Under this rule, if a grain dealer's annual producer security fund assessment (except for the portion of the assessment related to deferred payment contracts) exceeds $350,000, then that grain dealer shall pay $350,000, and no more.
If a grain warehouse keeper's annual producer security fund assessment exceeds $150,000, then that grain warehouse keeper shall pay $150,000 and no more.
Federal and surrounding state programs
Federal Programs
The United States Warehouse Act is a voluntary regulatory program administered by Farm Service Agency (FSA), a unit within USDA. Under the act, warehouse keepers who obtain a warehouse license must comply with several FSA regulations. Generally, the warehouse keeper must maintain enough grain in inventory to cover 100% of depositor obligations at all times. Further, FSA licensed warehouse keepers must submit financial statements, submit to inspections by USDA auditors, and post surety bonds. In the event the warehouse defaults, FSA can convert the bonds to cash and disperse the proceeds to depositors. While the federal grain warehouse license is officially a voluntary program; in practice, it is not completely voluntary. Every state that has significant grain production (including Wisconsin) has some type of state grain warehousing law. These laws require grain warehouse keepers to obtain a license, but allow them to choose either a state license or a federal license. Those that choose a federal license are exempt for the state licensing program.
Surrounding State Programs
Like all states with a significant grain industry, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa all require persons who buy grain from producers to obtain a grain dealer license (though they may use different names), and all persons who store grain for others are required to obtain either a state or federal grain warehouse license. Licensees must file financial statements with the state, and the warehouses must maintain 100% of depositor owned grain in inventory at all times.
Minnesota requires grain dealers and grain warehouse keepers to post bonds with the state. Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa all have a state indemnity fund (like Wisconsin) that is made up of grain dealer and warehouse assessments. Michigan has a combination of bonds and indemnity fund contributions.
When compared to other states' grain programs, there are two things that make Wisconsin's program unique. First, while there are many states that have indemnity funds to protect producers, Wisconsin's indemnity fund (The Agricultural Producer Security Fund) is unique in that it pools risks and resources across multiple agricultural sectors. Second, where other states with indemnity funds tend to charge assessments on a flat rate per amount purchased or stored, Wisconsin's assessment formulas consider the licensee's balance sheet along with total purchases or storage capacity when calculating assessments.
Small Business Impact
This rule could have a direct impact on certain grain elevators. It would also have an indirect impact on the hundreds of grain farmers with whom the elevators do business, many of which are small businesses. This rule will help facilitate a stable and orderly grain industry and protect the welfare of grain farmers.
DATCP estimates that the balance of the Agricultural Producer Security Fund, as of June 30, 2012, would be about $11.5 million under this rule and about $12.2 million under current rules. The fund balance impacts both farmers and contractors, in certain specific situations.
For example, the maximum amount that can be paid out to producers in the event of a default is 60% of the fund balance. Therefore, in the event of a very large default, there would be more money available to help reimburse producers without this rule than with it. But there is a very low probability of a default occurring that would involve that much money.
Fund balances also play a role in "assessment holidays" for licensees. If the fund balance reaches certain minimum thresholds, licensees who have participated in the fund for at least five years do not have to make annual assessment payments that year. This rule might play a role in which years grain dealers and milk contractors have an assessment holiday. But in both cases, since the impact would only be to shift an assessment holiday from one license year to another, the overall assessments collections, averaged across several years, would be similar.
Small business regulatory coordinator
Comments or concerns relating to small business may also be addressed to DATCP's small business regulatory coordinator Keeley Moll at the address above, or by email to
keeley.moll@wisconsin.gov
, or by telephone at (608) 224-5039.
Fiscal Impact
The net fiscal impact for this rule could be a loss of revenue of up to $756,000. Under current rules, DATCP estimates that total assessments for both the upcoming license year (Sept. 1, 2011 to Aug. 31, 2012) and fiscal year (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012) could be about $1,612,000 for grain dealers and grain warehouse keepers. Under this rule, DATCP estimates that the total assessments could be about $856,000. Should the assessments be collected in accordance with the current rule, the $756,000 in revenue would represent an unexpected "windfall" to the producer security program.
This rule may affect the timing of when assessment revenues are collected in the next few years. The existing producer security assessment formulas contain provisions for "assessment holidays" that are triggered when the balance in the producer security fund reaches certain minimum balances. Although this rule may affect how the formulas determine which years grain dealers and milk contractors will have an assessment holiday, the impact would only be to shift an assessment holiday from one license year to another. The overall assessments collections, averaged across several years, would be similar.
Agency Contact Person
Questions and comments (including hearing comments) related to this rule may be directed to:
Kevin LeRoy
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708-8911
Telephone (608) 224-4928
Notice of Hearing
Employee Trust Funds
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Wisconsin Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF) proposes an order pursuant to s.
227.14
, Stats., to amend administrative rule ETF 10.08 (1) (a), (2) (a) and (b) (intro), (b) (2), (b) (3), (b) (5), (c), and (d), to amend sections
ETF 20.02 (1)
,
(2)
, and
(3)
; and to create section
ETF 20.02 (4)
, relating to governing rehired annuitants and separation from employment.
Hearing Information
Date:
Friday, October 21, 2011
Time:
1:00 P.M.
