Rule-making notices
Notice of Hearing
Commerce
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
101.573 (5) and
101.574 (4) (a) 1., Stats., the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on proposed rules under section
Comm 14.02 relating to definitions of administrative expenses and substantial compliance.
The public hearing will be held as follows:
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Commencing at 9:30 a.m.
Thompson Commerce Center, Third Floor, Room 3B
201 West Washington Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing, via e-mail. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until August 2, 2004, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. E-mail comments should be sent to
srockweiler@commerce.state.wi.us. If e-mail submittal is not possible, written comments may be submitted to Sam Rockweiler, Department of Commerce, Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 14427, Madison, WI 53708-0427.
This hearing will be held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call Luann Robb at (608) 266-5824 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY) at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability.
Analysis
Under sections 101.14, 101.141, 101.573, and 101.575 of the Wisconsin statutes, the Department protects public health, safety, and welfare by promulgating rules for and administering fire inspection and prevention programs. Those programs include a Fire Dues program which is funded by fees from insurance companies, and which provides annual grants to city, village, and town fire departments for performing fire inspection and prevention services. Under 101.573 (5) and 101.574 (4) (a) 1. of the statutes, as established in
2003 Wisconsin Act 219, the Department is required to promulgate rules that (1) define its “administrative expenses" in the Fire Dues program, and (2) define the “substantial compliance" that the Department looks for in determining whether a local unit is eligible for a grant from the Fire Dues program.
Federal Programs
An Internet-based search of existing and proposed federal regulations did not identify any that address a fire dues program funded by fees from insurance companies.
Programs in Adjacent States
The four adjacent states were included in an e-mail survey of all State Fire Programs, that asked each State whether they collect a fee from insurance companies to help with fire prevention and suppression. Although responses were received from four other States, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota did not respond, so the Department presumes the adjoining States do not have a fire dues program and corresponding rules that are similar to Wisconsin's.
Data and Analysis of Impacts on Small Business
The proposed rules (1) codify the Department's current designation of which of its expenses are administrative expenses and (2) extend the Department's current practice of looking for “substantial compliance," to also apply to determinations of whether local units annually inspect enough public buildings and places of employment, for fire prevention purposes. This extension would not reduce the current duty of local units to annually inspect 100 percent of public buildings and places of employment, but would provide more flexibility in determining whether that duty has been met, so as to establish eligibility for a Fire Dues grant. Consequently, these rules are not expected to result in significant impacts on small businesses.
Environmental Analysis
Notice is hereby given that the Department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with chapter Comm 1, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.
Owners or operators of public buildings or places of employment.
2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
No significant new reporting, bookkeeping or other similar procedures are expected.
3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.
None known.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules (1) codify the Department's current designation of which of its expenses are administrative expenses and (2) extend the Department's current practice of looking for “substantial compliance," to also apply to determinations of whether local units annually inspect enough public buildings and places of employment, for fire prevention purposes. This extension would not reduce the current duty of local units to annually inspect 100 percent of public buildings and places of employment, but would provide more flexibility in determining whether that duty has been met, so as to establish eligibility for a Fire Dues grant. Consequently, these rules are not expected to result in significant changes to state or local revenues, or to state or local costs.
The proposed rules and an analysis of the rules are available on the Internet at the Web site for petroleum programs and fire prevention at commerce.wi.gov. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Luann Robb at the Department of Commerce, Fire Prevention Section, P.O. Box 7839, Madison, WI 53707-7839, or at
lrobb@commerce.state.wi.us, or at telephone (608) 264-5824 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
Notice of Hearing
Commerce
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
145.245, Stats., the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on proposed rules relating to Private Sewage System Replacement or Rehabilitation Grant Program.
The public hearing will be held as follows:
Tuesday August 3, 2004
9:30 a.m.
TG Thompson Commerce Center
201 W. Washington Ave., Conf. Rm. 3C
Madison, WI
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until August 10, 2004, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. Written comments should be submitted to the following individual:
Jean M. MacCubbin, Department of Commerce
Safety & Buildings Division
P.O. Box 2658
Madison, WI 53701-2658
Hearings are held in accessible facilities. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY) at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability.
Analysis
Under s.
