:
Owners of passenger vehicles, vans, and light trucks must purchase Michigan no-fault insurance before registering their vehicle. Out-of-state insurance policies cannot be used to meet Michigan insurance requirements for registering a vehicle. Motorcycles must also be insured, but it is not no-fault insurance.
Required coverages include bodily injury/property damage, personal injury protection, and property protection insurance. These required coverages do not pay for damage to vehicles or cover theft. Drivers may carry collision coverage (damage) and comprehensive coverage (theft) at their option.
Drivers are required to keep a Michigan no-fault insurance certificate in their vehicle or carry it with them when they drive. If they cannot show proof of insurance to a law enforcement officer, their operating privilege or vehicle registration may be suspended.
Persons (usually companies) owning more than 25 vehicles may be exempt from the mandatory insurance requirement by obtaining a certificate of self insurance from the Michigan Secretary of State. Applicants must have a net worth in excess of $20 million to be exempt from carrying insurance, or a have net worth in excess of $5 million and carry an excess insurance policy. Section R 257.532, Michigan Admin. Code.
Department staff did not find any provision of Michigan law allowing deposits in lieu of insurance similar to those set forth in s.
344.63
, Stats.
Michigan has a damage judgment law similar to Wisconsin's. If someone is driving a vehicle without insurance and is at-fault in an accident, the injured party may file a suit against the uninsured motorist in court for damages. The court may award a judgment for damages to the injured party against the uninsured motorist. Unlike Wisconsin, if the uninsured motorist cannot pay the judgment, their driver license is suspended until the judgment is paid in full. Wisconsin requires only that the minimum mandatory insurance amounts be paid before a driver may reinstate his or her license.
Michigan does not have a safety responsibility law similar to Wisconsin's.
Minnesota:
The Minnesota No-Fault Act (M.S. 65B.48), requires owners of registered motor vehicles to maintain no-fault insurance. The law makes it a crime for a vehicle owner to operate or permit operation of any uninsured motor vehicle or motorcycle upon any public road, street, or highway. Violation of the law can result in fines or imprisonment and/or loss of driving privileges.
Drivers must carry liability, personal injury protection, uninsured motorist, and underinsured motorist coverage. Collision and comprehensive coverage are optional.
Minnesota Law (M.S.
169.791
) requires drivers to carry proof of insurance in the vehicle at all times and to provide it to peace officers upon demand.
Minnesota does not appear to have a safety responsibility law. Minn. Stat. 171.182 provides for revocation of operating privileges for drivers who have unpaid damage judgments resulting from automobile accidents. Unlike Wisconsin, complete payment of the judgment is required prior to reinstatement.
Illinois:
All motor vehicles operated in Illinois must be covered by liability insurance. Vehicle owners are required to provide insurance information at the time of registration renewal.
Drivers operating without proof of insurance in Illinois, are subject to a five hundred dollar fine and a sixty day suspension of vehicle registration. Illinois requires drivers to carry bodily injury liability limits of $20,000/$40,000, property damage liability limits of $15,000, and uninsured motorist coverage.
Illinois does not appear to have a safety responsibility law. Illinois law does provide for revocation of operating privileges for drivers who have unpaid damage judgments resulting from automobile accidents. Unlike Wisconsin, complete payment of the judgment is required prior to reinstatement.
Iowa:
Iowa does not mandate that drivers or vehicle owners carry insurance. Iowa has a safety responsibility law similar to Wisconsin's, which is used to compel uninsured drivers to post deposits in order to cover damages potentially attributable to them from an accident. Any person involved in an accident in Iowa, as either the driver or owner of a motor vehicle, is subject to the requirements of the law.
Iowa does not have a compulsory insurance law. Instead, the Financial & Safety Responsibility Act provides for:
•
Suspending the operating and registration privileges of a driver or owner who cannot show immediate financial responsibility following an accident; and,
•
By requiring anyone whose driver's license has been suspended or revoked because of a conviction, unsatisfied judgment or violation of the OWI law to prove financial responsibility for any future damages or injuries that driver may cause.
Just as in Wisconsin, in Iowa drivers must file an accident report and must be filed with the Office of Driver Services within a set timeframe if an accident results in bodily injury, death or total property damage over a statutorily established amount. Drivers do not need to file a personal accident report if the accident was investigated by a law enforcement agency and the investigating officer files a report.
