Scope Statements
Commerce
Subject
Revises Chapter
Comm 48, relating to minimum product grade specifications for liquid fuels.
Objective of the Rule
The primary purpose of this rule revision is to update chapter Comm 48 to include several newer editions of nationally recognized fuel standards promulgated by ASTM International, and to include one or more new ASTM standards for liquid fuels. Several miscellaneous updates of other portions of Comm 48 may also be included, to make the chapter consistent with recently developed federal criteria and with current industry and regulatory practices, particularly relating to biofuels.
Policy Analysis
The Department has promulgated and enforced minimum product grade specifications for liquid fuels for heating equipment and engines for several decades. These specifications and the Department's inspection program for verifying compliance with them are required by sections
168.04 (3) and
168.07 (2) of the Statutes to be in conformity with the current editions of applicable nationally recognized standards, such as those published by ASTM International. Under sections
168.14 (2m) (b) 3. and
(c) 3. of the Statutes, biodiesel fuel and fuels that are
blends of biodiesel fuel and petroleum products must comply with all applicable ASTM requirements. The corresponding requirements in chapter Comm 48 for blending biodiesel fuel with petroleum products address the quality of biodiesel fuel before it is blended with a petroleum product, but do not address the quality of the blended fuel.
The updated ASTM standards that are expected to be addressed in this rule revision include (1) newly allowing up to 5 percent biodiesel fuel in traditional petroleum-based diesel fuel, home heating fuel, and boiler fuel; and (2) newly requiring a cold soak filterability test to control minor compounds in pure biodiesel fuel. The new ASTM standards that are expected to be addressed in this rule revision include specifications for blends of biodiesel fuel and petroleum-based fuel that range from 6 to 20 percent biodiesel fuel.
Not updating chapter Comm 48 as described herein would be contrary to the above directives in chapter 168 of the Statutes.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
In section 80.1101(h)(3) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) currently defines biodiesel as being a motor vehicle fuel or fuel additive that in part meets the 2007 edition of ASTM D 6751.
Section 205 of the federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires labeling of each retail diesel fuel pump in a manner that informs consumers of the percent of biodiesel or biomass-based diesel which is contained in the fuel, if that percent exceeds 5 percent. The Act also requires the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate corresponding labeling requirements, and those requirements, in Part 306 of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations, have an effective date of December 16, 2008. Those requirements define biodiesel, in part, as meeting the 2007b edition of ASTM D 6751. Those requirements do not apply to biodiesel blends and biomass–based diesel blends which contain 5 percent or less biofuels by volume and which meet the 2007b edition of ASTM D 975.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 also requires that transportation fuels which are sold or introduced into commerce within the United States in the future must contain substantially greater volumes of renewable fuels – such as biodiesel, cellulosic biofuel and other advanced biofuels. This volume is to be at least 36 billion gallons by 2022, compared to 4 billion gallons in 2006. The USEPA is currently developing regulations for implementing this legislation.
Further incentives for substantially increasing production and usage of renewable and alternative fuels are being developed by the Internal Revenue Service – through proposed regulations relating to tax credits and payments for biodiesel mixtures, renewable diesel mixtures, alcohol mixtures, alternative fuels, and alternative fuel mixtures – in Parts 1, 40, and 48 of Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Entities Affected by the Rule
This rule revision primarily
may affect vendors and marketers of biodiesel fuel or fuels that are a blend of biodiesel fuel and petroleum products, and may affect vendors and marketers of other liquid fuels.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The staff time needed to develop this rule revision is expected to range from 200 to 400 hours, depending upon the associated complexity. This includes research, rule drafting, and processing the rules through public hearings, legislative review, and adoption. There are no other resources necessary to promulgate the rules.
Commerce
Verified Statements and Penalties for Grant and Loan Programs, and Penalties for Tax Credit Programs,
Ch.
Comm 205
Subject
Creates Chapter
Comm 205, relating to verified statements and penalties for grant and loan programs, and penalties for tax credit programs.
Objective of the Rule
The rules would implement the provisions of
2007 Wisconsin Act 125 that relate to verified statements and penalties for each of the economic-development grant or loan programs administered by the Department, and penalties for each of the tax credit programs administered by the Department.
