[Act 9 Sections: 1982c, 9110(3yu), 9310(3yt) and 9410(9yt)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 9110(3yu)]
7. PECFA -- AWARD PRIORITIZATION AND REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS [LFB Papers 300, 302 and 303]
Governor: Authorize Commerce to promulgate administrative rules under the PECFA program for assigning award priorities to cleanups, except for cleanups of discharges from home heating oil tanks, small farm tanks and heating oil tanks owned by school districts. In addition, all owners or operators (including those with high priority cleanup administered by DNR) would be required to submit the remedial action plan prepared under current law to Commerce for approval, and Commerce would be required to review and approve or disapprove the remedial action plan. If Commerce promulgates rules for award prioritization, it would be required to: (a) base the award priorities on environmental factors and any other factors that the Department considers appropriate; (b) apply the award priorities only to occurrences for which remedial action plans are approved by Commerce after the effective date of the rules; (c) pay PECFA awards for cleanups that begin after the rules take effect in order of the award priorities; and (d) notify an owner or operator of a petroleum product storage system to which the rules apply of the date on which Commerce determines it is appropriate to begin remedial action activities or emergency actions, based on the Department's estimate of when funds would be available to pay an award under the award priorities. The owner or operator would be authorized to delay beginning a remedial action activity or emergency action until the date on which Commerce determines it is appropriate to begin the activities. Commerce would be authorized to deny PECFA reimbursement for interest costs if an owner or operator begins the activities before the beginning date determined by Commerce.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, provide that Commerce shall review claims related to eligible farm tanks, in addition to home oil tanks currently, as soon as the claims are received, and shall issue a PECFA award for eligible farm tank cleanups as soon as it completes review of the claim. In addition, for purposes of claim reimbursement, require claimants to submit the remedial action plan prepared under current law to Commerce for approval. Commerce would be required to either approve or disapprove the submitted plan for low and medium risk sites, and DNR would be required to approve or disapprove the remedial action plan for high risk sites. Delete the current law requirement that, at the request of the claimant, DNR or Commerce shall review the site investigation and remedial action plan and advise the claimant on the adequacy of the proposed remedial activities. Commerce would be required to review the remedial action plan for a low- or medium-risk site, and DNR and Commerce would be required to jointly review the remedial action plan for a high risk site, and to determine the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards. Commerce would be required to determine whether natural attenuation will complete the remedial action activities at a low or medium risk site in compliance with groundwater enforcement standards. Natural attenuation for petroleum sites would mean the reduction in the concentration and mass of a substance, and the products into which the substance breaks down, due to naturally occurring physical, chemical and biological processes.
Senate: Delete the Joint Finance provision that would require Commerce to review claims related to eligible farm tanks, in addition to home heating oil tanks currently, as soon as the claims are received, and to issue a PECFA award for eligible farm tank cleanups as soon as it completes review of the claim. Instead, direct Commerce and DNR to jointly determine when it is appropriate to begin remedial action based on the determination of risk for the discharge and the availability of funds to pay awards. An owner or operator would not be permitted to or required to begin remedial action until Commerce and DNR approve the commencement of the remedial action activities. These provisions would not apply if the discharge is from a home heating oil tank, small farm tank or heating oil tank owned by a school district, or if the remedial action is in response to an emergency.
Modify the Joint Finance provision related to remedial action plans to delete the requirement that Commerce either approve or disapprove the remedial action plan that would be submitted to Commerce. Require DNR to determine whether natural attenuation will complete the remedial action activities at high-priority sites in compliance with groundwater standards, in addition to the Joint Finance requirement that Commerce make the same determination for low- or medium-risk sites. (Under the modification, Commerce would make the determination for low- and medium-priority sites rather than for low- and medium-risk sites.)
Conference Committee/Legislature: Maintain the Joint Finance provisions, except the requirement that Commerce either approve or disapprove the remedial action plan that would be submitted to Commerce. Further, require DNR to determine whether natural attenuation will complete the remedial action activities at high-priority sites in compliance with groundwater standards, in addition to the Joint Finance requirement that Commerce make the same determination for low- or medium-risk sites.