A driver who causes personal injury or damage exceeding $1,000 to the other party must prove his or her financial responsibility or be subject to license suspension. Similar to Wisconsin's safety responsibility law, drivers can prove financial responsibility by showing that they were covered by automobile liability insurance at the time of the accident, posting cash, getting releases from all other damaged or injured parties, being absolved of responsibility by a court judgment, filing an agreement to pay the other damaged or injured parties on an installment plan, or reaching a settlement with the injured persons. Iowa also allows the uninsured motorist to confess judgment and enter into a judicially-approved payment plan as a mechanism for resolving safety responsibility matters.
Both the owners and drivers of the vehicles involved in an accident must prove their financial responsibility. This means that the person who owns the vehicle involved in an accident has to show financial responsibility even if they weren't driving. Like Wisconsin, Iowa will suspend registrations of all the owners' vehicles if they do not comply. Similarly, the driver of the vehicle has to show financial responsibility or lose all licenses to operate motor vehicles.
Iowa does not appear to have a damage judgment law similar to Wisconsin's.
Overall, it appears that states having mandatory insurance laws do not have a safety responsibility law similar to Wisconsin's. Iowa, which has a safety responsibility law, does not mandate insurance.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Section
344.63
, Stats., as created by
2009 Wis. Act 28
, provides exceptions to the requirement of having a motor vehicle liability insurance policy to operate a motor vehicle on Wisconsin highways. The exceptions defined in the statutes are nearly identical to those provided for under Wisconsin's Safety Responsibility Law. The administration of the exceptions, as defined in this proposed rule, are purposely drafted to closely mirror the procedures currently in place under the Safety Responsibility Law.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small businesses
This regulatory change has no impact on small business. This rule making largely codifies existing DOT policy with regard to the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. The Department does not anticipate any fiscal effect upon small businesses from this codification.
Small Business Impact
This regulatory change has no impact on small business. The safety responsibility and damage judgment portions of this rule making largely codifies existing DOT policy with regard to the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. This proposed rule making related to filings in lieu of mandatory insurance are not expected to impact small business in any manner. The new mandatory insurance law itself may require small businesses that lack automobile coverage to obtain insurance or make a filing in lieu of insurance with the Department. The Department does not anticipate any fiscal effect upon small businesses from this codification. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at
ralph.sanders@dot.state.wi.us
, or by calling (414) 438-4585.
Private Sector Fiscal Impact
The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on private sector revenues or liabilities.
Fiscal Estimate
This rule making largely codifies existing DOT policy with regard to the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. The Department believes any fiscal effect from this codification to be indeterminate as the number of citations issued for not carrying proof of liability insurance, failure to have liability insurance, or fraud in providing proof of liability insurance cannot be surmised at this time. The Department will incur costs for computer changes necessary to develop codes used to indicate the new types on convictions on violators driving records and an unknown amount of time spent by staff explaining insurance requirements and processing license suspensions and reinstatements for persons whose operating privilege is suspended for not paying the forfeitures associated with the violations listed above. The Department will also receive an indeterminate amount of revenue resulting from reinstatement fees collected from those persons whose operating privilege is suspended for not paying forfeitures. Local revenue has the potential to increase through collection of forfeitures and other charges related to the penalties associated with convictions for violations of the new charges.
Agency Contact Person
Reginald Paradowski, Section Chief
Division of Motor Vehicles
Driver Information Section, Room 301
P. O. Box 7983, Madison, WI 53707-7983
Phone: (608) 264-7002
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
Unemployment Insurance, Chs. DWD 100-150
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
108.14 (2)
,
108.205
,
108.22
, and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider rules revising Chapter
DWD 111
, relating to unemployment insurance rules for quarterly wage reporting requirements.
Hearing Information
Date:
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Location:
MADISON
GEF I Building, H306
201 E. Washington Avenue
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 267-9403 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audiotape format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Submittal of Written Comments and Copies of Proposed Rule
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.
An electronic 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: Tracey Schwalbe, Research Attorney, Unemployment Insurance Bureau of Legal Affairs, Department of Workforce Development, P.O. Box 8942, Madison, WI 53708.
