EmR1214 Revises Chapter NR 10, relating to the 2012 migratory game bird seasons and waterfowl hunting zones

A number of wolves have been captured and fitted with radio telemetry gear by the department for research purposes. Under the proposal, the use of radio telemetry gear for locating wolves will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the department. The prohibition would apply to locating wolves for any purpose. People who hunt with the aid of dogs and train hunting dogs also commonly use this technology for monitoring their dogs. Individuals using dogs are specifically exempted from the prohibition of possessing radio telemetry gear as long as it is not used to locate wolves that are fitted with transmitters. Harvest of a collared wolf is legal.

This rule proposal establishes regulations on the use of bait for hunting, firearm and crossbow use, and hunting hours. Many of these regulations are similar to provisions established in statute and are reproduced in administrative code to assure enforceability of the statutory provisions and to increase ch. NR 10 's usefulness to department staff and the public. Also under this proposal, baiting for wolves would be allowed beginning on the day after bear season closes and continuing through the close of the wolf season in a zone. Regulations for baiting in this proposal are similar in many respects to current bear baiting regulations. For hunting wolves statewide, 10 gallons of bait is allowed and it must be covered to prevent access by deer. Additionally, it will be legal to hunt wolves over baits that were lawfully placed for hunting deer. Similar to the restrictions on hunting deer and bear, animal parts and by-products are not allowed as bait for hunting wolves, as established in the ACT.

Current statute establishes that it is illegal to use baits containing poison of any description where it might cause the destruction of wild animals. This proposal creates a similar provision where baiting regulations are established in administrative code and which is specific to canine animals. Doing so locates more of the baiting regulations in one place, for convenience and rule use ability. It also recognizes that there are food substances which are known to be toxic to canines and may not be used in a way that will poison canine animals.

Meat or other animal parts and by-products can be used as bait for trapping, as they are not prohibited by the ACT, and no rule change regarding the use of baits for trapping is required or proposed in this order. Allowing the use of meat or other animal parts and by-products as bait for trapping may be important to prevent the incidental capture of non-target species such as deer when using cable restraints. The disposal of the carcasses of domestic animals is regulated by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and they are not legal for use as bait for trapping wolves.

Hunting at night is authorized under ACT 169 and this rulemaking, however, the rule addresses safety concerns about hunting in the dark with large caliber rifles and shotguns shooting slugs or buckshot by reducing the likelihood that someone will shoot a firearm without being certain of what lies beyond their target. By requiring that a person hunt from a stationary position and prohibiting hunting with hounds at night, shooting opportunities are more likely to occur in directions where the hunter has been able to anticipate and avoid possible unsafe shooting scenarios. It is anticipated that this extra precaution will help assure public safety.

This proposal will restrict the size of steel jawed traps not placed as water sets when used during the early part of the wolf season, through November 30, from a maximum jaw spread of 8 inches to a maximum of 7 inches. This is intended to prevent the incidental catch and retention of bears at times when they are normally still active. This rule would establish regulations on the allowable times for use and the dimensions and mechanical requirements of cable restraints to capture wolves. A cable restraint is a device used for restraining furbearers without injuring them which consists of a non-spring activated galvanized aircraft cable which includes a relaxing mechanical lock, stops, and swivel set in a non-entanglement manner. Cable restraints meeting certain specifications are currently legal for use at certain times for fox, coyote and bobcat. Under this proposal, cable restraint use for wolves is restricted to times when black bears are normally not active to prevent incidental capture and retention of bears.

Hunting and trapping are currently prohibited by DNR in the Necedah National Wildlife Refuge but there are a number of exceptions. As the landowner, the Fish & Wildlife Service already has the ability to allow or prohibit hunting and trapping and service staff people can enforce federal regulations. The significance of current rule is that it also allows enforcement of special closed area regulations by the department. This proposal includes wolves in a way that is consistent with language for species that are currently hunted and trapped at Necedah. The proposal does not require the service to allow wolf hunting or trapping but is necessary if the service decides to allow wolf hunting.

Wolf depredation management is an important aspect of wolf management in Wisconsin. The department is charged with protecting and maintaining a viable population of wolves, but also must protect the interests of people who suffer losses due to wolf depredation. Wolves occasionally kill livestock, poultry, and pets. Although wolf depredation does not impact a significant portion of livestock growers, poultry producers, and pet owners, it brings hardship to individuals who experience incidents of depredation. In 2010 the department paid approximately $204,000 in claims to owners of animals under the existing program for depredation caused by wolves. The existing program will remain in place under this proposal but will only apply at times when wolves are listed as endangered or threatened. Most aspects of the current program are recreated by this proposal in a new section that will be in effect at times when wolves are not listed as protected or threatened.

