Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

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

rulemaking_notices CR 12-042 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