145.02, Stats., the Department of Commerce (Commerce) has the responsibility of safeguarding public health and the waters of the state relative to the construction, installation and maintenance of plumbing. One mechanism of Commerce to fulfill this responsibility has been the promulgation of the state plumbing code, chapters Comm 81 to 87.
Under s.
145.245 (7) (c), Stats., Commerce shall revise the grant awards tables when it determines that 60% of current costs of private onsite wastewater treatment system (POWTS), rehabilitation or replacement exceeds the amount in the grant award tables by more than 10%, except that Commerce may not revise the grant award tables more often than once every two years. These tables were last revised in February 1999.
Under s.
145.245 (7) (e), Stats., Commerce shall promulgate rules that shall specify how the department will select, monitor and allocate the state share for experimental private onsite wastewater treatment systems that the Department funds under this chapter. Up to 10% of the annual funds shall be available for allocation for experimental POWTS, including monitoring of these systems.
The proposed revisions include minor changes to chapter Comm 87, private sewage system replacement or rehabilitation grant program. Since the last update of this chapter was undertaken in 1999, statutory changes and technical revisions to chapter Comm 83, POWTS became effective.
A summary of the significant rule revisions in chapter Comm 87 is as follows:
•
The recommended increases in the maximum allowable financial assistance amounts, Tables 87.30-1 to 87.30-6, are based upon the average costs of those types of systems that received grant awards in FY 02, 03 and 04. The increases bring the amount allowed to the 60% approximate average costs in accordance with section
145.245 (7) (c), Stats. The table titles are amended to align with the technologies and methods now contained in chapter Comm 83.
•
The definition of private sewage system was changed to POWTS to reflect current chapter Comm 83.
•
Section
Comm 87.20 is amended to clarify that the date of the system installation, not the age of the structure is a factor used in determining eligibility. Also section Comm 87.20 (4) was repealed and recreated to better clarify financial assistance amounts pertaining to existing systems installed for existing and replacement structures.
•
Section Comm 87.60 is proposed to be repealed. The information on this section is proposed to be recreated in sections Comm 87.04 and 87.05 to better separate annual applications by governmental units to the department and applications by governmental units to participate in the program.
The rule revision also includes authority granted in the Wisconsin State Statues as created by
2003 Act 169, relating to the use of holding tank costs when using the least costly method in determining grant awards.
An internet-based search regarding any Federal Regulations relating to a similar grant or loan program resulted in Title 40--Protection of Environment, Chapter I--Environmental Protection Agency Part 35--State and Local Assistance Sec. 35.001 Applicability. Subpart A--Environmental Program Grants. From the information available, it has been determined that these grant programs (
40 CFR part 35-
36) only apply at the municipal level and not for the homeowner or small business owner as in chapter Comm 87.
An internet-based search for comparing similar rules in the four surrounding states resulted in the following: Michigan has a similar program, the Strategic Water Quality Initiatives Fund, which is solely a loan, not a grant, program. This fund has been available since November 2002 and to date no counties have shown interest in participation. An Illinois state revolving fund loan program, Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, has been in effect since 1987. These loans are for municipalities and appear to be related to municipally-owned wastewater treatment facilities. In searching for comparable programs in the states of Iowa and Minnesota; no related funding programs (grants or loans) were found.
The proposed rule revisions were developed with the assistance of the 9-member Wisconsin Fund Advisory Code Council.
Member Representing
Harry Butler WI Onsite Wastewater Recycling Assn.
Ruth Fitzgerald Wisconsin Liquid Waster Carrier Assn.
Dave Jones Plbg, Heating & Cooling Contr. of WI
Tom Larson Wisconsin Realtors Association
Steve Olson Wisconsin Precast Concrete Association
Roger Plesha Wisconsin Counties Association
Ted Rohloff WI County Code Administrators Assn.
Lesley Roll WI County Code Administrators Assn.
Todd Stair Wisconsin Builders Association
Environmental Analysis
Notice is hereby given that the Department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with chapter Comm 1, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.
Individuals or businesses so qualified to conduct POWTS inspections and maintenance may undertake maintenance of newly installed systems that receive financial assistance under the scope of this chapter.
2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
The proposed rules have no additional reporting or bookkeeping requirements, with the exception of possible inspection and maintenance reports.