Location:
801 W. Badger Road
Conference Room GB
Madison, WI 53713
Persons wishing to attend should come to the reception desk located up the stairs and directly to the left (or by elevator) from the main entrance to the building.
Copies of Proposed Rule
Copies of the proposed rule are available without cost from the Office of the Secretary, Department of Employee Trust Funds, P.O. Box 7931, Madison, WI 53707-7931. The telephone number is: (608) 266-1071.
Submittal of Written Comments
Comments may be submitted to Lucas Strelow, Policy Analyst, Department of Employee Trust Funds, 801 W Badger Rd, Madison, WI 53713-7931, P.O. Box 7931 (use ZIP Code 53707 for PO Box); Phone: 608-267-0722; E-mail:
lucas.strelow@etf.state.wi.us
no later than 4:30 p.m., Central Standard Time, on
October 24, 2011
.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Employee Trust Funds
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
By statute, the ETF Secretary is expressly authorized, with appropriate board approval, to promulgate rules required for the efficient administration of any benefit plan established in ch.
40
of the Wisconsin statutes. Also, each state agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
This rule is not subject to s.
227.135 (2)
, as affected by
2011 Wis. Act 21
. The statement of scope for this rule, submitted to the Legislative Reference Bureau on January 20, 2011 and published in the Administrative Register on February 14, 2011, was received by the Legislative Reference Bureau prior to the effective date of
2011 Wis. Act 21
.
Related rules or statutes
1)
Section
40.23 (1) (a)
, Stats., governs minimum break in service requirements as referenced in both ss.
ETF 20.02
and
10.08
for proper termination from employment.
2)
Section
40.22
, Stats., sets forth the eligibility criteria for inclusion under the Wisconsin retirement system. Plan eligibility is relevant to both proper termination as well as becoming a rehired annuitant, and is referenced in both regulations.
Plain language analysis
The rule changes result from a need for general language clarification, stronger linkage between regulations, and better compliance with the IRC. These changes include the following:
•
Sections
ETF 20.02
and
10.08
are related regulations: s.
ETF 20.02
governs the requirements for rehired annuitants while s.
10.08
provides the terms for an initial separation from employment. By definition, rehired annuitants must first have a valid separation from employment as set forth under s.
ETF 10.08
. Language has been added to both sections to clarify the interconnected nature of the sections through direct cross-reference. In addition, the change includes an amendment to the definition of rehired annuitant to specifically require a valid termination of employment as defined in s.
ETF 10.08
. The language has been added to improve understanding of the sections, as well as to ensure compliance with the IRC which requires a valid separation of service before an annuitant returns to employment.
•
An additional section, s.
ETF 20.02 (4)
, was added to require employers to report to the Department all rehired employees, regardless of whether they meet the requirements in s.
40.22
, Stats., as a WRS participating employee. Employer reporting of all rehired employees will allow ETF to more accurately monitor whether rehires have had a proper separation from employment under s.
ETF 10.08
so they qualify as a rehired annuitant under s.
ETF 20.02
. This will allow ETF to maintain compliance with the IRS break-in-service requirements under IRC s. 401 (a).
•
A note following s.
ETF 10.08 (2) (b) 3.
was removed for risk of IRC noncompliance. Prior to retirement, discussion with one's employer regarding re-employment of any kind is impermissible for IRS purposes. Doing so provides evidence against the intent to completely sever the employee-employer relationship. The note in this section could be construed to suggest that such agreements or discussions are acceptable.
•
Language was added to an example provided under s.
ETF 10.08 (2) (b) 5.
to clarify that emeritus professors, as provided in the example, can only return to service if there is no compensation of any kind, including employer contributions to 403 (b) accounts. Contributions to 403 (b) accounts have been an issue in the past for emeritus-type programs.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
IRC 401 (a), governing the qualified status of the pension plan, requires that there be a valid severance from employment before one can become a rehired annuitant. The changes and clarifications made to sections
ETF 10.08
and
20.02
are intended in part to clarify language to strengthen understanding and to maintain compliance with this federal regulation. Under IRS guidelines, the IRS has made it clear that there must be a complete separation of the employee-employer relationship for a "bona fide" separation of service. The IRS has focused greatly on the intent of the employee to completely retire, with no prior arrangements to return to work for the employer. It was necessary to remove sections in the current regulation to clarify that such agreements are not permissible.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
•
Illinois
– The relevant code for the State Retirement System of Illinois (SRS) is 40 ILCS 5/14-111,
Re-entry After Retirement
. The Illinois statute indicates that, with some exceptions, an annuitant who reenters service after retirement shall receive no payments from the retirement annuity during the time of employment. Only if the annuitant accepts temporary employment for a period not exceeding 75 working days in any calendar year can the employee continue to receive annuity payments.
Unlike WRS, SRS statutes do not set forth conditions for a valid separation of service as a requirement for an annuitant's reemployment under the system. Therefore the proposed changes to ss.
ETF 10.08
and
20.02
do not bear relationship to regulations governing SRS due to an absence of analogous regulatory standards. As such the SRS administrative code also does not include language for full reporting of all rehired annuitants to the agency, as created under the proposed changes to s.
