Scope statements
Administration
Subject
The Department of Administration proposes to create rules relating to the use of electronic signatures by governmental units.
Policy Analysis
2003 Wisconsin Act 294, published May 4, 2004, requires the Department to adopt by rule, standards regarding the receipt of electronic signatures that promote consistency and interoperability with standards adopted by other governmental units of the state, other states, the federal government and nongovernmental persons interacting with governmental units of the State.
Comparison to federal regulations
The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, commonly known as “E-sign", (Public Law 106-229) took effect in October, 2000, to facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in interstate or foreign commerce. With certain exceptions, E-sign preempts state laws that are inconsistent with its provisions. One of the exceptions permits a state to supersede the effect of the primarily electronic commerce provision of Title I of the Act (
15 USC 7001) by enacting a law that constitutes an enactment of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Another section of E-sign preserves the rulemaking authority of a state regulatory agency responsible for rulemaking under any other statutes. UETA establishes a legal framework to facilitate and validate certain electronic transactions. UETA also provides that upon mutual agreement of the parties, electronic records and electronic signatures will have the same legal effect and enforceability as written reports. Wisconsin Act 294 enacts UETA in Wisconsin and applies to State transactions but is not intended to limit, modify or supersede certain provisions contained in 15 USC s. 7001.
There are numerous chapters in the Code of Federal Regulations that pertain to the use of electronic signatures, some of which may impact state agencies' filings, grant applications or reporting with the federal government. The following is a list of relevant federal regulations:
- 5CFR 19, 22-23, 118
- 7CFR 78
-
12 CFR 7,
8,
14,
18,
26,
28,
30,
49,
50,
53,
55-
57,
61,
65-
67,
69,
81,
83-
85,
98,
105,
112,
114
- 15CFR 15-17
-
17 CFR 5-
6,
10,
13,
31-
32,
44-
45,
63-
64,
71,
82,
93,
96-
97,
116-
117
- 21CFR 9, 20-21, 24-25, 33-34, 42-43, 436-48, 52, 58, 79, 87, 115, 120
- 25CFR 72-73
- 26CFR 36, 59, 76-77, 90, 102-103
- 29CFR 100
- 31CFR 70, 75, 88, 101
- 36CFR 12, 27, 86, 95, 107
- 40CFR 40, 80, 113
- 41CFR 91-92, 106
- 45CFR 37-38
- 48CFR 35, 39, 62, 68
Statutory authority
Staff time required
The Department estimates that state employees will spend 1,000 hours to develop this rule.
Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors
Subject
Objective of the rule. To eliminate the availability of the land surveyor and professional engineer applicants to review his or her failed examination.
Policy Analysis
The subjectivity of the land surveyor and professional engineering examinations has been removed by the test designer, National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveyors (NCEES) for several years. The current format of the tests is now all multiple choice. NCEES currently allows for hand checking to re-verify that the test results for a fee much less than what they charge an applicant from Wisconsin who would desire to see the incorrect answers from his or her failed examination.
An examination review allows for the integrity of the examination to be compromised. If a review is requested, NCEES will deliver the incorrect answers to the state for the applicant's review. This allows for an individual to gain extra familiarity, insight, and preparation with the examination than for someone who has not taken the test before or has not requested a review. There is also risk of test materials floating around once the questions are delivered which the state must be liable for if lost or stolen, which can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Statutory authority
Comparison to federal regulations
The federal government does not regulate or oversee the examination review procedure for engineers or land surveyors involving licensure, and a search of the United States Code Services (USCS) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) returned no entries regarding this subject.
Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states
Wisconsin is the only state in the Great Lakes region, including Iowa, that allows for an applicant to review an examination.
Staff time required
30 hours.
Commerce
Subject
Objective of the rule. The primary purpose of this rule revision is to prohibit unauthorized mixing of one grade or type of a petroleum product with another grade or type of petroleum product, and subsequent distribution into the retail market. Minor miscellaneous updates are also expected, to make the code consistent with current practices.
Policy analysis
The code currently requires identification of a petroleum product as to its name or grade; and prohibits mixing of dissimilar fuels, dissimilar octane, or dissimilar grade, that would allow fraudulent fuel sales.