3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.
No new skills are required. Maintenance, inspection and servicing events will continue to be performed as they are currently performed by an existing pool of credentialled individuals.
Fiscal Estimate
This rule proposal regarding the Wisconsin Fund Program would have no fiscal effect on state and local government because it would not substantially change administrative procedures of this program.
Contact Person
Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Roberta Ward, at the Department of Commerce, Program Development Bureau, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at
rward@commerce.state.wi.us, or at telephone (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
Notice of Hearing
Commerce
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections
101.02 (1) and 101.128 (2) (b) of the statutes, the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on proposed rules for chapter Comm 91, relating to equal speed of access to toilets at facilities where the public congregates.
The public hearing will be held as follows:
Date and Time:
Friday, July 30, 2004, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
Location:
Thompson Commerce Center, Third Floor, Room 3B
201 West Washington Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until August 2, 2004, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. Written comments should be sent by e-mail to
srockweiler@commerce.state.wi.us. If e-mail submittal is not possible, written comments may be addressed to Sam Rockweiler, Department of Commerce, Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 14427, Madison, WI 53708-0427.
This hearing will be held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY) at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability.
Analysis Prepared By Department of Commerce
Under ss.
101.02 (1) and
(15) of the statutes, the Department has authority to protect public health, safety, and welfare, at public buildings and places of employment, by promulgating and enforcing requirements for construction and maintenance of those facilities.
Under section
101.128 (1) (b) of the statutes, a “facility where the public congregates" is defined as having a general capacity or a seating capacity of 500 or more people. Under section
101.128 (2) (b) of the statutes, the Department must establish standards at these facilities, for ensuring that females have a speed of access to toilets which equals the speed of access that males have.
For public buildings, and for other structures and places of employment with public seating, the Department has established these standards in chapters Comm 61 to 65, which is the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code, and in chapter Comm 90, which addresses public swimming pools and other water attractions.
The proposed rules would establish standards for facilities where the public congregates that are not addressed by the minimum number of plumbing fixtures required in chapters Comm 61 to 65, or 90. The proposed rules would not apply to any of these facilities that currently exist, unless either of the following occur: (1) new restrooms or other new toilet facilities are proposed, in which case the rules would apply only to the new restrooms or other new toilet facilities; or (2) more than 50% of the square footage of an existing restroom or other existing toilet facility is renovated, in which case the rules would apply only to the renovated portion.
The proposed ratio of two female toilets for every male toilet and every urinal is identical to the ratio that is contained in the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code, and is consistent with current national-level building code standards, which have been upgraded in recent years to achieve equal speed of access to toilets, particularly where large numbers of the public congregate.
An Internet-based search of existing and proposed federal regulations did not identify any that address equal speed of access to toilets.
An Internet-based search of adjacent states identified only Minnesota as having statewide rules that specify a ratio of female restroom facilities to male restroom facilities, at public gathering places which are similar to those addressed by the rules proposed here for Wisconsin. The Minnesota rules specify that the ratio of water closets for women to the total of water closets and urinals provided for men must be at least three to two, unless there are two or fewer fixtures for men; and this ratio is applied to places of public accommodation that are designed for occupancy by 200 or more people.
Environmental Analysis
Notice is hereby given that the Department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with chapter Comm 1, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.
Owners or operators of amusement or theme parks; or open arenas for rallies, concerts, exhibits or other assemblies, which are not addressed by the minimum plumbing-fixture requirements in either the Wisconsin Commercial Building Code or the Department's rules for public swimming pools and other water attractions.
2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
No significant reporting, bookkeeping or other similar procedures are expected.
3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.
None known.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules are expected to apply to only a small number of places, i.e., those which (1) accommodate 500 or more people and are not addressed by the Department's rules for commercial buildings, or for public swimming pools and other water attraction, and (2) have also been voluntarily provided with separate restrooms or other toilet facilities for males and females. Examples of these places include state or local parks, county or district fairs, and open arenas without a permanent structure for assembly, such as those used for rallies, concerts, exhibits or other assemblies.