ETF 20.02 (4)
.
•
Iowa
– The relevant codes governing the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) includes: Iowa Admin. Code 495-12.8,
Reemployment of retired members
; and Iowa Admin. Code 495-11.5,
Bona fide retirement and bona fide refund
. The relationship between these administrative codes does in fact bear a similar resemblance to the relationship being emphasized between ss.
ETF 10.08
and
20.02
in the current rule change.
One code is devoted to proper termination from employment (bona fide retirement in Iowa's case) and the other to rehired annuitants (reemployment of retired members). However, there is less direct reference in the Iowa language between the regulations, in part because Iowa's rehired annuitant code is devoted instead to a type of benefit payments that does not apply to WRS.
Some of the amendments currently proposed in the ETF rule changes are, however, reflected in the Iowa code. There is a section under Iowa Admin. Code 495-11.5, for example, indicating that a school employee will not be considered to have a bona fide termination in service unless all of the employee's compensated duties for their current employer cease. Similarly, in the ETF rule change, language was added to s.
ETF 10.08 (2) (b) 5.
regarding "emeritus" professors to clarify that contributions to 403 (b) accounts are included in impermissible compensation. The Iowa code also indicates that a member will fail to have a bona fide separation of service if a contract for reemployment (of any nature) is made prior to the expiration of that state's minimum separation of service. A note following s.
ETF 10.08 (2) (b) 3.
was removed to make certain the no-contract requirement is properly reflected in the ETF code.
The Iowa administrative code does not, however, include language for full reporting of all rehired annuitants to the agency, as created under the proposed changes to s.
ETF 20.02 (4)
.
•
Michigan
– Mich. Admin. Code R. 38.38 states that a "retirement allowance" shall be suspended during any time period that the "retirant" returns to work in a covered position, unless there was a bona fide termination of employment. The statutes and regulations, however, do not set forth a definition of a bona fide termination of employment, nor do they lay out conditions for proper termination. Therefore the proposed changes to ss.
ETF 10.08
and
20.02
do not bear relationship to regulations governing SRS due to an absence of analogous regulatory standards.
•
Minnesota
– The relevant code for the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) is M.S.A. s.
352.115
Subd. 10,
Reemployment of annuitant
. The statute only indicates the maximum earnings allowable. Unlike WRS, MSRS does not have a regulation that sets forth conditions for a valid separation of service as requirement for rehired annuitants. Therefore the proposed changes to ss.
ETF 10.08
and
20.02
do not bear relationship to regulations governing SRS due to an absence of analogous regulatory standards.
Summary of data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rule amendment is intended to make ETF's regulations governing rehired annuitants and proper separation from employment clearer and more flexible, as well as to bring it into closer harmony with federal statutes. Factual data was collected from ETF departments as to the current procedures and requirements for reporting of rehired annuitants from the employer. Data was also collected from the procedures and regulations of nearby states and comparable government pension systems. Analytical methodologies included discussion with legal counsel as to using the amendments to achieve the goal of the strengthening compliance with IRS requirements for a bona fide separation of service and proper re-employment of annuitants. ETF also utilized comparative analysis to draw from other pensions' methods and regulations, as well as position ETF's proposed amendments within the statutes and regulations that present the greatest compliance with the IRC.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small business
The rule does not have an effect on small businesses because private employers and their employees do not participate in, and are not covered by, the Wisconsin Retirement System.
Small Business Impact
There is no effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
The rule will not have any fiscal effect on the administration of the Wisconsin Retirement System, nor will it have any fiscal effect on the private sector, the state or on any county, city, village, town, school district, technical college district, or sewerage districts.
Agency Contact Person
Lucas Strelow, Policy Analyst, Department of Employee Trust Funds, 801 W Badger Rd, Madison, WI 53713-7931, P.O. Box 7931 (use ZIP Code 53707 for PO Box); Phone: 608-267-0722; E-mail:
lucas.strelow@etf.state.wi.us
.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE
AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original Updated Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
S. ETF 20.02 Rehired annuitants and s. ETF 10.08 Separation from employment.
|
Subject
|
Rehired Annuitants
|
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
GPR FED PRO PRS
SEG SEG-S
|
|
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X
No Fiscal Effect
Indeterminate
|
Increase Existing Revenues
Decrease Existing Revenues
|
Increase Costs
Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
Decrease Costs
|
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
State's Economy
Local Government Units
|
Specific Businesses/Sectors
Public Utility Rate Payers
|
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
Yes
X
No
|
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
|
This rule-making is needed to create a stronger and clearer relationship between ss. ETF 20.02 and 10.08, to clarify rule language for general readability, and to make amendments needed to ensure compliance with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).
