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
|