[Act 9 Sections: 1979r, 1983b, 1983m, 1984c, 1985b, 1993m and 9410(9yt)]
8. PECFA -- MAXIMUM AWARD FOR LOW- AND MEDIUM-PRIORITY SITES [LFB Paper 300 and 302]
Governor: Change the maximum PECFA award for any underground petroleum tank site to $100,000 if the site is classified as medium or low priority under the rule promulgated by Commerce under the bill. The current maximum award for underground tanks is $100,000 for small farm tanks, $190,000 for school district tanks, $500,000 for systems where the product is not stored for resale and handles 10,000 or less gallons per month or $1,000,000 for systems where the product is stored for resale or that handles more than 10,000 gallons per month. The change in the maximum award would apply to claimants whose remedial action plan is approved by Commerce on or after December 1, 1999.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, require Commerce to notify the owner or operator of a low- or medium-risk site of its determination of the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards and that reimbursement for remedial action is limited to the amount necessary to implement that method. While the general maximum award would not change from current law, the maximum reimbursement for individual medium or low-risk sites could be limited under the motion. (The maximum reimbursement for high-risk sites would not be affected.) Commerce would be required to conduct an annual review for low- or medium-risk sites, and Commerce and DNR would be required to jointly conduct an annual review for high-risk sites and make the same determinations of the least costly method and use of natural attenuation. In addition, Commerce would be required to annually review the limit on maximum reimbursement for low- or medium-risk sites. Provide that reimbursable eligible costs under Commerce administrative rules shall include the least costly method to achieve any remedial action activities ordered by DNR or Commerce, whichever has jurisdiction for the cleanup at the site. The effective date of the maximum award provisions would be November 1, 1999, for remedial action activities that begin on or after that date.
Senate: Require DNR to notify the owner or operator of high-priority sites of its determination of the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards and that reimbursement for remedial action is limited to the amount necessary to implement that method. This would be in addition to the Joint Finance provision that Commerce would be required to notify the owner or operator of a low- or medium-priority (instead of low- or medium-risk) site of its determination of the least costly method of completing the remedial action activities and complying with groundwater enforcement standards and that reimbursement for remedial action is limited to the amount necessary to implement that method. This change would not change the general maximum award from current law, but would limit the maximum reimbursement for high-priority sites, in addition to medium- and low-priority sites under the substitute amendment. The effective date of the provision would be the effective date of the biennial budget act, for remedial action activities that begin on or after that date.
In addition, delete the Joint Finance provision that reimbursable eligible costs under Commerce administrative rules shall include the least costly method to achieve any remedial action activities ordered by DNR or Commerce, whichever has jurisdiction for the cleanup at the site.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include the Senate provisions, except maintain the Joint Finance effective date of November 1, 1999, for remedial action activities that begin on or after that date.
[Act 9 Sections: 1984c, 1984m, 1986i, 1986k, 9310(3yt) and 9410(9yt)]
9. PECFA -- DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT [LFB Papers 300 and 304]
Governor: Change the PECFA award deductible amount for certain underground petroleum product storage tanks. Currently, the deductible for underground tanks is $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs, but not more than $7,500, except that the deductible for heating oil tanks owned by public school districts and technical college districts is 25% of eligible costs. Under the bill, the deductible for an underground petroleum product storage tank system for marketers (the system stores products for resale) or nonmarketers that handle an annual average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month, would change to $10,000, plus another $2,500 if the eligible costs exceed $50,000, plus $2,500 if the eligible costs exceed $80,000, plus $10,000 for each whole $100,000 by which eligible costs exceed $150,000. (For example, for eligible costs of $50,000 the deductible would increase from $5,000 to $10,000, for eligible costs of $100,000 it would increase from $7,500 to $15,000, for eligible costs of $250,000 the deductible would increase from $7,500 to $25,000, and for eligible costs of $1,000,000 it would increase from $7,500 to $95,000.) The deductible for aboveground storage tanks located at terminals would change to $15,000 plus 15% (instead of 5%) of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $200,000. A terminal is a facility that is connected to a petroleum pipeline.