The fiscal effect of the proposed rules on these state and municipal places is expected to be insignificant, because (1) the rules would apply only where separate restrooms or other toilet facilities are voluntarily provided; (2) unisex toilets can be provided, which would avoid application of the ratio; (3) portable toilets can be used, since the rules do not mandate water-flush toilets; and (4) the rules would not apply to existing places unless new toilets are provided or major renovation of a toilet facility occurs, in which case the rules would apply only to the new or renovated portion.
Contact Person
Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Roberta Ward at the Department of Commerce, Program Development Bureau, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or at
rward@commerce.state.wi.us, or at telephone (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
Notice of Hearings
Gaming
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
16.004 (1),
227.11 (2) (a),
563.04 (3) and
(14), and
563.05 (2),
(3) and
(4), Stats., and interpreting ss.
563.04,
563.05,
563.93 and
563.935, Stats., the Department of Administration will hold a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapters
Game 41 to
44 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, relating to charitable gaming and crane games.
Hearing Information
Date: August 2, 2004
Time: 10:30 am
Location: Eau Claire County Courthouse Room 2550
721 Oxford Avenue
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
Date: August 2, 2004
Time: 6:00 pm
Location: Oshkosh City Hall
Room 404
215 Church Avenue
Oshkosh, Wisconsin
Date: August 3, 2004
Time: 10:30 am
Location: Waukesha Co. Admin. Bldg. - Room 155
1320 Pewaukee Road
Waukesha, Wisconsin
Date: August 3, 2004
Time: 2:30 pm
Location: Wisconsin Division of Gaming
2005 W. Beltline Hwy, Suite 201
Madison, Wisconsin
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are also urged to submit facts, opinions and arguments in writing as well. Written comments from persons unable to attend the public hearing, or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing, should be directed to: Chris Patton, Department of Administration-Division of Gaming, PO Box 8979, Madison, WI 53708-8979. Written comments must be received by August 4, 2004, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis Prepared By Department of Administration
The Department proposes to revise its administrative code relating to charitable gaming and crane games. The revision process is in response to
2001 Wis. Act 16, requiring the Department to promulgate rules that allow for the sale of equal shares of a single Class A raffle ticket to one or more purchasers. In addition, the revision process was conducted in order to ensure the Department exercises its regulatory oversight functions in an effective and efficient manner.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rule amendments are expected to have no fiscal impact on state or local governments.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rule amendments are expected to have no significant impact on small business.
A copy of the full text of the rule amendments and fiscal estimate may be obtained free of charge on the internet at
www.doa.state.wi.us/gaming, by contacting the Division of Gaming at (608) 270-2555, or by visiting the Division of Gaming's office at the address listed below.
Contact Person
If you have any questions regarding the rule amendments, please contact:
Brian Whittow
Department of Administration – Division of Gaming
2005 W. Beltline Hwy., Suite 201
PO Box 8979
Madison, WI 53708-8979
Telephone: (608) 270-2555
Notice of Hearing
Insurance
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to the authority granted under s.
601.41 (3), Stats., and the procedures set forth in under s.
227.18, Stats., OCI will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the attached proposed rulemaking order affecting ss.
Ins 2.80,
2.81, and Chapter
Ins 50, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to prescribing mortality tables and actuarial opinions, analysis and reports.
Hearing Information
Date: Monday August 2, 2004
Time: 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be reached.
Place: OCI, 2nd Floor,
125 S. Webster Street, Madison, WI
Written comments or comments submitted through the Wisconsin Administrative Rule website at:
https://adminrules.wisconsin.gov on the proposed rule will be considered. The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 7
th day after the date for the hearing stated in this Notice of Hearing.
Written comments should be sent to:
Fred Nepple
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule 2.81
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Analysis
Explanation of the OCI's authority to promulgate the proposed rule:
The proposed rule is promulgated under the commissioner's statutory authority to prescribe valuation of liabilities, non-forfeiture values, and accounting standards and reporting for insurers. The rule is also promulgated under the commissioner's authority to prescribe actuarial reporting and analysis by life insurers.
Related Statutes or rules: The proposed rule amends or references existing rules prescribing valuation of liabilities, non-forfeiture values, and actuarial reporting and analysis under ss.
601.42,
623.02,
623.04,
623.06, and
632.43 and ss.
Ins 2.80 and ch.