Written comments on the proposed rules received at the above address, email, or through the
http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov
web site no later than
July 21, 2010
, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Related statute or rule
42 U.S.C. s. 1320b-7 (a) (3), ch.
DWD 110
.
Explanation of agency authority
Chapter
108
, Stats., requires employers to file with the department a quarterly report showing the name, social security number, and wages paid to each employee who is employed by the employer during the quarter. The quarterly reports are due no later than the last day of the month following the completion of each quarter. The department may prescribe the manner and form for filing quarterly wage reports electronically. Sections
108.14 (2)
and
227.11 (2)
, Stats., authorize the department to adopt and enforce all rules the department finds necessary to carry out the requirements of Chapter
108
, Stats.
Plain language analysis
Wisconsin Act 59 in 2007 amended several provisions of ch.
108
, Stats., related to how employers file reports with the department, the timeliness for filing reports, and the penalties for failing to do so. The proposed rule corresponds with the statutory changes in
2007 Wis. Act 59
, eliminates provisions that duplicate statutory provisions, and eliminates obsolete provisions.
As amended by
2007 Wis. Act 59
, Chapter
108
requires employer agents and employers of 25 or more employees to file quarterly wage reports electronically. Section
108.205
, Stats. Quarterly wage reports must be filed by the last day of the month following the completion of the calendar quarter and may be assessed a penalty of $50 for each delinquent quarterly report. Sections
108.205 (1)
and
108.22 (1) (a)
, Stats. In addition, an employer that fails to file the report in the required format may be assessed a penalty of $20 for each employee whose information is not reported in the correct format. Section
108.22 (1) (ac)
, Stats.
The proposed rule updates the requirements for filing quarterly wage reports to include electronically filed reports, and identifies the website where electronic reports may be filed. The proposed rule eliminates the need for employers to notify the department whether they provide access to a health insurance plan; this provision is obsolete. The rule currently provides that the time to file a report is extended if it is mailed as long as the report is postmarked by the due date or 3 days past the due date. However, pursuant to the statutes as amended by
2007 Wis. Act 59
, quarterly wage reports are due the last date of the month following a quarter. This obsolete provision is removed from the rule. The proposed rule eliminates the obsolete provisions related to employers filing wage record data on combined quarterly contribution report forms. The proposed rule eliminates the obsolete penalties for delinquent wage reports. Finally, the department reviewed the rule to eliminate provisions that were repetitive or duplicated statutory provisions, and to edit for grammatical purposes.
Comparison with federal regulations
Since 1988, federal law has required all States to have in effect, as a condition for compliance with federally aided assistance programs, a requirement that employers make quarterly reports of wages to the state.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
Illinois requires that employers file wage reports either electronically or by paper on a printed packet together with the contribution report. The reports must be filed on or before the due date, the last day of the calendar month next following the calendar quarter. 56 Ill. Adm. Code s. 2760.120, .125 & 140.
Iowa:
Iowa requires that wage reports and contributions are due the last day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Contributions that are mailed must be postmarked by the due date. 871 Iowa Admin. Code s. 23.8 (96).
Michigan:
Michigan statutes require each employer to file a quarterly wage report on forms and at a time as the commission prescribes, but does not have rules interpreting the statute. Mich. Comp. Law s.
421.13
.
Minnesota:
Minnesota statutes require that employers file wage reports electronically and the state calculates the amount of contributions due for the employer. The contributions must be received by the department on or before the last day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Minn. Stat. s.
268.051
.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The department sought to conform the rule language to the changes made to the statutory provisions in
2007 Wis. Act 59
. In addition, the department reviewed the rule language carefully to eliminate provisions that are unnecessarily duplicative of statutory provisions to avoid the potential problem posed by statutory changes and outdated rule language.
Analysis used to determine effect on small businesses
The proposed rule incorporates the changes to chapter 108, Stats., contained in
2007 Wis. Act 59
, and will not have an additional effect on small business.
Small Business Fiscal Impact
The proposed rule incorporates the changes to chapter 108, Stats., contained in
2007 Wis. Act 59
, and will not have an additional effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Agency Contact Person
Tracey Schwalbe, UI Research Attorney
Phone: (608) 266-9641
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
Unemployment Insurance, Chs. DWD 100-150
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
108.14 (2)
,
108.22
, and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider rules revising Chapter
DWD 110
, relating to unemployment insurance rules for coverage and related reports.