The change would first apply to remedial action activities or emergency actions that begin on the effective date of the biennial budget act. The deductible for noncommercial underground tanks of less than 10,000 gallons would remain at the current $2,500, plus 5% up to a maximum of $7,500. This current maximum would also apply, under the bill, to large tanks and commercial tank owners or operators if Commerce promulgates administrative rules that would exempt a class of owners or operators from the higher deductibles.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, change the deductible for underground petroleum product storage tank systems for marketers or non-marketers that handle an average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month to be $5,000 for eligible costs up to $100,000 plus 4% of eligible costs exceeding $100,000. Change the deductible for eligible farm tanks to $5,000. In addition, increase the deductible for aboveground storage tanks located at terminals to $15,000 plus 10% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $200,000. Specify that the changes in deductible, for affected underground and aboveground storage tanks, would first apply to remedial action plans that are submitted on or after November 1, 1999. Maintain current law deductibles for claimants who submit remedial action plans in a form acceptable to Commerce and DNR prior to November 1, 1999. Further, authorize Commerce to promulgate rules describing the following classes of owners or operators that would be exempt from the change in deductible: (a) a municipality that is conducting the PECFA cleanup as part of a brownfields redevelopment project; and (b) an owner or operator who would be exempt based on financial hardship.
Senate: Delete the Joint Finance provisions related to PECFA deductibles. Instead, change the deductible for most underground tanks to be 100% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $18,750 but do not exceed $21,250, plus 10% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $21,250 but do not exceed $40,000, plus 5% of the amount by which eligible costs exceed $40,000, but not more than $7,500 (reached at $102,500 of eligible costs). Maintain the current law deductible for school district, technical college district, home heating oil and aboveground tanks. The change would first apply to costs incurred on the effective date of the bill.
In addition, delete the Joint Finance provision that would have authorized Commerce to promulgate rules to exempt from the deductible changes: (a) a municipality if the municipality is conducting the PECFA cleanup as part of a brownfields redevelopment project; and (b) an owner or operator who meets financial hardship criteria.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Maintain the Joint Finance changes in deductibles except specify that the deductible for underground petroleum product storage tank systems for marketers or for non-marketers that handle an average of more than 10,000 gallons of petroleum per month would be $3,000 (instead of $5,000 under Joint Finance) of eligible costs up to $60,000 (instead of $100,000 under Joint Finance) plus 3% (instead of 4% under Joint Finance) of eligible costs exceeding $60,000 (instead of $100,000). The changes would first apply to remedial action plans submitted on or after November 1, 1999.
Veto by Governor [B-9]: Change the deductible for underground petroleum product storage tank systems and farm tanks to be the current $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs, but eliminate the $7,500 maximum deductible. The partial veto would result in a maximum deductible of $52,500 for an underground tank with $1,000,000 in eligible costs. The partial veto would result in a maximum deductible of $7,500 for a farm tank with the maximum eligible costs of $100,000. The act maintains the initial applicability of the deductible changes to remedial action plans submitted on or after November 1, 1999.
In addition, the partial veto authorizes Commerce to promulgate administrative rules describing a class of owners or operators of underground tanks for whom the deductible is based on financial hardship. Delete the specific eligibility of local governments conducting a cleanup as part of a brownfields redevelopment project for a lower deductible. As a result of the veto, the act does not specify the amount of the deductible for the class of owners or operators. The Governor's veto message requests Commerce to move quickly to develop the rules and to include local governments involved in brownfields redevelopment projects in the class of tank owners that can be considered for a lower deductible.
[Act 9 Sections: 1987b thru 1993f, 9310(3yu) and 9410(9yt)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 1991c, 1992c and 1993f]
10. PECFA -- INTEREST COST REIMBURSEMENT [LFB Papers 300 and 305]
Governor: Require that PECFA reimbursement for interest costs incurred by a PECFA claimant would be: (a) eliminated for applicants with gross revenues that exceed $20,000,000 in the most recent tax year before the applicant submits a claim; and (b) limited to 5% for other applicants. The limitations would first apply to interest incurred on November 1, 1999, for claims submitted on November 1, 1999. Commerce would be authorized to promulgate administrative rules that specify information and audit requirements to implement the provision. Currently, reimbursable interest rates are limited to 2% above the prime rate for loans secured after January 31, 1993, and before October 15, 1997, and 1% above the prime rate for loans secured on or after October 15, 1997. Currently, the prime rate is approximately 8.5%. Under the 5% interest limitation, interest incurred on or after November 1, 1999, would be reimbursed at 5% if the claim is submitted on or after November 1, 1999, or at up to 2% or 1% above the prime rate (depending on when the applicant secured the loan) for claims submitted before November 1, 1999.