|
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
There is no economic and fiscal impact on small business, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units and the state's economy as a whole.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The rule language more brings ETF more clearly into compliance with the IRC, and clarifies the interrelationship between ss. ETF 20.03 and 10.08. The agency does not see alternatives to achieving the policy goal of the rule amendments.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
There are no long range economic or fiscal impacts of the rule.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
IRC 401 (a), governing the qualified status of the pension plan, requires that there be a valid severance from employment before one can become a rehired annuitant. The changes and clarifications made to ss. ETF 10.08 and 20.02 are intended in part to clarify language to strengthen understanding and to maintain compliance with this federal regulation. Under IRS guidelines, the IRS has made it clear that there must be a complete separation of the employee-employer relationship for a "bona fide" separation of service. The IRS has focused greatly on the intent of the employee to completely retire, with no prior arrangements to return to work for the employer. It was necessary to remove sections in the current regulation to clarify that such agreements are not permissible.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Illinois
– The relevant code for the State Retirement System of Illinois (SRS) is 40 ILCS 5/14-111, Re-entry After Retirement. The Illinois statute indicates that, with some exceptions, an annuitant who reenters service after retirement shall receive no payments from the retirement annuity during the time of employment. Only if the annuitant accepts temporary employment for a period not exceeding 75 working days in any calendar year can the employee continue to receive annuity payments.
Unlike WRS, SRS statutes do not set forth conditions for a valid separation of service as a requirement for an annuitant's reemployment under the system. Therefore the proposed changes to ss. ETF 10.08 and 20.02 do not bear relationship to regulations governing SRS due to an absence of analogous regulatory standards. As such the SRS administrative code also does not include language for full reporting of all rehired annuitants to the agency, as created under the proposed changes to s. ETF 20.02 (4).
Iowa
–The relevant codes governing the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) includes: Iowa Admin. Code 495-12.8, Reemployment of retired members; and Iowa Admin. Code 495-11.5, Bona fide retirement and bona fide refund. The relationship between these administrative codes does in fact bear a similar resemblance to the relationship being emphasized between ss. ETF 10.08 and 20.02 in the current rule change.
One code is devoted to proper termination from employment (bona fide retirement in Iowa's case) and the other to rehired annuitants (reemployment of retired members). However, there is less direct reference in the Iowa language between the regulations, in part because Iowa's rehired annuitant code is devoted instead to a type of benefit payments that does not apply to WRS.
Some of the amendments currently proposed in the ETF rule changes are, however, reflected in the Iowa code. There is a section under Iowa Admin. Code 495-11.5, for example, indicating that a school employee will not be considered to have a bona fide termination in service unless all of the employee's compensated duties for their current employer cease. Similarly, in the ETF rule change, language was added to s. ETF 10.08 (2) (b) 5. regarding "emeritus" professors to clarify that contributions to 403 (b) accounts are included in impermissible compensation. The Iowa code also indicates that a member will fail to have a bona fide separation of service if a contract for reemployment (of any nature) is made prior to the expiration of that state's minimum separation of service. A note following s. ETF 10.08 (2) (b) 3. was removed to make certain the no-contract requirement is properly reflected in the ETF code.
The Iowa administrative code does not, however, include language for full reporting of all rehired annuitants to the agency, as created under the proposed changes to s. ETF 20.02 (4).
Michigan
– Mich. Admin. Code R. 38.38 states that a "retirement allowance" shall be suspended during any time period that the "retirant" returns to work in a covered position, unless there was a bona fide termination of employment. The statutes and regulations, however, do not set forth a definition of a bona fide termination of employment, nor do they lay out conditions for proper termination. Therefore the proposed changes to ss. ETF 10.08 and 20.02 do not bear relationship to regulations governing SRS due to an absence of analogous regulatory standards.
Minnesota
– The relevant code for the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS) is M.S.A. s. 352.115 Subd. 10, Reemployment of annuitant. The statute only indicates the maximum earnings allowable. Unlike WRS, MSRS does not have a regulation that sets forth conditions for a valid separation of service as requirement for rehired annuitants. Therefore the proposed changes to ss. ETF 10.08 and 20.02 do not bear relationship to regulations governing SRS due to an absence of analogous regulatory standards.
|
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—
(DNR # WM-12-11(E))
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections
29.014
,
29.041
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, and
227.24 (4)
Stats., interpreting sections
29.014
,
29.041
and
29.192
, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to Chapter
NR 10
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the 2011 migratory game bird seasons and waterfowl hunting zones. This emergency order takes effect upon publication in the official state newspaper on September 3, 2011.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held on:
Date:
Monday, October 3, 2011
Time:
1:00 P.M.
Location:
Natural Resources State Office Building
(GEF 2)
101 South Webster Street
Room 608
Madison, WI 53703
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Scott Loomans at (608) 267-2452 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Submittal of Written Comments
Comments may be submitted until
October 4, 2011
. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Van Horn.
Copies of Proposed Rule
The emergency rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov
. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Kent Van Horn, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to
kent.vanhorn@wisconsin.gov
.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
Statutory interpreted
Statutory authority
Plain language analysis
Section
1 of this rule order establishes the season length and bag limits for the 2011 Wisconsin migratory game bird seasons. For ducks, the state is divided into three zones, each with 60-day seasons. The season begins at 9:00 a.m. September 24 and continues for 60 consecutive days in the north, closing on November 22. In the South the season begins at 9:00 a.m. on October 1 and continues through October 9, followed by a 5-day split, and then reopens on October 15 and continues through December 4. In the new Mississippi River zone the season begins at 9:00 am on September 24 and continues through October 2, followed by a 12 day split, reopening on October 15 for a 60 day season. The split in the Mississippi River zone is seven days longer than in previous years.