Hearing Information
Date:
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Time:
1:00 p.m.
Location:
MADISON
GEF I Building, H306
201 E. Washington Avenue
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 267-9403 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audiotape format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Submittal of Written Comments and Copies of Proposed Rule
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.
An electronic 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: Tracey Schwalbe, Research Attorney, Unemployment Insurance Bureau of Legal Affairs, Department of Workforce Development, P.O. Box 8942, Madison, WI 53708.
Written comments on the proposed rules received at the above address, email, or through the
http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov
web site no later than
July 21, 2010
, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted
Related statute or rule
Explanation of agency authority
Chapter
108
, Stats., requires employers to maintain work records and to submit records to the department for inspection, and to submit other reports as required by the department to determine an employer's status and contribution liability. Sections
108.14(2)
and
227.11(2)
, Stats., authorize the department to adopt and enforce all rules the department finds necessary to carry out the requirements of Chapter
108
, Stats.
Plain language analysis
Wisconsin Act 59 in 2007 amended several provisions of Chapter
108
, Stats., related to how employers file reports with the department, the timeliness for filing reports, and the penalties for failing to do so. The proposed rule corresponds with the statutory changes in
2007 Wis. Act 59
. Section
108.17 (2) (b)
was amended in
2007 Wis. Act 59
to provide that employers may be excused from filing contribution reports if they file their wage reports electronically. Section
108.17 (7)
, Stats., was amended in
2007 Wis. Act 59
to provide that some employers must remit contributions or other payments due electronically. The proposed rule takes into account the statutory changes to allow filing of reports and payments electronically. The rule currently provides that the time to file a report is extended if it is mailed as long as the report is postmarked by the due date or 3 days past the due date. Pursuant to the statutes as amended by
2007 Wis. Act 59
, contribution reports and payments are due the last date of the month following a quarter; this obsolete provision is removed from the rule. The reference to due dates falling on holidays or weekends is repealed because it duplicates s. 108.22(1)(b), Stats.; however, legal holidays are clarified to also include any date the Unemployment Division is closed due to furlough, or due to inclement weather or other acts of nature. The rule currently refers to a $10,500 taxable wage base for computing the defined taxable payroll. The proposed rule refers to the taxable wage base as provided in ch.
108
, Stats., rather than naming the amount because the amount is scheduled to change over time. Finally, the department reviewed the rule to eliminate provisions that were repetitive or duplicated statutory provisions, and to edit for grammatical purposes.
Comparison with federal regulations
Since 1988, federal law has required all States to have in effect, as a condition for compliance with federally aided assistance programs, a requirement that employers make quarterly reports of wages to the state. There are no federal requirements governing how states receive contribution reports.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
Illinois rules require that an employer must pay contributions due by check accompanied by a transmittal form. Employers with 250 or more employees must file quarterly reports electronically. Contributions are due on or before the last day of the month following the end of the quarter. Where the payment is made by mail, the reports are considered timely if the postmark bears a date within the prescribed time limit. Late payments are assessed interest at the rate of 2% per month. 56 Ill. Adm. Code ss. 2760.135-.60.
Iowa:
Iowa requires that wage reports and contributions are due the last day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Contributions that are mailed must be postmarked by the due date. Penalties may be applied to reports that are not received by the due date and interest of 1% per month is charged on overdue contributions. 871 Iowa Admin. Code s. 23.8 (96).
Michigan:
Michigan requires that employer contributions are due quarterly; employers must submit contribution reports on form provided by the agency or electronically. Payments are due on or before the 25
th
day of the month next following the last day of the calendar quarter. Contributions paid after the 25
th
but before the first day of the next calendar month do not accrue interest. Mich. Admin. Code s.
421.121
.
Minnesota:
Minnesota statutes require that employers file wage reports electronically and the state calculates the amount of contributions due for the employer. The contributions must be received by the department on or before the last day of the month following the end of the calendar quarter. Minn. Stat. s.
