•
The name and contact information of the accredited institution of higher learning.
•
A list of specific classes to be taken to complete the bachelor's degree, including updates of any changes that have occurred in the applicant's plan.
•
If applicable, an official transcript showing courses already completed that count toward the bachelor's degree.
•
Information demonstrating a bachelor's degree from the accredited institution of higher education can be issued within five years under the plan proposed by the applicant.
Finally, no waiver granted under these rules is valid after July 31, 2015.
The Act required permanent rules be submitted to the Legislative Council by October 1, 2009. The permanent rule process is nearly complete but emergency rules are being promulgated to establish the waiver application requirements prior to the July 1, 2010, teacher criteria deadline, established under s.
119.23 (2) (c), Stats.
Comparison with federal regulations
N/A
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota do not have rules relating to private school voucher programs.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The waiver granted under these rules is only available to teachers that meet the requirements on July 1, 2010 and valid until July 31, 2015. The information required in the rule is typical of information requested from regular teachers in determining whether they are on-track to receiving proper certification.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
N/A.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A.
Small Business Fiscal Impact
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
The rule sets forth the process to issue a temporary, nonrenewable waiver for eligible teachers who have been teaching in a participating private school but do not meet the new licensing requirement created by
2009 Wis. Act 28 under s.
119.23 (2) (a) 6. a, Stats.
The rules will have no local fiscal effect and will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
The costs associated with the new waiver application process and review will be absorbed by the department.
Agency Contact Person
Robert Soldner, Director
School Management Services
Phone: (608) 266-7475
Notice of Hearing
Transportation
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
85.16 (1),
227.11,
343.02 and
344.66, Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing to consider the amendment of Chapter
Trans 100, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to license reinstatement.
Hearing Information
Date: July 21, 2010
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Location: Hill Farms State Transportation Bldg.
Room 144-B
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
Madison, WI
This hearing is held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call Reginald Paradowski at (608) 264-7002 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in alternative format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability to accommodate your needs.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the rule may be obtained upon request from Reginald Paradowski, Section Chief, Division of Motor Vehicles, Driver Information Section, Room 301, P. O. Box 7983, Madison, WI 53707-7983. You may also contact Mr. Paradowski by phone at (608) 264-7002 or via e-mail:
reginald.paradowski@wisconsin.gov to obtain copies of the proposed rule. Copies will also be available at the hearing.
Submittal of Written Comments
The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until close of business the day of the hearing to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at the hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to Reginald Paradowski, Section Chief, Division of Motor Vehicles, Driver Information Section, Room 301, P. O. Box 7983, Madison, WI 53707-7983, or by calling (608) 264-7002. You may also contact Mr. Paradowski via e-mail at:
dotuninsuredmotorist@dot.wi.gov.
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Department is charged with administering the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws contained in Ch.
344. This rule making deals with reinstatement of operating privileges following suspension for nonpayment of a damage judgment. The Department is also charged with administering provisions of the mandatory insurance law, Subchapter
VI to Ch.
344, Stats. This rule making implements that new law.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
This proposed rule making revises those provisions of Ch.
Trans 100 to reflect statutory requirements and to codify DMV practices and procedures that are used in the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. The damage judgment law provides that a driver's operating privilege may be suspended for up to 20 years if the driver fails to pay down the judgment to the same extent it would have been paid had the driver carried the minimum insurance required under Wisconsin's safety responsibility law. The safety responsibility law requires drivers involved in accidents without insurance to post a deposit with the Department to cover potential damages resulting from the accident. Failure to post the deposit results in suspension of operating privileges.
A second objective of this rule making, discussed below, is to establish standards for filings made in lieu of insurance with the Department pursuant to s.
344.63, Stats., as created by
2009 Wis. Act 28, and establish any other regulations made necessary by Wisconsin's new mandatory insurance law.
Safety Responsibility and Damage Judgment Law Related Proposed Rules
Section
344.01 (2) (d), Stats., sets minimum mandatory insurance limits in Wisconsin of $50,000 because of bodily injury to or death of one person in any one accident and, subject to such limit for one person, in the amount of $100,000 because of bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any one accident and in the amount of $15,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one accident.
1 Section
344.26 (3), Stats., provides that unpaid damage judgments in excess of those amounts are “deemed satisfied" for purposes of the damage judgment law when payments in those amounts have been credited to the judgments. Payments made in settlement of any claims because of bodily injury, death or property damage arising from a motor vehicle accident are credited in reduction of the respective amounts so specified.
1 These dollar amounts can be adjusted in accordance with variance in the consumer price index beginning in 2017. The rule text reflects this fact, but for purposes of the analysis, the current $15,000, $50,000 and $100,000 amounts shall be used to simplify the text and improve the understandability of the analysis.
It should be noted in this regard that the term “satisfied" as used in ss.
344.25 to
344.27, Stats., is not used in the commonly understood legal parlance of the term. Ordinarily, to lawyers, “satisfaction" of a judgment means the payment of all amounts due under the judgment. In s.