The daily bag limit is 6 ducks including no more than: 4 mallards, of which only 1 may be a hen, 1 black duck, 1 canvasback, 3 wood ducks, 2 scaup, 2 pintails and 2 redheads.
For Canada geese, the state is apportioned into 2 goose hunting zones, Horicon and Exterior. Other special goose management subzones within the Exterior Zone include Brown County and the Mississippi River. Season lengths are: Horicon Zone - 92 days (2 hunting periods, first period beginning September 16 and the second on October 31); Exterior Zone in the northern duck zone - 85 days (Sept. 16 – Dec. 9); Exterior Zone in the southern duck zone – 85 days (Sept. 16 – Oct. 9 and Oct. 15 – Dec. 14) and Mississippi River subzone - 85 days (Sept. 24 – Oct. 2 and Oct. 15 – Dec. 29). The statewide daily bag limit for Canada geese in all zones is 2 birds per day during the open seasons within the zones.
Section 2 establishes that the youth waterfowl hunting season will be held on September 17 and 18.
Section 3 establishes a new duck hunting zone that consists of the Wisconsin portions of the Mississippi River west of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
Under international treaty and Federal law, migratory game bird seasons are closed unless opened annually via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulations process. As part of the Federal rule process, the USFWS proposes a duck harvest-management objective that balances hunting opportunities with the desire to achieve waterfowl population goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Under this harvest-management objective, the relative importance of hunting opportunity increases as duck populations approach the goals in the NAWMP. Thus, hunting opportunity would be maximized when the population is at or above goals. Additionally, while USFWS believes that the NAWMP's population goals would tend to exert a conservative influence on overall duck harvest-management. Other factors, such as habitat, are to be considered.
In the past, the regular Canada goose season was based on the allowable Mississippi Valley Population (MVP) harvest which was determined based on the spring breeding population estimate obtained from an aerial survey of the MVP breeding range as prescribed by the Mississippi Flyway MVP management plan. However, because locally produced giant Canada geese now constitute a considerable portion of the harvest in all states that also harvest Mississippi Valley Population birds, the Mississippi Flyway Council is testing the use of a standard season framework for 5 years. Beginning in the fall of 2007 and continuing through 2011, season lengths and bag limits for each MVP harvest state have remained unchanged. Each state retains the flexibility to schedule the timing of their Canada goose season. In addition, if the MVP spring population numbers dropped to a predetermined low level during the 5-year period, the stable season framework would be adjusted.
In 2011 the USFWS has given our state the option of reconfiguring duck hunting zones through their concurrent revisions of
50 CFR 20
.
Section
3 of this board order creates a third duck hunting zone along the Mississippi River.
The proposed modifications included in this rule order are consistent with these parameters and guidelines which are annually established by the USFWS in
50 CFR 20
.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Since migratory bird species are managed under international treaty, each region of the country is organized in a specific geographic flyway which represents an individual migratory population of migratory game birds. Wisconsin along with Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and Iowa are members of the Mississippi Flyway. Each year the states included in the flyways meet to discuss regulations and guidelines offered to the flyways by the USFWS. The FWS regulations and guidelines apply to all states within the Flyway and therefore the regulations in the adjoining states closely resemble the rules established in this rule order, and only differ slightly based on hunter desires, habitat and population management goals. However, these variations fall within guidelines and sideboards established by the USFWS.
Summary of data and analytical methodologies
For the regular duck season, a data based process called Adaptive Harvest Management is used annually by the USFWS and the Flyways to determine which of 3 framework alternatives best matches the current year's data on populations and habitat (data from the spring pond and duck survey). The option of a closed season is also possible if survey conditions indicated that this is necessary for the management of duck populations. The determination of which alternative is selected is based in part on the spring wetland conditions on the breeding grounds and the Mid-Continent Mallard population. These data come from the May Pond and Breeding Waterfowl Population Surveys conducted by the USFWS and Canadian Wildlife Service on traditional survey areas as well as surveys from select states, including Wisconsin.
In addition to the annual waterfowl hunting regulation process described below, 2011 is the open window to change state duck hunting zones as allowed by the USFWS every 5 years. Since 1991, the USFWS has regulated how states can arrange duck hunting zones and season splits. A season split is a temporary closure of the hunting season in order to extend the hunting later in the duck season. Beginning in 2011, Wisconsin can have three waterfowl hunting with the option for 1 split in each zone or 4 zones with no options for splits. Each zone can have a unique size or shape but must be contiguous and the boundaries clear.
In the past, the USFWS only allowed 3 configurations of duck zones and splits; 1) One statewide zone with the annual option to have 2 season splits, 2) Two zones with the annual option for 1 season split in each zone, 3) Three zones without the option for a split. While we have worked with the USFWS restrictions on duck hunting zones it has been our consistent position that the configuration of duck zones is an issue of hunter opportunity and satisfaction which does not have significant impact on duck populations, therefore, states should be allowed to manage zones without federal regulation.