The rule revision would expand this prohibition to include any unauthorized mixing of these products. This expansion would improve the Department's ability to verify the inventory control that is required for these products under chapter Comm 10 – because required records of product deliveries could be directly compared to required records of tank contents and sales volumes, rather than obscured by unknown mixing of fuels with dissimilar grade or dissimilar octane. This prohibition of all unauthorized mixing would then complete the consumer protection cycle that is intended to be achieved by the inspection, sampling, testing, and labeling requirements for these products in chapter Comm 48 and in chapter 168 of the statutes.
The only policy alternative would be to not promulgate this prohibition, which would allow the current unauthorized mixing to occur.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
The Department estimates approximately 100 hours will be needed to develop the rules. This time includes drafting the changes and processing them through public hearings, legislative review, and adoption. The Department will assign existing staff to develop the rules, and no other additional resources will be needed.
Entities affected by the rule
Vendors and marketers of petroleum products.
Comparison to federal regulations
There are no existing or proposed federal regulations that address the rule revision described in this scope statement.
Commerce
Subject
Objective of the rule. The objective is to eliminate the Volume Cap Allocation Council as part of the review and evaluation process for volume cap allocation for Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) financing.
Policy analysis
The council evaluates volume cap applications and makes recommendations to the secretary on volume cap allocation. The council is strictly advisory in that the secretary makes the final decisions on cap allocation.
Elimination of the council could accelerate the approval process for volume cap allocation. Council meetings are typically not scheduled until there are enough projects that are ready for consideration. This delay may be detrimental to a business that is ready to proceed with the closing of an IRB in that the start of construction may be delayed or costlier interim financing would have to continue.
Because the council is an advisory board, any decisions made by the council can be changed by the secretary. The elimination of the council does not eliminate any final decision-making entity.
The council differs from other department councils or boards in that bonding authority is being allocated, not actual department dollars. Other “non-Commerce dollar" programs, such as the tax credit programs, incorporate a review and approval process that does not include a council or board.
The alternative of not eliminating the council could be viewed as an additional layer of formal review that might help to insulate the secretary's office from external pressure to approve a particular award.
Statutory authority
Section
15.04 (1) (c), Stats., authorizes department heads to create and appoint any council or committee as the operation of the department requires.
Staff time required
The Department estimates that it will take approximately 40 hours to develop this rule. This time includes drafting the rule and processing the rule through public hearings and legislative review. The Department will assign existing staff to develop the rule. There are no other resources necessary to develop the rule.
Entities affected by the rule
The rule will affect the current members of the Volume Cap Allocation Council.
Comparison to federal regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that addresses the elimination of the Volume Cap Allocation Council.
Health and Family Services
Subject
The Department of Health and Family Services proposes to amend ch.
HFS 133, rules relating to home health agencies (HHAs).
Policy analysis
The Department proposes to amend ch.
HFS 133 to provide regulatory relief to HHA providers by removing potentially burdensome requirements, including requirements that are more prescriptive or duplicative of federal requirements. The Department anticipates that the proposed modifications will include revisions to s.
HFS 133.08 concerning patient rights and s.
HFS 133.09 concerning policies and procedures for admitting and discharging patients to make these sections more compatible with federal requirements. Since the proposed changes will affect Medicaid provider certification and covered services, changes may also be made to chs.
HFS 105 and
107. The Department also intends to make minor, technical changes that will have little or no substantive effect on the entities regulated.
The proposed revisions are not expected to compromise the health, safety, and welfare of home health care patients.
Comparison to federal regulations
The federal conditions of participation for home health agencies are in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title
42 CFR Part 484. These regulations establish conditions and standards for the operation of agencies that primarily provide both skilled nursing and other therapeutic services to patients in their homes. State and federal regulations for home health services are comparable, and the intent of these regulations is to foster safe and adequate care and treatment of patients by home health agencies. A significant difference between the state and federal regulations governing home health agencies is that the state regulations are more prescriptive and less patient outcome-oriented.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
The Department estimates that it will take approximately 150 staff hours to draft the proposed rules.
