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