50, Wis. Adm. Code.
5. The plain language analysis and summary of the proposed rule:
The proposed rule incorporates the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (“NAIC") 2001 CSO Table into the current reserve and non-forfeiture valuation laws and rules. The rule would establish the new table as the minimum valuation standard for calculating reserves and nonforfeiture benefits for individual life insurance policies and extended term benefits issued after the effective date. The new table would be optional for newly issued policies until January 1, 2009 and mandatory after that date. The proposed rule also corrects references in the current rule establishing valuation standards (s.
Ins 2.80, Wis. Adm. Code). The primary statutes interpreted by the proposed rule are the Standard Valuation Law (s.
623.06) and the Standard Nonforfeiture Law (s.
632.43).
The proposed rule is based on the NAIC model recognition of the 2001 CSO mortality table for use in determining minimum reserve liabilities and nonforfeiture benefits regulation and the NAIC revised model actuarial opinion and memorandum regulation. The CSO mortality table is not included in the NAIC model but is published separately by the NAIC. Accordingly it is adopted by reference under s.
601.41 (3) (b), Stats.
The proposed rule also revises the requirements for life insurers (including fraternals) as regards required actuarial opinions and memoranda. The proposed rule requires all life insurers to perform asset adequacy testing every year. The current rule provides an exemption, or limited scope of compliance, from asset adequacy analysis for smaller companies meeting certain conditions. The proposed rule also prescribes standards for the commissioner's acceptance of actuarial opinions and reporting from companies based on the standards of their state of domicile. In addition, the proposed rule revises the required wording of the actuarial opinion, adds some additional requirements concerning the actuarial opinion and actuarial memorandum, and it creates a new requirement for the preparation of a summary of the actuarial memorandum called the “regulatory asset adequacy issues summary."
NAIC Financial Regulation Standards and Accreditation Committee voted to expose the revised NAIC Actuarial Opinion and Memorandum Regulation for comment for a two-year period, beginning January 1, 2003. The NAIC is seeking comment on whether the revised Model should be adopted as a mandatory requirement for accreditation of a state and may recommend that it be required as an accreditation standard effective in calendar year 2007.
The 2001 CSO mortality table changes are effective for policies issued on or after January 1, 2005. The revised actuarial opinion and memorandum requirements are effective for reporting requirements for calendar year 2005 and subsequent calendar years.
6. Summary of and preliminary comparison with any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule:
Not applicable. There is no such federal regulation.
7. Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states as found by OCI:
Iowa: Iowa has the current version of, and has not adopted the revised, NAIC model actuarial opinion and memorandum regulation. Iowa has adopted the NAIC model recognition of the 2001 CSO mortality table for use in determining minimum reserve liabilities and nonforfeiture benefits regulation.
Illinois: Illinois has the current version of, and has not adopted the revised, NAIC model actuarial opinion and memorandum regulation. Illinois has adopted the NAIC model recognition of the 2001 CSO mortality table for use in determining minimum reserve liabilities and nonforfeiture benefits regulation.
Minnesota: Minnesota has the current version of, and has not adopted the revised, NAIC model actuarial opinion and memorandum regulation. Minnesota has adopted the NAIC model recognition of the 2001 CSO mortality table for use in determining minimum reserve liabilities and nonforfeiture benefits regulation.
Michigan: Michigan has the current version of, and has not adopted the revised, NAIC model actuarial opinion and memorandum regulation. Michigan has not adopted the NAIC model recognition of the 2001 CSO mortality table for use in determining minimum reserve liabilities and nonforfeiture benefits regulation.
Indiana: Indiana has adopted the NAIC revised model actuarial opinion and memorandum regulation. Indiana has adopted the NAIC model recognition of the 2001 CSO mortality table for use in determining minimum reserve liabilities and nonforfeiture benefits regulation.
8. A summary of the factual data and analytical methodologies that OCI used in support of the proposed rule and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen for the proposed rule:
The American Academy of Actuaries report to the NAIC's Life and Health Actuarial Task Force states the basis for its recommendation for the new 2001 CSO mortality table (the basis for OCI's proposal of this rule authorizing the use of the 2001 CSO mortality table) as follows:
“The current statutory valuation standard, the 1980 CSO Table, is more than 20 years old. As is shown in this report, current mortality levels, represented by the 2001 Valuation Basic Table, are lower than the mortality levels underlying the 1980 CSO Table. The current valuation mortality standard produces reserves, excluding deficiency reserves, that overall are higher for the illustrated model office than those produced by the proposed 2001 CSO Table.