Wisconsin's regular Canada goose season harvest consists of approximately a 50:50 ratio between resident giant and MVP population Canada geese. As a result, the parameters of Wisconsin's regular goose seasons are guided by the Mississippi Flyway management plans for the MVP and giant Canada goose populations and approved by the Mississippi Flyway Council and the USFWS. The health of these populations was measured with spring breeding population surveys, survival data and harvest rates obtained from banding and production studies. The surveys and studies are conducted annually and are supported by the State of Wisconsin as part of the MFC. The result of this work is reviewed annually by the MFC committee and the USFWS to measure the impact of the stable season framework trial period.
The primary elements of Wisconsin's waterfowl regulatory process include conducting spring waterfowl surveys, participation in MFC meetings, commenting on federal proposals, and soliciting input from the public. The state process begins with Flyway meetings in February and March each year where staff provide input to the development of federal framework alternatives and requests related to the early seasons. In spring and summer, breeding waterfowl surveys and banding are conducted in support of the regulatory process.
In early July, staff conducted a public meeting to solicit input from interest groups, including representatives of the Conservation Congress Migratory Committee. At this meeting staff provided the attendees with breeding status information and asked for any items that they wish the department to pursue at the MFC meeting in mid July. Department staff then attended the MFC Technical and Council meetings. At that meeting, staff were provided status information and the proposed framework alternative from the USFWS. Department staff worked with the other states in our Flyway to discuss and develop proposals and recommendations that were voted upon by the MFC. Proposals that passed at the MFC meeting were forwarded to the USFWS for consideration by the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) at their meeting. The USFWS announced its final waterfowl season framework recommendation on July 29. Department staff then summarized waterfowl status and regulation information for Wisconsin citizens and presented this information to the Migratory Committee of the Conservation Congress and at a public meeting (Post-Flyway Meeting) of interest groups and individuals on July 30. Staff gathered public input at these meetings regarding citizen suggestions for the development of Wisconsin's waterfowl regulations given the federal framework. Public hearings were held during the first week of August around the state to solicit additional input on the proposed annual waterfowl rule.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small business
These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector or small businesses. Additionally, no significant costs are associated with compliance to these rules.
Small Business Impact
These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses.
Small business regulatory coordinator
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Private sector fiscal effect
None.
Small businesses in the tourism industry may benefit when liberal migratory bird hunting season frameworks can be offered.
Summary
Because this proposal does not differ significantly from the season frameworks available in previous years, there are no new expenditures, record keeping requirements, or processes created.
Agency Contact Person
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Without Public Hearing
Transportation
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposes an order to amend sections
Trans 100.02 (11m)
,
(12m)
and
(13m)
, relating to mandatory minimum liability limits for insurance policies under safety responsibility, damage judgment and mandatory insurance laws.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to the authority of sections
85.16 (1)
,
227.11
, and
343.02
, Stats., and according to the procedure set forth in section
227.16 (2) (b)
, Stats., the Wisconsin Department of Transportation proposes to adopt the following rule amending Chapter
Trans 100
without public hearing. The proposed rulemaking will bring Chapter
Trans 100
into conformity with a statute that has been changed or enacted, namely the provisions of Chapter
344
, Stats., as amended by
2011 Wis. Act 14
.
Submittal of Written Comments
The public record of this proposed rulemaking will be held open for 30 days from the date of this notice for the submission of comments. Any comments should be submitted to, and requests for copies of the proposed rule may be made to Jane Dederich, Accident Records Unit Supervisor, Division of Motor Vehicles, Room 804 P. O. Box 7983, Madison, WI 53707-7983. You may also contact Ms. Dederich by phone at (608) 264-7236 or via e-mail:
dotuninsuredmotorist@dot.wi.gov
.
Copies of Proposed Rule
To view the proposed amendments, view the current rule, and submit written comments via e-mail/internet, you may visit the following website
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov
/library/research/law/rulenotices.htm
.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Transportation
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of statutory authority
The Department is charged with administering the safety responsibility, damage judgment, and mandatory insurance laws contained in ch.
344
, Stats. This rule making implements ch.
344
, Stats., as amended by
2011 Wis. Act 14
.
Related rules or statutes
Plain language analysis
Current Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Trans 100
reflects the mandatory minimum liability limit amounts established under
2009 Wis. Act 28
and the indexing system for adjustments to those limits.
2011 Wis. Act 14
lowered the mandatory minimum liability limit amounts and repealed the indexing system. This rule making will amend the mandatory minimum insurance limits in current Trans 100 to conform to those set by
2011 Wis. Act 14
, and repeal the current rule's references to the indexing system.
The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America has produced a memo discussing the impact on the insurance industry of the liability limits set in
2009 Wis. Act 28
. ["
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
: Analyzing the Repeal of Automobile Insurance-Related Provisions," Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, January 18, 2011.] According to that industry group, the $15,000, $50,000, $100,000 minimum insurance limits set in Act 28 affected about 10% of the state's insured population and increased premiums for that group by 10% to 12.5%.
The industry report suggests the higher limits were not needed because 96 out of 100 claims result in total economic claims of $25,000 or less, the average cost of property damage claims from motor vehicle accidents in Wisconsin is $2,600 and that the average cost of motor vehicle bodily injury claims in Wisconsin is $17,700. The paper claimed that repealing this provision would result in decreased premiums for those insured drivers affected by the Act 28 increases in liability limits.