Joint Finance: Delete provision. Instead, limit PECFA reimbursement for interest costs incurred by a PECFA claimant, for loans secured on or after November 1, 1999, based on the applicant’s gross revenues in the most recent tax year as follows: (a) if gross revenues are over $5 million to $15 million in the most recent tax year, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate; (b) if gross revenues are over $15 million to $25 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 1%; (c) if gross revenues are over $25 million to $35 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 2%; (d) if gross revenues are over $35 million to $45 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 3%; and (e) if gross revenues are over $45 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 4%. Interest reimbursement for applicants with gross revenues of up to $5 million in the prior tax year would remain at the current 1% over the prime rate.
Senate: Delete the Joint Finance provisions for PECFA interest cost reimbursement to maintain the current law limit on the reimbursable interest rate to 1% over the prime rate for loans secured on or after October 15, 1997.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include Joint Finance provision.
Veto by Governor [B-10]: Change the interest reimbursement for loans secured on or after November 1, 1999, as follows: (a) if the applicant's gross revenues in the most recent tax year are up to $25 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to the prime rate minus 1%; and (b) if the applicant's gross revenues in the most recent tax year are more than $25 million, interest reimbursement would be limited to 4%.
[Act 9 Sections: 1986c, 1986e, 9310(3yv) and 9410(9yt)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 1986e]
11. PECFA -- SITE BIDDING AND INSURANCE [LFB Papers 300 and 306]
Governor: Authorize Commerce to promulgate rules that require a person to pay a specified fee as a condition of submitting a bid to provide a service for a cleanup under the PECFA program. Any fees collected under the provision would be deposited in the petroleum inspection fund. If Commerce imposes a fee, the Department would be authorized to use the PECFA awards appropriation to purchase, or provide funding for the purchase of, insurance to cover the amount by which the costs of conducting the cleanup service exceed the amount bid to conduct the cleanup service.
Joint Finance: Approve the Governor's recommendation. Further, make the following changes related to site bidding:
a. Require DNR or Commerce, whichever agency has jurisdiction over the site, to estimate the cost to complete a site investigation, remedial action plan and remedial action for an occurrence. If that estimate exceeds $80,000, Commerce would be directed to implement a competitive public bidding process to assist in determining the least costly method of remedial action. Commerce would not be permitted to implement the bidding process if: (a) DNR or Commerce waives the requirement on the grounds that the waiver is necessary in an emergency to prevent or mitigate an imminent hazard to public health, safety or welfare or to the environment; or (b) one agency waives the requirement after providing notice to the other agency. In addition; (a) make the use of the bidding process optional at sites where an enforcement standard is exceeded in groundwater within 1,000 feet of a well operated by a public utility or within 100 feet of any other well used to provide water for human consumption; and (b) allow Commerce to waive bidding requirements if the Department determines that the remedial action plan identifies the most cost efficient cleanup option for the site.
b. Authorize Commerce to disqualify a public bid for remedial action activities at a PECFA site if, based on information available to the Department and experience with other PECFA projects, the bid is unlikely to establish a maximum reimbursement amount that will sufficiently fund a cleanup necessary to meet applicable site closure requirements.
c. Authorize Commerce to disqualify a public bidder from submitting a bid for remedial action activities at a PECFA site if, based on past performance of the bidder, the bidder has demonstrated an inability to finish remedial actions within previously established cost limits.
d. Authorize Commerce to review and modify established maximum reimbursement amounts for remedial action activities if the Department determines that new circumstances, including newly discovered contamination at a site, warrant the review.
Senate: Modify the Joint Finance provisions for PECFA site bidding as follows:
a. Require that when DNR or Commerce, whichever agency has jurisdiction over the site, would estimate the cost to complete a site investigation, remedial action plan and remedial action for an occurrence under the substitute amendment, that if the estimate exceeds $60,000 (instead of $80,000 under Joint Finance) Commerce would be directed to implement a competitive public bidding process to assist in determining the least costly method of remedial action.
b. Prohibit Commerce from implementing the bidding process if DNR (but not also Commerce under Joint Finance) waives the requirement on the grounds that the waiver is necessary in an emergency to prevent or mitigate an imminent hazard to public health, safety or welfare or to the environment.