At the request of the LHATF, both the SOA and the Academy have worked to develop a proposed mortality table intended to replace the 1980 CSO Table in the current statutory valuation structure. While the Academy's Life Practice Council believes that a move to a valuation system that provides more actuarial flexibility and responsibility to set reserves that reflect individual company characteristics is desirable, we recognize that a new table is appropriate. The new table is more consistent with current experience and will result in reserves, excluding deficiency reserves, that overall are approximately 20 percent lower than those produced by the 1980 CSO Table.
The following analysis compares reserves calculated using the proposed ultimate 2001 CSO Table to those calculated using the ultimate 1980 CSO Table. Deficiency reserves were not considered. CRVM reserves for individual cells were weighted using a relatively simple model office (consisting of three plans, five ages, and both genders) based on industry business distributions obtained from LIMRA International. To produce a single number for comparison, the Academy Task Force assumed that sales levels increased at five percent per year and focused its analysis on results after 10 and 20 years.
Table 1
Comparison of Basic Reserves on the Proposed 2001 CSO Table to Basic Reserves on the 1980 CSO Table
(aggregated results)
After After
10 years
20 years
Overall 79.0% 82.4%
Gender
Male 76.5% 80.2%
Female 85.6% 87.7%
Plan
Whole Life 85.6% 86.9%
20 Year Level Premium Term 68.4% 68.7%
Level Premium to Zero UL 95.0% 98.8%
Age
25 80.9% 84.9%
35 74.8% 79.8%
45 78.7% 82.5%
55 79.8% 81.9%
65 81.2% 84.2%
This table shows that overall basic reserves are about 20 percent lower under the proposed 2001 CSO Table. The reduction is larger for males than for females, reflecting the larger reduction in mortality rates for males. Term insurance exhibits the largest reductions, followed by whole life. The level premium to zero UL plan shows the smallest reductions because reserves cannot be less than cash values and the cash value typically determines the reserve by the sixth to eighth duration under both the new and old tables. When the cash value determines the reserve, reserves are the same under both tables. The biggest reductions will be seen at age 35 while the smallest reductions will be seen at ages 25 and 65."
The proposed revisions to the actuarial opinion and memorandum requirements under ch.
50, Wis. Adm. Code, are based on the recommendations of the NAIC Life and Health Actuarial Task Force (“Task Force") which were adopted by the NAIC in 2001.
All life insurers are required to file an actuarial opinion with their annual financial statement. In 1991, the NAIC adopted the model actuarial opinion and memorandum regulation which, in essence, established a two-tier system for these opinions. Companies whose admitted assets exceed $500 million are required to conduct sufficient tests such that they can certify that their assets “make adequate provision" for their liabilities, i.e., their actuaries must perform an asset adequacy analysis. Under certain conditions, companies whose admitted assets fall below $500 million are exempt from this requirement, and need only certify that their reserves have been computed in accordance with the formulas specified in the law. The Task Force recommended removal of the exemptions, thereby requiring all companies to demonstrate the adequacy of their reserves. The Task Force was in agreement with the position expressed by the State Variations in Valuation Laws Task Force of the American Academy of Actuaries in its May 10, 1996, report.
The Task Force received the assistance of the Actuarial Standards Board, which developed revised standards of actuarial practice relative to this matter. They provide for the actuary to perform necessary testing based on the degree of risk inherent in the contracts sold. This ranges from very little (in some cases only intermittent testing is necessary) to cash flow modeling. This availability of a range of methods will allow each company to choose the one (or combination) which best fits its circumstances, thereby minimizing the expense each will incur in fulfilling this requirement.