Several new features are also created that will apply only when wolves are not listed as endangered or threatened. This rule creates a requirement that landowners must allow access to the public for hunting and trapping wolves to be eligible for depredation compensation. Landowners could restrict the use of hunting with dogs if trespass on neighboring lands is perceived to be an issue. In order to minimize the use of lethal control, the proposal creates a requirement that individuals seeking wolf depredation compensation must cooperate with the implementation of any recommended abatement. These rules clarify that anyone seeking wolf depredation compensation must allow access to the department or its agent to inspect property and any abatement techniques being used. The proposal establishes that the panel of three representatives from Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, UW-Extension, and Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federal can defer the establishment of maximum payments amounts to another expert in the event the type of animal whose value is being evaluated is outside of their area of expertise. The proposal establishes that the department will not pay any wolf depredation claims until after December 31 of each year so that the level of program funding is known when payments are made. The department will also pro-rate claims if funds are not sufficient to pay all claims. These rules establish that someone with a valid hunting license of any kind can assist a person who has a wolf removal permit. For most species the appropriate license for that species is required to assist someone with a removal permit, however, because wolf harvesting licenses will be limited by a drawing, expanding the types of licenses needed to assist permittees under the damage program is needed. Individuals assisting a permittee using trapping methods would need to possess a valid WI trapping license. Finally, this proposal revises the current missing calf rules to create a "one-for-five" rule under which producers would be eligible to receive compensation for up to 5 additional calves for every verified or probable wolf depredation. This provision is based on the department's actual payment history for missing calves and continues to acknowledge that there is not always verifiable evidence of depredation on calves.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used To Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Report

Anticipated Private Sector Costs and effects 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. The department does not have experience yet to gauge the level of public participation and interest in this new activity. People who hunt or trap wolves may reside anywhere in the state but are likely to hunt and trap in the northern third of the state where most wolves are found. This will result in increased purchases of lodging services. Some hunters/trappers will need to be assisted by paid guides in order to have a high likelihood of success. The gear used for wolf hunting will be similar to that used for deer and that, combined with the low number of hunters, means there will be limited new retail expenditures even though this is a new opportunity. Successful hunters and trappers will contribute economically through the sales of wolf pelts or, more often, the purchase of taxidermy services. These will be minor contributions overall but for an individual taxidermist, guide, or motel owner who receives extra work, the impact is worth noting.

The ACT and this rulemaking will allow Wisconsin to manage wolves to population levels that will be lower than the current population. As a result, there will likely be less wolf depredation on domestic animals. Under previous requirements of law and under the ACT, the department reimburses owners for the fair market value of domestic animals killed, or veterinary services, in wolf depredation incidents. A reduction in depredation will result in less time investigating damage, filling claims, and working with agency staff who administer the program. Individual producers who are concerned about livestock depredation are likely to view a hunting season as very important to them economically. In 2010, the department investigated and made damage payments for depredations of 84 cattle or missing cattle and six sheep.

The department does not anticipate that there will be significant conflict in the field between people pursuing different outdoor recreational opportunities. It is possible that some wildlife watchers who seek wolves for viewing opportunities may be concerned about user conflict, however, and will be less active. They may initially spend less money travelling and pursuing these activities.

Fiscal Estimate

State: Increase Costs — May be possible to absorb within agency's budget.

Local: No Local Government Costs.

Effect on Small Business

Pursuant to to s. 227.114 , Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Environmental Impact

The department has determined these emergency rule revisions are a Type IV action which is exempt under Chapter NR 150 , Wis. Adm. Code, and no environmental analysis is required.

Agency Contact Person

Scott Loomans

Bureau of Wildlife Management

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

email to [e-mail]

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

EmR1214

(DNR # WM-02-12(E))

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014 , 29.041 and 227.11(2)(a) , and 227.24 Stats., interpreting ss. 29.014 , 29.041 and 29.192 , Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ch. NR 10 , Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the 2012 migratory game bird seasons and waterfowl hunting zones. This emergency order took effect upon publication in the official state paper on September 10, 2012.

Hearing Information

Date:   Friday, October 29, 2012

Time:   1:00 p.m.

Location:   Natural Resources State Office Building
  (GEF-2)
  Room 608
  101 South Webster St.
  Madison, WI 53707

Accessibility

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 Scott Loomans at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Written Comments and Copy of Rule

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 Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to scott.loomans@ wisconsin.gov . Comments may be submitted until October 29, 2012. 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 Mr. Loomans.