c. Prohibit Commerce from implementing the bidding process if DNR waives the requirement after providing notice to the Secretary of Commerce (but not also if Commerce waives the requirement after providing notice to DNR under Joint Finance).
d. Prohibit the use of the bidding process (instead of making it optional under Joint Finance) at sites where an enforcement standard is exceeded in groundwater within 1,000 feet of a well operated by a public utility or within 100 feet of any other well used to provide water for human consumption.
e. Delete the Joint Finance authorization for Commerce to waive bidding requirements if it determines that the remedial action plan identifies the most cost effective cleanup option for the site.
f. Delete the Joint Finance authorization for Commerce to disqualify a public bid for remedial action activities at a PECFA site if, based on information available to the Department and experience with other PECFA projects, the bid is unlikely to establish a maximum reimbursement amount that will sufficiently fund a cleanup necessary to meet applicable site closure requirements.
g. Delete the Joint Finance authorization for Commerce to disqualify a public bidder from submitting a bid for remedial action activities at a PECFA site if, based on past performance of the bidder, the bidder has demonstrated an inability to finish remedial actions within previously established cost limits.
h. Delete the Joint Finance authorization for Commerce to review and modify established maximum reimbursement amounts for remedial action activities if the Department determines that new circumstances, including newly discovered contamination at a site, warrant the review.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Retain the Joint Finance provisions except adopt (a) and (e) under the Senate, which would: (a) require Commerce to implement a competitive public bidding process if the estimated cost to complete a site investigation, remedial action plan and remedial action exceeds $60,000 (instead of $80,000 under Joint Finance); and (b) delete the Joint Finance authorization for Commerce to waive bidding requirements if Commerce determines that the remedial action plan identifies the most cost effective cleanup option for the site.
Veto by Governor [B-13]: Delete the authorization for Commerce or DNR to waive the requirement on the grounds that the waiver is necessary in an emergency to prevent or mitigate an imminent hazard to public health, safety or welfare or to the environment. The act maintains the authority for Commerce or DNR to waive the bidding requirement: (a) if a groundwater enforcement standard is exceeded within 1,000 feet of a public well or within 100 feet of any other drinking water well; or (b) after providing notice to the other Department.
[Act 9 Sections: 220, 714c, 1979v, 1983t, 1985w, 9310(3yt) and 9410(9yt)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 1983t]
12. PECFA -- JOINT AGENCY REPORT [LFB Papers 300 and 307]
Governor: Require Commerce and DNR to submit a report to the Governor and appropriate standing committees of the Legislature every January 1 and July 1 that relates to petroleum storage tank cleanups that are in progress. The report would be required to provide the following information for each petroleum cleanup that is underway: (a) the date on which the record of the site investigation was received; (b) the environmental risk factors, as defined by Commerce rule, identified at the site; and (c) the year in which DNR or Commerce expects to issue a case closure letter or written approval of the remedial action activities for the site.
Joint Finance: Approve the recommendation of the Governor. Require submission of the report to the Joint Audit Committee and the Joint Committee on Finance in addition to the Governor and appropriate standing committees. Require Commerce and DNR to include the following information, in addition to that recommended by the Governor: (a) the number of notifications of petroleum discharges received by the departments and the number of written approvals of remedial action activities provided by the departments; (b) the percentage of sites classified as high risk; (c) the name of each person providing engineering consulting services to a claimant and the number of claimants to whom the person has provided those services; (d) the charges for engineering consulting services for sites for which remedial action activities are approved by the departments and for other sites; (e) the charges by service providers other than engineering consultants for services for which reimbursement is provided, including excavating, hauling, laboratory testing and landfill disposal; and (f) strategies for recording and monitoring complaints of fraud in the program and for the use of Commerce employes who conduct audits to identify questionable claims and investigate complaints. Require DNR and Commerce to also report on whether disputes arose regarding the annual determination of least costly method and use of natural attenuation under joint annual review for high risk sites and how those disputes were resolved.
Further, direct Commerce to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules, by March 1, 2000, that includes recommendations related to actions Commerce could take to reduce interest costs incurred by claimants including a review of the schedule for progress payments for claims submitted under the program.