344.26(3), Stats., however, the different meaning described in the preceding paragraph is ascribed to the term solely for purposes of the damage judgment law. This is consistent with the safety responsibility law. Under the safety responsibility law, a person who had a contract of insurance with the minimum coverages described in s.
344.01(2)(d), Stats., would not be subject to that law's bond requirements. s.
344.14 (2) (a), Stats.
This proposed rule making would amend Ch.
Trans 100 to make clear that payment of a judgment to the $15,000 for property damage plus $50,000 or $100,000 level for injuries is sufficient to warrant release of any damage judgment suspension by the Division of Motor Vehicles. It also imposes a requirement that any settlement agreement between the parties state the nature of the damages involved and the amount at which the possibility of re-suspension under the DMV damage judgment law expires.
An additional proposed amendment to Ch.
Trans 100 is intended to resolve a potential ambiguity in ss.
344.25 to
344.27, Stats. Since the inception of this program, DOT has interpreted those statutes as permitting release of a DMV damage judgment suspension once upon a debtor driver entering into a private repayment agreement and once upon that debtor driver obtaining a court-ordered repayment plan under s.
344.27, Stats. DMV has required satisfaction of the judgment as a condition of reinstatement following default on any judicial plan because of the s.
344.27(3), Stats., requirement that “[I]f the judgment debtor fails to pay any installment as specified by such order, the secretary, upon notice of such default, shall immediately suspend the operating privilege and registrations of the judgment debtor until such judgment is satisfied as provided in s.
344.26." In drafting this rule, the Department considered whether it could permit these steps to be done in a different sequence and whether multiple agreements could be permitted.
In the end, the Department concluded that the above-quoted language of s.
344.27(3), Stats., prevents DMV from permitting reinstatement of operating privileges following default on a court-ordered repayment plan unless the driver (or someone on the driver's behalf) actually pays $15,000, $50,000 or $100,000, as appropriate, to the judgment creditor. DMV also concluded that it would not permit repeated private repayment agreements for a single damage judgment. The proposed rule reflects these determinations.
Amendments to s.
Trans 100.08(1) are proposed merely to eliminate inconsistent use of language in the amended paragraphs. The paragraphs amended used alternatively the term “check" or the term “draft," when either a check or a draft is adequate in any of those instances and either is accepted by DMV. The amendments simply make it clear that either is acceptable in lieu of cash.
Finally, the unencumbered asset base formula amount required for self-insurance in s.
Trans 100.16(4)(a) is raised from $60,000 to $115,000 to match the new minimum liability limits required under state law. The formula is expressed in a manner that will allow the amount to rise or fall as minimum insurance limits rise or fall under s.
344.11, Stats.
Mandatory Insurance Related Proposed Rules
As stated above, one purpose of this proposed rule making is to set interim standards for filings made in lieu of insurance with the Department pursuant to s.
344.63, Stats., as created by
2009 Wis. Act 28. The statutes require the Department to accept and release deposits made in lieu of mandatory insurance under particular circumstances, and these rules cannot modify those statutorily established requirements. The Department believes the legislature may wish to consider modifying some of those requirements in the future because the effects of some of the provisions may undermine the legislature's apparent intentions in enacting the laws. These effects are explained below.
One deposit accepted in lieu of insurance under s.
344.63, Stats., is $60,000 cash. The $60,000 amount is set in the statutes and is far less than the minimum insurance required under the law. U.S. currency, cashiers and certified checks, money orders, bank checks, and attorney trust fund checks may be accepted as a cash deposit by the Department. In addition to depositing cash, the depositor must prove no judgments are outstanding against the depositor in the depositor's county of residence. s.
344.37(1), Stats.
A second deposit accepted by the Department is a bond. There are two types of bonds. First, a bond issued by a surety company for the minimum liability coverage amounts required by law (currently $15,000 property, $50,000 personal injury to one person, $100,000 personal injury of multiple persons). The bond will need to be in a form approved by the Department. The other form of bond permitted under the statutes is a judicial bond. If requested, judges will have to approve or disapprove of applications to create a bond secured by $330,000 in real estate (twice the amount of the bond).
The third mechanism available under the statute is posting securities. Securities are the most problematic from an administrative and enforcement standpoint. The value of securities can vary greatly over time. The Department cannot and will not know the value of securities after deposit. The burden will be on the depositor to be able to prove the value of any securities deposited with the Department to police when asked. Deposits of securities must be accompanied by an opinion of counsel verifying that the securities meet the statutory requirements for use in lieu of insurance. The depositor will need to provide an affidavit as to the value of the securities at the time of deposit and will need to pledge the securities in a manner that permits the Department to sell them in order to use the proceeds to satisfy damages resulting from accidents. The share or bond certificates will need to be physically deposited with the Department. The Department proposes in this rulemaking to require that the securities be of a type readily sold on a recognized market, such as the NASDAQ or New York Stock Exchange, so that DMV has a means of converting the securities to cash if the securities must be used to pay damages resulting from an accident. Securities in closely held corporations, certificates of deposit that are subject to early withdrawal penalties, and other types of securities that are not readily converted to cash would not be accepted. Minimum standards of capitalization and liquidity are suggested as mechanisms for ensuring that penny stocks and unmarketable securities that are difficult to sell will not be accepted.