268.051
.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The department sought to conform the rule language to the changes made to the statutory provisions in
2007 Wis. Act 59
. In addition, the department reviewed the rule language carefully to eliminate provisions that are unnecessarily duplicative of statutory provisions to avoid the potential problem posed by statutory changes and outdated rule language.
Analysis used to determine effect on small businesses
The proposed rule incorporates the changes to chapter 108, Stats., contained in
2007 Wis. Act 59
, and will not have an additional effect on small business.
Small Business Fiscal Impact
The proposed rule incorporates the changes to chapter 108, Stats., contained in
2007 Wis. Act 59
, and will not have an additional effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Agency Contact Person
Tracey Schwalbe, UI Research Attorney
Phone: (608) 266-9641
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
Apprenticeship, Chs. DWD 295-296
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections
103.005 (1)
,
106.01 (9)
and
227.11 (2)
, Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider the revision of Chapter
DWD 295
, relating to the state apprenticeship program and affecting small businesses.
Hearing Information
Date:
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Location:
MADISON
GEF I Building, D203
201 E. Washington Avenue
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 266-9427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audiotape format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Submittal 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 may be submitted to Howard Bernstein, Office of Legal Counsel, Dept. of Workforce Development, P.O. Box 7946, Madison, WI 53707-7946 or by email to
Howard.Bernstein@dwd.wisconsin.gov
. The deadline for submission is
July 23, 2010
. Written comments will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Copies of Proposed Rule
The proposed rules are available at the website
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 by contacting Howard Bernstein at the addresses given above or by telephone at (608) 266-9427.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Workforce Development
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Under ss.
106.01
to
106.04
, Stats., the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) is responsible for the establishment and supervision of apprenticeship standards for sponsors, employers and employees. Under s.
106.01 (9)
, Stats., "(t)he department may investigate, fix reasonable classifications, issue rules and general or special orders and, hold hearings, make findings and render orders upon its findings as shall be necessary to carry out the intent and purposes of this section."
Summary of the proposed rule
On October 26, 2008, the US Department of Labor published
29 CFR 29
(Volume 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 29) in the Federal Register.
29 CFR 29
is a final rule designed to modernize the National Apprenticeship System. This rule, which took effect on December 29, 2008, provides State Apprenticeship Agencies with up to two additional years to implement the required changes in order to continue federal recognition of Wisconsin's apprenticeship program.
On May 12, 2010, the Governor signed
2009 Wisconsin Act 291
,
previously 2009 Senate Bill 586, which makes conforming changes to the Wisconsin Statutes which are designed to ensure that the U.S. Department of Labor will continue to recognize Wisconsin's program as in conformance. This proposed rule is intended to carry forward the intent of Act 291 and make similarly conforming changes to the administrative rules of the apprenticeship program.
The proposed amendments to DWD 295 implement the changes provided in
29 CFR Part 29
and include the following changes: three different approaches for apprentices to complete a program, allowance for technology based learning by defining electronic media and explicitly allowing its use in the provision of related instruction, sets the components of program standards and introduces completion rates as a critical factor in the evaluation of program quality, provides increased program quality and options for apprentice sponsors changes, introduces provisional registration which will increase quality and success rates by providing for newly registered programs to be reviewed and the end of the provisional registration and sets forth components which must be included in an Apprentice Contract.
Summary of analytical methodology
This proposed rule has been developed by reviewing the new federal National Apprenticeship System standards and drafting amendments to the existing rules on apprenticeship to bring the state rules into conformance with the federal regulations.
Comparison with federal regulations
As described above, federal law has been amended to create a National Apprenticeship System. State programs which meet the federal standards will be recognized as in conformance by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Comparison with statutes and rules in adjacent states
Minnesota
has a state apprenticeship statute and is going through a process similar to Wisconsin to update its statutes and rules to be consistent with the federal regulations.
Illinoi
s,
Michigan
, and
Iowa
are "federal" apprentice registration states which follow the federal regulations in the absence of state statutes and rules.
Analysis used to determine effect on small business
The nature of the revisions to federal and state law and the proposed rule has been such that employers and employees will not be subject to any burdensome or costly changes.
Small Business Fiscal Impact
The rule changes affect small businesses as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Stats., but do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Agency Contact Person
Karen Morgan, Director
DWD Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards
Phone: (608) 266-3133