Senate: Make the following changes to the reporting requirements for Commerce and DNR related to PECFA:
a. Change the due date of the report to October 1 annually, for the previous fiscal year, instead of every January 1 and July 1 under Joint Finance.
b. Delete the requirement that DNR and Commerce submit the report to the Governor, but maintain the Joint Finance requirement that the two agencies submit the report to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, Joint Committee on Finance and appropriate standing committees of the Legislature.
c. Delete the Joint Finance requirements that the report include: (1) the date on which the record of the site investigation was received; (2) the environmental risk factors, as defined by Commerce rule, identified at the site; (3) the year in which DNR or Commerce expects to issue a case closure letter or written approval of the remedial action activities for the site; and (4) whether disputes arose regarding the annual determination of least costly method and use of natural attenuation under joint annual review for high-risk sites and how those disputes were resolved. Maintain the Joint Finance requirements that the report include: (1) the number of notifications of petroleum discharges received by the departments and the number of written approvals of remedial action activities provided by the departments; (2) the percentage of sites classified as high-priority (instead of high-risk under Joint Finance); (3) the name of each person providing engineering consulting services to a claimant and the number of claimants to whom the person has provided those services; (4) the charges for engineering consulting services for sites for which remedial action activities are approved by the departments and for other sites; (5) the charges by service providers other than engineering consultants for services for which reimbursement is provided, including excavating, hauling, laboratory testing, and landfill disposal; and (6) strategies for recording and monitoring complaints of fraud in the program and for the use of Commerce employes who conduct audits to identify questionable claims and investigate complaints.
d. Delete the Joint Finance requirement that Commerce must submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules, by March 1, 2000, that includes recommendations related to actions Commerce could take to reduce interest costs incurred by claimants including a review of the schedule for progress payments for claims submitted under the program.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include Joint Finance provision.
[Act 9 Sections: 1994m and 9110(3yw)]
13. PECFA -- USUAL AND CUSTOMARY COSTS [LFB Papers 300 and 307]
Joint Finance: Require Commerce to establish a schedule of usual and customary costs for items that are commonly associated with PECFA claims. Commerce would be required to use the schedule to determine the amount of eligible costs for an occurrence for which a competitive bidding process is not used, except in circumstances under which higher costs must be incurred to complete the remedial action activities and comply with groundwater enforcement standards. Commerce would not be allowed to use the schedule for an occurrence for which a competitive bidding process is used. The schedule would be required to include the maximum number of reimbursable hours for particular tasks and the maximum reimbursable hourly rates for those tasks. Commerce would be required to use methods of data collection and analysis that enable the schedule of usual and customary costs to be revised to reflect changes in actual costs. This provision would not apply after June 30, 2001. After June 30, 2001, the current law authorization (instead of requirement) for Commerce to establish a schedule of usual and customary costs would be effective again. Commerce would also be required to evaluate the operation of the usual and customary cost schedule and report on the results of the evaluation to the Joint Audit Committee, the Joint Committee on Finance and the appropriate standing committees of the Legislature no later than the first day of the 14th month beginning after the effective date of the bill (December 1, 2000).
In addition: (a) specify that the cost control provisions related to ineligible costs apply to an occurrence regardless of whether a competitive bidding process is used; and, (b) direct Commerce to promulgate emergency rules to establish the schedule of usual and customary costs by no later than November 1, 1999, and provide that the rules may be promulgated without a finding of emergency under Chapter 227.
Senate: Approve the Joint Finance provision to require Commerce to establish a schedule of usual and customary costs that are commonly associated with PECFA claims. However, delete the Joint Finance provisions that would: (a) specify that the cost control provisions related to ineligible costs apply to an occurrence regardless of whether a competitive bidding process is used; and (b) direct Commerce to promulgate emergency rules to establish the schedule of usual and customary costs no by no later than November 1, 1999, and provide that the rules may be promulgated without a finding of emergency under Chapter 227.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include Joint Finance provision.
Veto by Governor [B-14]: Delete the November 1, 1999, deadline for promulgation of the emergency rules. Retain the requirement that Commerce promulgate the schedule of usual and customary costs in emergency rules. Delete the June 30, 2001, sunset of the requirement that Commerce promulgate a schedule of usual and customary costs, which would make the requirement permanent.
[Act 9 Sections: 1985m, 1986m and 9110(3yu)&(3yx)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 1986m, 1986p, 9110(3yu) and 9110(3yx)]
