This statement of scope was approved by the governor on January 13, 2012.

Creates new section of GAB Chapter 10 and clarifies that accredited universities and colleges which issue an identification card for voting purposes may use an adhesive sticker to affix certain required information on the identification card, including the cardholder's signature as well as the issuance and expiration dates of the card.

The proposed rule implements a directive from the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR). The directive requires the Government Accountability Board (G.A.B.) to promulgate an emergency rule specifying that adhesive stickers may be used to affix certain required information to identification cards issued by accredited institutions for the purpose of voting.

The agency is authorized to promulgate the rule as an emergency rule because it has been directed to do so by the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules pursuant to Wis. Stats. ss. 227.10 (1), 227.26 (2).

The agency plans to promulgate this rule as both an emergency rule and a permanent rule. This scope statement is submitted in support of both the emergency rule and the permanent rule.

Sections 5.02 (6m) (f), Stats., describes one of the acceptable forms of identification that may be used to obtain an election ballot as follows:

Section 5.02 (16c), Stats., further provides that an acceptable form of proof of identification must contain the cardholder's name and photograph.

At its meetings of September 12, 2011 and November 9, 2011, the G.A.B. adopted motions to permit accredited universities and colleges to use stickers on identification cards as a means of complying with the provisions of Section 5.02, Stats. The Board's determination was made in response to inquiries from several public and private institutions indicating that current student identification cards would not comply with the requirements of the law and that they wished to consider using stickers to affix information to existing cards as a cost-effective method of providing voter-compliant proof of identification.

The Board's analysis applied judicially accepted rules of statutory interpretation. It looked first to the plain language of the statute, which requires that identification cards must “contain" certain data. In the absence of an applicable statutory definition of college or university, the Board relied on commonly used dictionary definitions of the term “contain" which include “to have within" and “include." The Board determined that permitting the cardholder's signature and the issuance and expiration dates of the card to be affixed by an adhesive sticker with sufficient security and verification safeguards would comply with the provisions of Section 5.02, Stats.

The proposed rule would specify that stickers affixed to compliant identification cards (1) must be tamper-evident so that removal of the sticker would make it unusable; (2) must not obscure other information on card; (3) must include an indication that it was issued by the institution such as a school logo or identifier; (4) must be affixed by personnel of the institution; and (5) may contain only the cardholders signature and the issuance and expiration dates of the card.

On November 15, 2011, the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules adopted a motion finding that the G.A.B.'s action regarding the use of stickers on student identification cards is a statement of policy that meets the definition of a rule pursuant to Chapter 227 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

The alternative to promulgating this rule is to restrict the options for accredited institutions to comply with the statutory requirements regarding photo identification cards and to require that all data be included as part of the originally-produced card at a higher cost to the institutions.

The Board issued its determination pursuant to its responsibility and authority to issue advisory opinions under Section 5.05 (6a), Stats., and to conduct voter education under Section 5.05 (12), Stats. However, given the directive of JCRAR, Section 5.05 (1) (f) Stats., provides explicit authority for the G.A.B. to promulgate rules to ensure the proper administration of elections. Section 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., provides clear authority for the G.A.B. to promulgate rules to ensure the proper administration of statutes under its jurisdiction, which includes laws related to the administration of elections.

Federal law does not address or establish standards or rules for the issuance of photo identification cards for the purposes of obtaining an election ballot.

Accredited institutions desiring to issue photo identification cards to be used for voting purposes, as well as potential holders of such cards will be affected by this rule. Local election officials and poll workers who review identification cards as part of the voting process will also be affected by this rule. The rule does not impact businesses, private economic sectors or public utility ratepayers.

The rule will have minimal or no impact on the governmental entities impacted by the rule, except to the extent that public universities or colleges desire to use adhesive stickers as a means of producing photo identification cards to be used for voting. The rule would clarify the options available for accredited institutions in issuing such cards.

40 hours.

This statement of scope was approved by the governor on February 15, 2012.

Revises Wis. Admin. Code Chapters PSC 102, 162, 163, 164, 165, and 174.

Rule Changes for Conformity to 2011 Wisconsin Act 22.

The objective of the rulemaking is to remove, via repeal or amendment, all those Commission regulations relating to those retail telecommunications offerings, carrier reporting duties, and carrier service obligations that were removed from the Commission's jurisdiction by the enactment of 2011 Wisconsin Act 22, effective June 9, 2011. This rulemaking, however, does not include changes affecting universal service regulations as governed by Wis. Admin. Code Ch. PSC 160. Changes to that chapter's regulations will be implemented in a different rulemaking. This rulemaking will provide opportunities to simplify compliance procedures and thereby reduce costs. It is expected to have no or minimal increase in financial impact.

No new policies are being proposed. The purpose of the rulemaking is to reduce regulation by repeal, or appropriate narrowing amendment, the scope of applicable state regulation respecting retail telecommunications offerings. The degree of impact is expected to be wholly positive, offering carriers opportunities to simplify compliance procedures and thereby reduce costs with respect to internal management for compliance with state regulations.

This rulemaking is conducted by the Commission under Wis. Stat. ss. 196.02 (1) (“do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction"); 196.03 (“The commission may adopt reasonable rules to . . . regulate the mode and manner of all . . . investigations and hearings"); and Wis. Stat. s. 196.44 (The commission . . . shall enforce all laws relating to public utilities . . . ."). In addition, the Commission has general power granted to all state agencies under Wis. Stat. s. 227.11 (2) (a) (“Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statue, . . . .").

The Commission estimates 150 hours of state employee time to develop the rule. No extraordinary resources are anticipated.

All telecommunications utilities, whether traditional incumbents or new competitors, will be favorably impacted by removal or amendment of rules no longer applicable due to Act 22. The changes reduce the potential for confusion or mistakes in effecting compliance with only those legal requirements Act 22 keeps intact.

No comparison with federal regulations is necessary because there are few federal rules analogous to those being eliminated. Historically, state retail regulation of telecommunications services, mostly local and intrastate in nature, has been left to the states and not subject to federal regulation at all. Regardless, the intent of this rulemaking to clarify those activities removed from state regulation benefits those who might otherwise have to observe both federal and state requirements with respect to those activities.