Plain Language Analysis

Section 1 of this rule order establishes the season length and bag limits for the 2012 Wisconsin migratory game bird seasons. For ducks, the state is divided into three zones, each with 60-day seasons. The proposed seasons in each zone are:

North duck zone - the season begins at 9:00 a.m. September 22 and continues through November 4, followed by a 5 day split, and reopens on November 10 and continues through November 25.

South duck zone - the season begins at 9:00 a.m. on September 29 and continues through October 7, followed by a 5-day split, and then reopens on October 13 and continues through December 2.

Mississippi River duck zone - the season begins at 9:00 am on September 22 and continues through September 30, followed by a 12 day split, reopening on October 13 and continuing through December 2.

The daily bag limit is 6 ducks including no more than: 4 mallards, of which only 1 may be a hen, 1 black duck, 1 canvasback, 3 wood ducks, 4 scaup, 2 pintails and 2 redheads.

For Canada geese, the state is apportioned into 2 goose hunting zones, Horicon and Exterior, each with a 92 day season. The Mississippi River Subzone is a special goose management subzone within the Exterior Zone. Season lengths are:

Horicon Zone – Two hunting periods, the first period beginning September 16 and the second on October 29

Exterior Zone in the northern duck zone - September 16 to November 4 and November 10 to December 21

Exterior Zone in the southern duck zone – September 16 to October 7 and October 13 to December 21

Mississippi River subzone - September 22 to September 30 and October 13 to January 3.

The statewide daily bag limit for Canada geese in all zones is 2 birds per day during the open seasons within the zones.

Section 2 establishes that the youth waterfowl hunting season will be held on September 15 and 16.

Section 3 lifts a sunset of special migratory bird hunting regulations at the Mead and Zeloski Marsh Wildlife Management Areas.

Section 4 relaxes the prohibition on hunting waterfowl in open water for holders of permits for hunters with disabilities.

Section 5 reestablishes a duck hunting zone that consists of the Wisconsin portions of the Mississippi River west of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks. This is the same zone configuration that was in place for the 2011 season and has been approved by the USFWS for a five year period.

Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed Federal Regulations

Under international treaty and Federal law, migratory game bird seasons are closed unless opened annually via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations process. As part of the Federal rule process, the USFWS proposes a duck harvest-management objective that balances hunting opportunities with the desire to achieve waterfowl population goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Under this harvest- management objective, the relative importance of hunting opportunity increases as duck populations approach the goals in the NAWMP. Thus, hunting opportunity would be maximized when the population is at or above goals. Additionally, while USFWS believes that the NAWMP's population goals would tend to exert a conservative influence on overall duck harvest-management. Other factors, such as habitat, are to be considered.

Wisconsin Canada goose harvest is supported by 2 different Canada goose populations; the local giant Canada geese which are part of the Temperate Breeding Population (TBP) of the Mississippi Flyway provide about 40% of our fall harvest while the Mississippi Valley Population (MVP) that breeds in northern Ontario provide about 60% of the fall harvest. These 2 populations are managed under cooperative management plans developed by several states and provinces. The TBP population has steadily grown and management goals are to provide additional harvest opportunity and control population growth. In contrast, the MVP population has been on a slow decline so management objectives are to maintain a lower rate of harvest and have a stable or increasing population. These contrasting goals create a challenge in the development of hunting regulations. In order to improve our harvest management, the Mississippi Flyway Council tested the use of a standard season framework for 5 years while monitoring population size and harvest rates for the MVP and TBP. From 2007 - 2011, season lengths and bag limits for each MVP harvest state were unchanged. Each state retained 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 could be adjusted. At the winter 2012 flyway meeting, analysis of the impacts of these 5 years of stable regulation were reviewed and the results were mixed with regard to the management objectives. It was decided among the member states that a cautious and slow approach be taken toward continued liberalization of Canada goose hunting seasons.

The 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.

In 2011 the USFWS gave our state the option of reconfiguring duck hunting zones and after an 11 month public input process Wisconsin implemented changes for a 5 year period. Waterfowl hunters appear to have been supportive of the new zone configuration and this proposal contains the same zone configuration that was in effect for the 2011 season. The department's position has been that the configuration of duck zones is an issue of hunter opportunity and satisfaction which does not have significant impact on duck populations.

