ORDER of the DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
The Wisconsin Department of Administration proposes an order to amend Wis. Admin. Code §§ 70.03, 70.03 (Note), 70.04, and 70.07, relating to updating standards to implement the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act. Rule Analysis prepared by the Department of Administration
1. Citations to statutes interpreted:
2. Citations to statutory authority:
3. Explanation of the agency’s statutory authority to promulgate the rule under the statutes cited:
The Wisconsin Statutes provide explicit authority for the Electronic Recording Council to adopt standards implementing the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (URPERA), codified at Wis. Stat. § 706.25, and for the Department of Administration to promulgate these standards by rule. Specifically, § 706.25(4)(a) provides that the Council “shall adopt standards to implement this section” and further provides that the “[Department] shall promulgate by rule the standards adopted, amended, or repealed by the council under this paragraph.” Additionally, Wis. Stat. § 227.11(2)(a) provides explicit authority for an agency to “promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency.”
Section 706.25(4)(b) states, “To keep the standards and practices of registers of deeds in this state in harmony with the standards and practices of recording offices in other jurisdictions that enact substantially this section and to keep the technology used by registers of deeds in this state compatible with technology used by recording offices in other jurisdictions that enact substantially this section, the electronic recording council . . . shall consider all of the following: 1.
Standards and practices of other jurisdictions.2.
The most recent standards promulgated by national standard-setting bodies, such as the Property Records Industry Association.3.
The views of interested persons and governmental officials and entities.4.
The needs of counties of varying sizes, populations, and resources.6.
The need for security protection to ensure that electronic documents are accurate, authentic, adequately preserved, and resistant to tampering.”The proposed rule interprets the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 706.25 and sets forth standards for its implementation which are developed and approved by the Electronic Recording Council consistent with these provisions.
4. Related statutes or rules:
The Property Records Industry Association (PRIA) standards - currently incorporated by reference into Adm §§ 70.03 and 70.04. 5. Brief plain language summary of the proposed rule:
The Council is responsible for reviewing and updating the rules implementing the URPERA, but it has not suggested any updates since chapter Adm 70 was promulgated in 2009. Over time, eRecording has proven that less is more: Indexing and formatting rules have changed, as fewer prescriptive rules for indexing and formatting can make things easier for both submitters and recorders. Current technological tools provide more effective image processing and improved quality of electronic documents using PRIA-MISMO XML Data Standards.
After reviewing updated PRIA standards/guidelines and legislative changes to Wisconsin law, the Council has chosen to adopt the updated standards to continue to implement the URPERA; update contact information in a few note sections, and update statutory citations.
6. Summary of, and preliminary comparison with, any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule:
The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the URPERA are state model acts adopted by Wisconsin with the intention of preempting the application of the federal Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act (ESIGN). See Wis. Stats. §§ 137.12(2p), 706.25(6)(a). ESIGN expressly authorizes states to modify, limit, or supersede its application with respect to state law. See 15 U.S.C. § 7002(a).
Therefore, except as specifically provided in Wis. Stat. § 705.25(6)(b), Wisconsin’s URPERA supersedes the federal ESIGN Act to the extent there is overlap between the two.
7. Comparison with similar rules in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota:
N/A
8. Summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that the agency used in support of the proposed rule and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen for the proposed rule:
N/A
9. Effect on small business:
None.
10. Any analysis and supporting documents used in support of the agency’s determination of the rule’s effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report:
N/A