Policy Analysis
The Department has various rules for administering several economic development programs, but those rules typically do not include the expected text in the proposed rules that would (1) require submittal of a verified statement signed by both an independent certified accountant and the director or principal officer of the recipient of an economic development grant or loan; and (2) specify penalties the Department may impose for submitting false or misleading information, or for failing to comply with the terms of a contract and then failing to adequately explain the noncompliance. This rulemaking may also include minor changes to the Department's other economic development rules to achieve consistency with this new chapter Comm 205 and with
2007 Wisconsin Act 125. The alternative of not promulgating these rules would conflict with the directives in Act 125 that (1) require this promulgation for each of the economic development programs administered by the Department, and (2) require the Department to coordinate the development of these accountability measures with the other State agencies that administer economic development programs.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
The federal Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, as primarily enacted in sections 1115 and 1116 of Title 31 of the United States Code, contains several main elements that are substantially similar to the main elements of
2007 Wisconsin Act 125 — such as requiring governmental executive agencies to (1) establish measurable goals and performance indicators for each applicable program administered by the agency, and (2) annually submit a corresponding detailed report to legislative reviewers that assesses the overall effectiveness of each of those programs. However, GPRA does not include the Act 125 requirements that (1) the recipients of the program benefits must submit performance and financial reports and corresponding verified statements to the administering agency; and (2) administering agencies must establish penalties for a recipient who submits false or misleading information, or who fails to comply with the terms of a contract and then fails to adequately explain the noncompliance.
Section 6304 of Title 31 of the United States Code requires a federal executive agency to use a grant agreement as the legal instrument reflecting the relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when (1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer something of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose, and (2) substantial involvement is not expected between the executive agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement. Several of the economic development programs administered by the Department of Commerce include federal grant funding and therefore are addressed in such grant agreements. The Department likewise uses similar grant and loan agreements with the local recipients of the benefits of these and other economic development programs. Federal administrative requirements for grant agreements between federal agencies and nonprofit organizations, for example, are established in section 215 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Those requirements include having the recipient submit performance reports and financial status reports to the awarding agency at least annually – and the financial status report must include a certification statement from an authorized official for the recipient, that attests to the accuracy and completeness of the report and to the validity of all included outlays. This required recipient performance reporting closely matches the recipient performance reporting that is required in
2007 Wisconsin Act 125; and the required certification statement on the financial report closely matches the verification statement which is likewise required in Act 125, and which is to be addressed in the proposed rules.
Sections
215.61 and
215.62 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations specify that grant awards may be withheld, suspended, or terminated in whole or in part if a recipient fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an award. These penalties for this failure closely match the withholding-payment penalty which is authorized in Act 125 for recipients who fail to comply with the terms of a grant or loan agreement, and which is to be addressed in the proposed rules.
Under the federal civil money penalty law, as enacted in 1981 and as currently applied, for example, to the Social Security program through section 1320a-8 of Title 42 of the United States Code, any person who submits false or misleading statements for an agency's use in determining eligibility for program benefits is subject to a penalty of not more than $5000 for each such statement, and to an assessment of not more than twice the amount of benefits or payments paid as a result of the statements. Since 1981, the provisions of the civil money penalty law have been expanded by reference to numerous types of fraudulent and abusive activities, including those addressed by the federal Economic Development Administration. These penalties for these statements closely match the Act 125 penalties which impose a forfeiture or recoup a payment in response to submittal of false or misleading statements, and which are to be addressed in the proposed rules.
An Internet-based search of recent editions of the Federal Register did not reveal any currently proposed federal regulations regarding penalties in the economic development grant and loan programs administered by the Department; or regarding penalties for submitting false or misleading information in the economic development tax credit programs administered by the Department. In the November 21, 2007, edition of the Federal Register, notice was found of a proposal by the federal Department Housing and Urban Development to extend its information-collection requirements to include requirements for grant recipients to report against their baseline performance standards, in a manner that standardizes grants progress reporting requirements and promotes greater emphasis on performance and results in grant programs.
Entities Affected by the Rule
The rules may affect any entity that chooses to accept an economic development grant or loan or tax credit administered by the Department.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
The staff time needed to develop the rules is expected to range from 200 to 400 hours, depending upon the associated complexity. This includes research, rule drafting, and processing the rules through public hearings, legislative review, and adoption. There are no other resources necessary to promulgate the rules.
Medical Examining Board
Subject
Revises section
Med 1.02, relating to application requirements for a license to practice medicine.
Objective of the Rule
To eliminate the requirement that applicants for a license to practice medicine and surgery submit a verified photographic copy of the diploma conferring the degree of doctor of medicine or doctor of osteopathy granted to the applicant verifying graduation from a medical or osteopathic school approved by the board.
Policy Analysis
Currently, physician applicants are required to submit as part of the application to practice medicine and surgery in Wisconsin verified documentary evidence of graduation from a medical or osteopathic school approved by the board and a verified photographic copy of the diploma from the school. Diplomas are more susceptible to fraud than verification directly from the school and are viewed by the Division of Credential Processing as unnecessary so long as verified documentary evidence from the school is required.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
None.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Physician applicants, medical and osteopathic schools approved by the board, and the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
80 hours.