Insurance
Subject
Objective of the rule. The proposed rule will revise the OCI rules relating to Medicare supplement, Medicare select, Medicare cost, Medicare replacement, Medicare advantage and Medicare + choice, and prescription drug plans to reflect the revisions and requirements under federal law enacted by the Medicare Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (HR1).
Policy analysis
The current rules reflect the requirements of federal law as contained in the NAIC models. The revised rules will reflect the changes made by Congress when it adopted HR1 and the revisions made to the NAIC models to reflect those changes. These changes may include removing any prescription drug benefit contained in current and future Medicare supplement coverages after December 31, 2005, in most instances and creating 2 federally-specified Medicare supplement and Medicare select plans with higher cost-sharing provisions than under current plans.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
300 Hours
Comparison to federal regulations
There is no federal regulation that addresses the activities regulated by this rule. These products are state regulated, based on NAIC Model laws and regulations.
Entities affected by the rule
This rule will affect insurers and agents who offer these products. In addition it will indirectly affect consumers and individuals who purchase the products, and health care providers.
Insurance
Subject
Regarding Ch.
Ins 15 Subch.
II, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to vehicle protection device warranties.
Objective of the rule. The rule will implement the requirements of Act 302 by specifying the fees to be charged for applications, annual review and for late filings and date that annual filings are required to be filed with OCI.
Policy analysis
Currently these types of plans are regulated as insurance or warranties. This statutory revision creates a new regulatory scheme for these vehicle protection device warranties.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
100 hours and no other resource are necessary
Comparison to federal regulations
None
Entities affected by the rule
Entities selling vehicle protection products as defined in s.
100.203 (1) (e), Stats., such as glass etching, steering wheel locks, alarm systems etc.
Insurance
Subject
Regarding Sections
Ins 17.01 (3),
17.28 (6) and
17.28 (6s) (c), Wis. Adm. Code, relating to annual patients compensation fund and mediation fund fees for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2005 and updating surcharge tables.
Objective of the rule. To establish the annual fees which participating health care providers must pay to the injured patients and family's compensation fund as required by statute for the fiscal and year beginning July 1, 2005 and to update the surcharge tables in 17.28 (6s) (c) which have not been updated or changed since 1986.
Policy analysis
Existing policies are as set forth in the statutes cited in the next section and in the rules themselves; no new or alternate policies are contemplated at this time.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
40 hours estimated state employee time to promulgate this rule; other resources will include the review and recommendation of the board's actuarial committee based on the analysis and recommendation of the fund's actuaries and the director of state courts.
Comparison to federal regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation addressing any medical malpractice fund like the Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund.
Entities affected by the rule
All health care provider participants in the fund as set forth in s.
655.002 (1), Wis. Stats.
Natural Resources
Subject
Objective of the rule. NR 166 is the administrative code for the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program (SDWLP), which provides loans to local units of government to finance drinking water construction projects. The objective of the NR 166 rule revision is to clarify rules for scoring and ranking the loan projects and to clarify and add project cost eligibility rules.
The proposal to repeal NR 127, NR 128 and NR 160 has one objective—to remove rules for obsolete programs from the Wisconsin Administrative Code. All three of these rules were for grant programs that have been out of operation for more than 10 years due to changes in federal regulations and state statutes.
Policy analysis
The top priorities of the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program are to protect public health and ensure compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Project scoring and eligibility rules for obtaining SDWLP funds were written in a way that allows DNR to achieve these priorities. However, some of the language in the existing code is unclear and subjective, making it difficult to assign scores to projects in some circumstances and to determine eligibility of some project costs. Staff from the Bureau of Drinking Water & Groundwater and the Bureau of Community Financial Assistance intend to work together to bring clarity to these areas of the code. Code language needs to be modified to ensure that project scoring is accomplished objectively and that funds are provided to projects and costs that meet the priorities of the program.
Statutory authority
Sections
281.59 and
281.61, Wis. Stats., contain the statutory authority for the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program.
Staff time required
We estimate that staff from each of the Bureau of Drinking Water & Groundwater and the Bureau of Community Financial Assistance will spend approximately 125 hours on revising NR 166. We expect Legal Services will need approximately 30 hours to review and process this code revision. Management & Budget and Science Services staff will likely spend a total of 4 hours or less working on NR 166.