The paper also concluded that the liability limit indexing system that was included in Act 28 was not necessary because the increased liability limits of Act 28 would insure that average claims would not exceed the liability limits until 2027. The paper stated that Wisconsin's bodily injury claim severity has been rising at roughly the same pace as its health care costs, i.e., about 5 to 6 percent a year. Applying that annual rate of change, to the current average injury claim cost of $17,700, the paper concluded that "it will take many years – possibly not until 2027 (10 years after the given 2017 date) – before the average injury claim cost of $17,700 reaches the new minimum per-person limit of $50,000."
Applying those same figures and methodology to the minimum mandatory limits set in
2011 Wis. Act 14
, it appears that the average injury claim in Wisconsin will exceed Act 14's minimum per-person limit of $25,000 sometime between 2016 and 2018. Assuming the median personal injury claim is approximately the same as the mean (average), Wisconsin should expect the personal injury coverage limits set in
2011 Act 14
to be inadequate to cover the damages in about
½
of all personal injury accidents in Wisconsin within 5 to 7 years.
Year by Which Average Personal Injury Claims may be expected to exceed $25,000
Minimum Mandatory Insurance Limit for Single Coverage in Wisconsin
|
|
Calculation at 5% Annual Increase
|
|
Calculation at 6% Annual Increase
|
Year
|
Expected Average PI Claim
|
Minimum
Expected Increase in Claims
|
Annual Increase
|
|
Expected Average PI Claim
|
Maximum
Expected Increase in Claims
|
Annual Increase
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
$ 17,700.00
|
5%
|
$ 885.00
|
|
$ 17,700.00
|
6%
|
$ 1,062.00
|
2011
|
$ 18,585.00
|
5%
|
$ 929.25
|
|
$ 18,762.00
|
6%
|
$ 1,125.72
|
2012
|
$ 19,514.25
|
5%
|
$ 975.71
|
|
$ 19,887.72
|
6%
|
$ 1,193.26
|
2013
|
$ 20,489.96
|
5%
|
$ 1,024.50
|
|
$ 21,080.98
|
6%
|
$ 1,264.86
|
2014
|
$ 21,514.46
|
5%
|
$ 1,075.72
|
|
$ 22,345.84
|
6%
|
$ 1,340.75
|
2015
|
$ 22,590.18
|
5%
|
$ 1,129.51
|
|
$ 23,686.59
|
6%
|
$ 1,421.20
|
2016
|
$ 23,719.69
|
5%
|
$ 1,185.98
|
|
$ 25,107.79
|
6%
|
$ 1,506.47
|
2017
|
$ 24,905.68
|
5%
|
$ 1,245.28
|
|
$ 26,614.26
|
6%
|
$ 1,596.86
|
2018
|
$ 26,150.96
|
|
|
|
$ 28,211.11
|
|
|
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations
There are no existing or proposed federal regulations on this issue.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Michigan:
Owners of passenger vehicles, vans, and light trucks must purchase Michigan no-fault insurance before registering their vehicle. Michigan Law requires the following minimum liability amounts by type: "$20,000.00 because of bodily injury to or death of 1 person in any 1 accident and, subject to said limit for 1 person, $40,000.00 because of bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any 1 accident, and $10,000.00 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any 1 accident." Mich. Comp. Laws s.
257.520(b)(2)
(2011)
. These limits do not appear to be adjusted by index.
Minnesota:
The Minnesota No-Fault Act, Minn. Stat. s. 65B.48 (2010), requires owners of registered motor vehicles to maintain no-fault insurance. Vehicle owners must be insured to the following minimum liability amounts by type: "not less than $30,000 because of bodily injury to one person in any one accident and, subject to said limit for one person, of not less than $60,000 because of injury to two or more persons in any one accident, and, if the accident has resulted in injury to or destruction of property, of not less than $10,000 because of such injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident." Minn. Stat. s. 69B.49 subd. 3 (1) (2010). These limits do not appear to be adjusted by index.
Illinois:
All motor vehicles operated in Illinois must be covered by liability insurance. Vehicle owners are required to provide insurance information at the time of registration renewal. Illinois requires drivers to carry bodily injury or death liability limits of $20,000 for single-person and $40,000 for multiple-persons, as well as property damage liability limits of $15,000 and uninsured motorist coverage. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-203 (2011). These limits do not appear to be adjusted by index.
Iowa:
Iowa does not mandate that drivers or vehicle owners carry insurance. A driver who causes personal injury or damage exceeding $1,000 to another party must prove his or her financial responsibility or be subject to license suspension. Drivers can prove financial responsibility by showing that they were covered by automobile liability insurance at the time of the accident. An insurance policy is not an effective proof of financial responsibility unless it meets the following minimum liability amounts: $20,000 for bodily injury or death to one person, $40,000 for bodily injury or death to two or more persons, and $15,000 for property damage. Iowa Code s. 321A.5 subd. 3 (2011). These limits do not appear to be adjusted by index.