The parameters of Wisconsin's regular goose seasons are guided by the Mississippi Flyway management plans for the MVP and TBP 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 conducted a public meeting to solicit input from interest groups, including representatives of the Conservation Congress Migratory Committee. At this meeting, staff provided the attendees with breeding status information and asked 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 these meetings, staff were provided status information and the proposed framework alternative from the USFWS. Department staff worked with the other states in our Flyway to discuss and develop proposals and recommendations that were voted upon by the MFC. Proposals that passed at the MFC meeting were forwarded to the USFWS for consideration by the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) at their meeting. The USFWS announced its final waterfowl season framework recommendation at the end of July. Department staff then summarized waterfowl status and regulation information for Wisconsin citizens and presented 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 28. Staff gathered public input and citizen suggestions at those meetings for the development of Wisconsin's waterfowl regulations, given the federal framework. Public hearings were held from July 30-August 2 around the state to solicit additional input on the proposed annual waterfowl rule.

This rule will expand opportunity for waterfowl hunters with disabilities. Open water waterfowl hunting is currently prohibited on all but a handful of lakes in WI. A hunter who is "concealed" in emergent vegetation under current rules is not considered to be in open water. The concern is that those with disabilities may physically not be able to get into a smaller John boat, skiff, or blind and that it may be difficult or impossible to place an accessible boat or blind near vegetation capable of meeting the concealment requirements. This proposal will make it possible for disabled permit holders, and their companions, to hunt from a craft such as a pontoon boat, which may be impossible to conceal in emergent vegetation.

Closing migratory bird hunting hours early on managed public hunting areas in some states has been shown to provide good hunting across an entire property rather than just near refuges, hold ducks in an area for a longer period of time, and provide better hunting opportunities throughout the season. An experimental early closure has been applied at the Mead Wildlife Area in Marathon and Wood counties and at Zeloski Marsh in Jefferson. The regulation has been in place only during the early part of the season when hunting pressure is heaviest. The regulation has sunset after a three year trial period. There continues to be support for the special regulations and reauthorization by rule is needed for them to remain in effect.

Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of Economic Impact Report

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.

Effects on Small Businesses

These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under 227.24(3m).

Pursuant to s. 227.114 , Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at SmallBusiness@ dnr.state.wi.us or by calling [phone].

Environmental Impact

The Department has made a 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.

Fiscal Estimate:

State: No State Fiscal Effect.

Local: No Local Government Costs.

Agency Contact Person

Scott Loomans

Bureau of Wildlife Management

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707

email to [e-mail]

Notice of Rulemaking

Without Public Hearing

Public Service Commission

CR 12-042

(PSC Docket # 1-AC-241)

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to amend PSC s. 135.019 (1) regarding the adoption of federal pipeline safety regulations.

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

Accommodation

The commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding or who needs to receive this document in a different format should contact the Docket Coordinator, as indicated in the following paragraph, as soon as possible.

Written Comments

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Monday, October 22, 2012 , at noon . All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-241. File by one mode only.

Industry: File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's website ( psc.wi.gov ).

Members of the Public:

Please submit your comments in one of the following ways:

□   Electronic Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov , and click on the "ERF - Electronic Regulatory Filing" graphic on the side menu bar. On the next page, click on "Need Help?" in the side menu bar for instructions on how to upload a document.

□   Web Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov , click on the "Public Comments" button on the side menu bar. On the next page select the "File a comment" link that appears for docket number 1-AC-241.

□   Mail Comment. All comments submitted by U.S. Mail must include the phrase "Docket 1-AC-241 Comments" in the heading, and shall be addressed to:

Joyce Dingman

Public Service Commission

P.O. Box 7854

Madison WI 53707-7854

The commission does not accept comments submitted via e-mail or facsimile (fax). Any material submitted to the commission is a public record and may appear on the commission's web site.

Analysis prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Statutory authority and explanation of authority

This rule is authorized under ss. 196.02 (1) and (3) , 196.745 (1) (a) , and 227.11 , Stats.

Section 227.11 , Stats., authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section 196.02 (1) , Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.02 (3) , Stats., grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Section 196.745 (1) (a) , Stats., grants the commission specific authority to adopt rules requiring that the construction and operation of gas facilities be done in a reasonably adequate and safe manner.

Statutes interpreted

This rule interprets s. 196.745 , Stats., and, under a contract with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, the federal pipeline safety regulations ( 49 CFR 190 to 199 ).

Related statutes or rules

The federal pipeline safety statutes may be found in 49 USC 60101 to 60133 . The federal pipeline safety regulations may be found in 49 CFR 190 to 199 . Under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, the commission enforces the federal pipeline safety regulations for Wisconsin's natural gas pipeline operators, primarily public utilities. Under this agreement, the commission has the authority to make additions to the federal code that are more stringent than the federal standards.

Chapter PSC 134 is the rule that deals with gas service standards. That rule also has some requirements concerning safe interactions between pipeline operators and their customers.