The current actuarial opinion and memorandum rule requires all companies to file an actuarial opinion that the reserves 1) meet the requirements of the law of the state of domicile and 2) are at least as great, in the aggregate, as required by the state in which the filing is made. The Task Force recommended that each state provide for three options that may be used in lieu of simply requiring the “state of filing" opinion. In essence, the options permit a “state of domicile" opinion, but they require that certain financial standards be met or that financial information be provided so that the state of filing can make an informed decision as to whether the domestic state's reserve laws, reasonably meet the state of filings standards. The Task Force also recommended, based on experience with the current model regulation, revisions that include updated requirements for documentation of the various assumptions, economic scenarios, and product features incorporated into the asset adequacy analysis and a “Regulatory Asset Adequacy Issues Summary."
9. Any analysis and supporting documentation that OCI used in support of OCI's determination of the rule's effect on small businesses under s.
227.114:
OCI reviewed financial statements and other reports filed by life insurers and fraternal insurers and determined that none qualify as small businesses.
10. If these changes will have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector, the anticipated costs possibly incurred by private sector:
This rule is not expected to have a significant impact on the private sector. There are only a few insurance companies that are not already performing the analysis required by this rule. The few who are newly required to conduct cash flow analysis may incur initial costs of $2500 to $25000. In addition they may require specialized software for an initial cost of $15000. Many companies who are newly required to perform analysis will incur lower costs. Compliance in subsequent years is likely to range in cost from $2500 to $12000.
11. Effect on Small Business:
None
12. Agency contact person:
A copy of the full text of the proposed rule changes, analysis and fiscal estimate may be obtained from the WEB sites at:
Inger Williams, OCI Services Section
Phone:
(608) 264-8110
Email:
Inger.Williams@OCI.State.WI.US
Address:
125 South Webster St – 2
nd Floor
Madison WI 53702
Mail: PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873
13. Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:
The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 7th day after the date for the hearing stated in the Notice of Hearing.
Mailing address:
Fred Nepple
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule 2.81
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Street address:
Fred Nepple
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule 2.81
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor
Madison WI 53702
Fiscal Estimate
There will be no state or local government fiscal effect.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rule does not impose any additional requirements on small businesses.
Contact Person
A copy of the full text of the proposed rule changes, analysis and fiscal estimate may be obtained from the OCI internet WEB site at
http://oci.wi.gov/ocirules.htm or by contacting Inger Williams, Services Section, OCI, at:
Inger.Williams@OCI.State.WI.US, (608) 264-8110, 125 South Webster Street – 2
nd Floor, Madison WI or PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873.
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
(Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
29.014 (1),
29.041,
29.519 (1) (b),
227.11 (2) (a) and
227.24, Stats., interpreting ss.
29.041,
29.014 (1) and
29.519 (1) (b), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on Natural Resources Board Emergency Order No. FH-49-04(E) pertaining to commercial fishing with trap nets in Lake Michigan. This emergency order took effect on June 28, 2004. This rule moves an area designed for commercial trap nets during summer from its present location in waters 75 to 150 feet in depth west and south of Two Rivers to an area of similar depths north of Two Rivers.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearing will be held on:
Monday, August 2, 2004 at 5:30 p.m.
WI Training Room, Lake Shore Tech. College
1290 North Avenue
Cleveland
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that 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 William Horns at (608) 266-8782 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Fiscal Impact
No significant fiscal impact on state and local government is anticipated.
Written comments on the emergency rule may be submitted to Mr. William Horns, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 no later than August 12, 2004. Written comments will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the hearing. A copy of the emergency rule may be obtained from Mr. Horns.
Notice of Hearing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
119.23 (2) (b) and
(11) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting s.
119.23 (2) (b), Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing as follows to consider the amending of Chapter
PI 35, relating to the prorate method to be used under the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. The hearing will be held as follows:
Date & Time Location
August 4, 2004 Milwaukee
4:00 – 6:00 p.m. Milwaukee Area Technical College
700 W. State Street
Room S120
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please contact Tricia Collins, Consultant, Milwaukee Parental Choice Program,
tricia.collins@dpi.state.wi.us, (608) 266-2853, or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY), (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Rule and Contact Person
Lori Slauson, Administrative Rules and Federal Grants
Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mailing or email address no later than August 3, 2004, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis by the Department of Public Instruction
Explanation of agency authority
Section. 119.23 (2) (b), Stats., requires the department to establish a prorate method for the department to utilize when the number of eligible students applying for the program exceeds the statutory limit. Because the department is interpreting the provisions of this statute and administers/enforces the program governed by it, s.