Summary of data and analytical methodologies
No factual data was analyzed in this rule making. The proposed rule revises the mandatory minimum liability limits to agree with new statutory limits, and removes the indexing adjustment system repealed by
2011 Wis. Act 14
.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small business
The Department anticipates that this regulatory change will have a fiscal effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
Anticipated costs incurred costs by the private sector
The Department anticipates that this regulatory change, which is compelled by statutory changes, will have a fiscal effect on private sector revenues and liabilities. Revenues to insurance companies can be expected to fall if drivers purchase less liability coverage. Conversely, the liability of drivers who carry only the minimum required insurance and who are involved in motor vehicle accidents can be expected to rise, because it will be more likely that the insurance coverage will be inadequate to cover damages caused by the accident. To the extent that medical bills and collision repair bills exceed insurance coverage, the impact of these changes may be felt by providers of medical services and auto repair services.
Text of Proposed Rule
SECTION 1.
Trans 100.02 (11m), (12m), and (13m) are amended to read:
Trans 100.02 (11m) "Multiple injury minimum coverage" means
$100,000 until the department publishes adjusted liability limit amounts as required by s. 344.11, Stats., and means the most recently published adjusted liability amount for multiple injuries after that date
$50,000
.
(12m) "Property damage minimum coverage" means
$15,000 until the department publishes adjusted liability limit amounts as required by s. 344.11, Stats., and means the most recently published adjusted liability amount for property damage after that date
$10,000
.
(13m) "Single injury minimum coverage" means
$50,000 until the department publishes adjusted liability limit amounts as required by s. 344.11, Stats., and means the most recently published adjusted liability amount for a single person injured in an accident after that date
$25,000
.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA 2049 (R 07/2011)
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE AND
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
|
Type of Estimate and Analysis
|
X
Original Updated Corrected
|
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
|
Ch. Trans 100
|
Subject
|
Amendment of Trans 100.02 (11m), (12m), and (13m), relating to mandatory minimum liability limits for insurance policies under safety responsibility, damage judgment and mandatory insurance laws and repeal the current rule's references to the indexing system.
|
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
|
GPR FED PRO PRS SEG SEG-S
|
N/A
|
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
|
X
No Fiscal Effect
Indeterminate
|
Increase Existing Revenues
Decrease Existing Revenues
|
Increase Costs
Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
Decrease Costs
|
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
|
State's Economy
Local Government Units
|
X
Specific Businesses/Sectors
Public Utility Rate Payers
|
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
Yes
X
No
|
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
|
In 2010, the rule was changed from these limits to the current limits. The statute has now changed the limits to the limits that existed prior to 2010. The purpose of this amendment is to conform the rule to the requirements of ch. 344, Stats., as amended by 2011 Wisconsin Act 14.
|
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
The Dept. anticipates that this regulatory change, which is compelled by statutory changes, will have a fiscal effect on private sector revenues and liabilities. Revenues to insurance companies can be expected to fall if drivers purchase less liability coverage. The liability of drivers who carry only the minimum required insurance can be expected to rise because the insurance coverage will be inadequate to cover damages. When medical bills and collision repair bills exceed insurance coverage, the impact of these changes may be realized by providers of medical services and auto repair services.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
|
The rule needs to be changed to reflect the changes to the statute.
|
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
|
Implications should be minimal since previous law was only in place for one year.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
|
There are no existing or proposed federal regulations on this issue.
|
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota
)
|
Illinois:
All motor vehicles operated in Illinois must be covered by liability insurance. Vehicle owners are required to provide insurance information at the time of registration renewal. Illinois requires drivers to carry bodily injury or death liability limits of $20,000 for single-person and $40,000 for multiple-persons, as well as property damage liability limits of $15,000 and uninsured motorist coverage. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-203 (2011). These limits do not appear to be adjusted by index.
Iowa:
Iowa does not mandate that drivers or vehicle owners carry insurance. A driver who causes personal injury or damage exceeding $1,000 to another party must prove his or her financial responsibility or be subject to license suspension. Drivers can prove financial responsibility by showing that they were covered by automobile liability insurance at the time of the accident. An insurance policy is not an effective proof of financial responsibility unless it meets the following minimum liability amounts: $20,000 for bodily injury or death to one person, $40,000 for bodily injury or death to two or more persons, and $15,000 for property damage. Iowa Code s. 321A.5 subd. 3 (2011). These limits do not appear to be adjusted by index.
Michigan:
Owners of passenger vehicles, vans, and light trucks must purchase Michigan no-fault insurance before registering their vehicle. Michigan Law requires the following minimum liability amounts by type: "$20,000.00 because of bodily injury to or death of 1 person in any 1 accident and, subject to said limit for 1 person, $40,000.00 because of bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any 1 accident, and $10,000.00 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any 1 accident."
Minnesota:
The Minnesota No-Fault Act, Minn. Stat. s. 65B.48 (2010), requires owners of registered motor vehicles to maintain no-fault insurance. Vehicle owners must be insured to the following minimum liability amounts by type: "not less than $30,000 because of bodily injury to one person in any one accident and, subject to said limit for one person, of not less than $60,000 because of injury to two or more persons in any one accident, and, if the accident has resulted in injury to or destruction of property, of not less than $10,000 because of such injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident." Minn. Stat. s. 69B.49 subd. 3 (1) (2010). These limits do not appear to be adjusted by index.
|
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
|
Jane Dederich (608) 264-7236
|