As set forth at the outset of this plain language analysis, there are some issues related to the return of deposits made in lieu of mandatory insurance established by the new mandatory insurance law that may merit further legislative attention. For example, s.
344.63(3)(a) provides that any bond, cash or securities deposited in lieu of insurance with the Department would have to be returned to the depositor if the owner or operator of the vehicle for whom the deposit was made obtains insurance, dies, becomes permanently incapacitated to operate a motor vehicle, no longer holds a valid operator's license or no longer owns a motor vehicle registered with the Department. The Department lacks authority under that statute to retain any bond or deposit to satisfy damages resulting from an accident once any of those events triggering return of the deposit occurs.
Because of this statutory requirement, the person posting the bond or deposit will have ample opportunity to withdraw any deposit prior to the Department being able to apply it to any judgment for damages for the injured party's benefit. For example, if the depositor were to be involved in an accident, he or she could walk into any DMV service center, surrender his or her license and demand return of the deposit. Under the new law, DMV has a ministerial non-discretionary responsibility to return the deposit, even if the Department knows that the accident has occurred. Once the deposit is returned, the driver can request DMV reinstate his or her license, and DMV is required to do so. Similarly, if the driver who made the deposit in lieu of insurance killed himself by negligently causing an accident injuring others, the Department is required to return the deposit to the depositor's estate and cannot retain the deposit for the benefit of the persons the depositor negligently injured. In these and other foreseeable types of situations, the deposit made in lieu of insurance would not be available to satisfy the damages suffered by those injured in the accident. The legislature may wish, at some point, to consider amending the statutory provisions that lead to such results so that deposits made in lieu of insurance could be held by the Department in order to help offset damages caused by drivers using deposits in lieu of insurance.
Comparison with federal regulations
There are no existing or proposed federal regulations on this issue.
Comparison with rules in the following states
Michigan:
Owners of passenger vehicles, vans, and light trucks must purchase Michigan no-fault insurance before registering their vehicle. Out-of-state insurance policies cannot be used to meet Michigan insurance requirements for registering a vehicle. Motorcycles must also be insured, but it is not no-fault insurance.
Required coverages include bodily injury/property damage, personal injury protection, and property protection insurance. These required coverages do not pay for damage to vehicles or cover theft. Drivers may carry collision coverage (damage) and comprehensive coverage (theft) at their option.
Drivers are required to keep a Michigan no-fault insurance certificate in their vehicle or carry it with them when they drive. If they cannot show proof of insurance to a law enforcement officer, their operating privilege or vehicle registration may be suspended.
Persons (usually companies) owning more than 25 vehicles may be exempt from the mandatory insurance requirement by obtaining a certificate of self insurance from the Michigan Secretary of State. Applicants must have a net worth in excess of $20 million to be exempt from carrying insurance, or a have net worth in excess of $5 million and carry an excess insurance policy. Section R 257.532, Michigan Admin. Code.
Department staff did not find any provision of Michigan law allowing deposits in lieu of insurance similar to those set forth in s.
344.63, Stats.
Michigan has a damage judgment law similar to Wisconsin's. If someone is driving a vehicle without insurance and is at-fault in an accident, the injured party may file a suit against the uninsured motorist in court for damages. The court may award a judgment for damages to the injured party against the uninsured motorist. Unlike Wisconsin, if the uninsured motorist cannot pay the judgment, their driver license is suspended until the judgment is paid in full. Wisconsin requires only that the minimum mandatory insurance amounts be paid before a driver may reinstate his or her license.
Michigan does not have a safety responsibility law similar to Wisconsin's.
Minnesota:
The Minnesota No-Fault Act (M.S. 65B.48), requires owners of registered motor vehicles to maintain no-fault insurance. The law makes it a crime for a vehicle owner to operate or permit operation of any uninsured motor vehicle or motorcycle upon any public road, street, or highway. Violation of the law can result in fines or imprisonment and/or loss of driving privileges.
Drivers must carry liability, personal injury protection, uninsured motorist, and underinsured motorist coverage. Collision and comprehensive coverage are optional.
Minnesota Law (M.S.
169.791) requires drivers to carry proof of insurance in the vehicle at all times and to provide it to peace officers upon demand.
Minnesota does not appear to have a safety responsibility law. Minn. Stat. 171.182 provides for revocation of operating privileges for drivers who have unpaid damage judgments resulting from automobile accidents. Unlike Wisconsin, complete payment of the judgment is required prior to reinstatement.
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.
Drivers operating without proof of insurance in Illinois, are subject to a five hundred dollar fine and a sixty day suspension of vehicle registration. Illinois requires drivers to carry bodily injury liability limits of $20,000/$40,000, property damage liability limits of $15,000, and uninsured motorist coverage.
Illinois does not appear to have a safety responsibility law. Illinois law does provide for revocation of operating privileges for drivers who have unpaid damage judgments resulting from automobile accidents. Unlike Wisconsin, complete payment of the judgment is required prior to reinstatement.