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives the department general rule-making authority.
Section
119.23 (11), Stats., gives the department authority to promulgate rules to implement and administer the entire program.
Court decisions directly relevant: None.
Related statute or rule: None.
Plain language analysis:
Under s.
119.23 (2) (b), Stats., no more than 15% of Milwaukee Public School's (MPS) membership (approximately 15,000 students) may attend private schools under the MPCP. The department is required to prorate the number of spaces available at each participating private school if in any school year there are more spaces available than the maximum number of students allowed to participate in the program. The proposed rules will set forth the process by which the department would prorate student spaces in the MPCP giving preference to pupils in the following order: continuing pupils in the choice program, siblings of continuing pupils, four-year-old kindergarten pupils and their siblings, five-year-old kindergarten pupils and their siblings, and all other pupils. By May 1 the department will notify the parents of eligible pupils whether or not the pupil may apply for the choice program for the upcoming school year.
The rules changed the current admission process by separating it into two parts, one for eligibility determination and one for an application phase. The approximate timeline for the process is as follows:
February – March. The private school must determine a pupil's eligibility to participate in the program.
Within 14 days of the parents request, but no later than April 5, the private school must 1) notify the parent whether or not the pupil is eligible for the program and 2) submit to the department a copy of the pupil's eligibility form approved by the private school.
May. A private school shall accept choice program applications from parents of pupils notified by the department that they may apply for the program.
By June 5, a private school shall notify each applicant and the applicant's parent of his or her acceptance or nonacceptance into the private school.
By June 20, the pupil's parent must notify the private school of the pupil's intent to attend the private school. If such notice is not given, the private school may fill the pupil's seat with another choice pupil.
By June 30, a private school must submit to the department a class list of the choice pupils and the randomly determined choice program waiting list.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulations: None.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states: None.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies:
The department anticipates the program reaching the 15% cap in the 2005-06 school year. Therefore, the prorate process would begin February 1, 2005. The department would like the rule in place as soon as possible in order to provide adequate notice to participating schools and parents.
To determine the prorate method, the department worked with all the participating private schools and interested parties. In an effort to get as much input as possible early on in the process, the department:
Sent out a survey to all current participating schools in December 2003. Of the 106 private schools surveyed, 25 returned the survey. Of those 25 only 7 provided prorate options. The options provided included 1) giving preference to schools with a history of success or long tenure, 2) grandfathering current students, 3) first come, first serve, and 4) using mathematical formulas (percentages, rations, averages, etc.).
Met with the Assembly Committee on Education Reform in January 2004. Department staff discussed committee concerns with the prorate requirement. Members suggested prorate options including grandfathering provisions and mathematical formulas. Some members appeared interested in considering a method that ensures current choice students could continue to participate in the program.
Met with people in small group settings. The options discussed with the small groups included: 1) straight prorate (plain read of the statutes), 2) prorate based on capacity, 3) prorate based on percentage of choice students from prior years, and 4) student-based method with preference given to current students, siblings and kindergarten students.
In summary, the information provided at the above meetings suggested a strong dislike for a straight prorate method. The preferred prorate option appeared to be a method that would give preference to continuing students and their siblings with new available spaces being given to kindergarten students.
The department believes that the prorate method proposed in this rule, based heavily on the input received, is a fair way to implement the prorate requirement under the statute.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report: None.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector: None.
Fiscal Estimate
These rules will not have a fiscal effect on the private schools participating in the program, MPS, or small businesses.
These rules will have a fiscal effect on the department. The department will have to develop a random selection process to determine which students can participate in the program. At a minimum, the department will have to notify 15,000 parents whether or not their child will be able to apply to participate in the program. The department will have an annual cost of $24,600 for postage and printing costs. Because of the application date change, the department will have a one-time cost in FY05 of approximately $16,500 to contract with a private vendor for data entry. In FY05, the first year of implementation of the prorate method, the department will have to enter applications covering two school years. Specifically, the department will have to process 2004-05 applications starting in July 2004 and ending in January 2005 and 2005-06 applications in April 2005. In future years, data entry will only take place in April.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114(1)(a), Stats.