Brief summary of rule

Under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, the commission is authorized to enforce federal natural gas pipeline safety requirements as set out in the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Parts 192 , 193 , and 199 . As part of the agreement, the commission adopts the federal pipeline safety code in Wis. Admin. Code s. PSC 135.019 . The commission's latest version of that rule adopts the federal code up to July 1, 2007. New gas pipeline safety code requirements are generally enacted in October of each year. As a result, the commission needs to amend its rule to include those federal regulation changes made since October 2007. Adoption of these amendments will keep the commission in compliance with its obligation to adopt all federal changes in the pipeline safety area.

Comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations

As this is the adoption of the federal regulations, it is the same as the federal regulations.

Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states

All states, including Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota, adopt the federal pipeline regulations.

Effect on small business

This rule has no effect on small businesses since gas utilities, as monopolies and unlike small businesses, are all dominant in their field. Further, the contract between the federal department of transportation and the commission requires that treatment be uniform across the state and across gas pipeline operators. As a result, the commission cannot make special provisions for small business.

Agency contacts

Questions regarding this matter, including small business questions, should be directed to Docket Coordinator Joyce Dingman at [phone] or joyce.dingman@ wisconsin.gov . Media questions should be directed to Kristin Ruesch, Communication Director, at [phone]. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may also use the commission's TTY number. If calling from Wisconsin, use [phone]; if calling from outside Wisconsin, use [phone].

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rule has no effect on small businesses since gas utilities, as monopolies and unlike small businesses, are all dominant in their field. Further, the contract between the federal department of transportation and the commission requires that treatment be uniform across the state and across gas pipeline operators. As a result, the commission cannot make special provisions for small business.

Fiscal Estimate

This rule will result in no fiscal impact since pipeline operators are already required, under federal law, to follow the federal regulations. Any economic impact of those federal regulations has already occurred. This rulemaking just updates the state's enforcement authority.

The Economic Impact Analysis for this rulemaking is attached.

Contact Person

Questions regarding this matter, including small business questions, should be directed to Joyce Dingman at [phone] or [e-mail] . Media questions should be directed to Kristin Ruesch, Communications Director, at [phone]. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may also use the commission's TTY number. If calling from Wisconsin, use [phone]; if calling from outside Wisconsin, use [phone].

Text of Proposed Rule

SECTION 1. PSC s. 135.019 (1) is amended to read:

PSC 135.019 (1) The federal department of transportation, office of pipeline safety, pipeline safety standards, as adopted through July 1, 2007 the effective date of these rules … [LRB to insert date] … , and incorporated in 49 CFR Parts 192 , 193 and 199 , including the appendices, are adopted as state pipeline safety standards and incorporated by reference into this chapter.

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

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

155 – PSC 135 – Pipeline Safety Regulations
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   Updated   Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
PSC 135, Gas Safety
3. Subject
Adoption of federal gas pipeline regulations
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR   X FED   X PRO   PRS   SEG   SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect Indeterminate	Increase Existing Revenues Decrease Existing Revenues		Increase Costs Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
State's Economy Local Government Units		Specific Businesses/Sectors Public Utility Rate Payers Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? Yes     X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule c
Under an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, the commission is authorized to enforce federal natural gas pipeline safety requirements as set out in the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 C.F.R. Parts 192, 193, and 199. As part of the agreement, the commission adopts the federal pipeline safety code in Wis. Admin. Code s. PSC 135.019. The commission's latest version of that rule adopts the federal code up to July 1, 2007. New gas pipeline safety code requirements are generally enacted in October of each year. As a result, the commission needs to amend its rule to include those federal rule changes made since October 2007. Adoption of these amendments will keep the commission in compliance with its obligation to adopt all federal changes in the pipeline safety area.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
All gas utilities, Wisconsin Utilities Association, Utility Workers' Association, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
N/A
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
This rule will result in no economic impact since pipeline operators are already required, under federal law, to follow the federal regulations. Any economic impact of those federal regulations has already occurred. This rulemaking just updates the state's enforcement authority.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Adoption of these amendments will keep the commission in compliance with its obligation to adopt all federal changes in the pipeline safety area. Being in compliance increases the amount of federal money received by the state.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The only long-range implication is that the state's enforcement authority will be updated.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
As this is the adoption of the federal regulations, it is the same approach as the federal government.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
All states, including the neighboring states, adopt the federal pipeline regulations.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Sarah Klein				[phone]

ATTACHMENT A

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

N/A

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

N/A

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

Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements

Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting

Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements

Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards

Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements

Other, describe:

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

N/A

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

N/A

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

Yes X No