Exemption from required uninsured motorist, underinsured motorist and medical payment coverages.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Finding/Nature of Emergency
There is no emergency.
2. Detailed Description of the Objective of the Rule
The proposed rule will repeal the exemptions contained in Ins s.
6.77 (3) (am),
(4) (am) and
(b), and
(6), Wis. Adm. Code, as these provisions are no longer required in the administrative code due to recently enacted legislation.
2011 Wisconsin Acts 14 and
224 created identical exemptions as contained in these sections of s.
Ins 6.77, Wis. Adm. Code, therefore rendering s.
Ins 6.77 (3) (am),
(4) (am) and
(b), and
(6), Wis. Adm. Code, duplicative and unnecessary. The proposed rule will lessen confusion and administrative burdens on regulated insurers issuing policies affected by these provisions.
3. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
The proposed rule will repeal exemptions contained in s.
Ins 6.77 (3) (am),
(4) (am) and
(b), and
(6), Wis. Adm. Code, that are identical to exemptions recently added to s.
632.32 (4) and
(4m), Wis. Stats. In particular,
2011 Wisconsin Acts 14 and
224 created exemptions for excess and umbrella policies and commercial liability policies covering only non-owned autos from having to offer or include uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage and medical payment coverage. The proposed rule repealing s.
6.77 (3) (am),
(4) (am) and
(b), and
(6), Wis. Adm. Code, will remove redundant provisions and reduce the risk of confusion.
4. Detailed Statutory Authority for the Rule
Under s.
631.01 (5), Stats., the commissioner is given authority to exempt certain classes of insurance from the requirements of s.
631.36 or
632.32, Stats. The commissioner has previously exercised this authority at various times in adopting and amending s.
Ins 6.77, Wis. Adm. Code, and in this proposed rule to remove the exemptions.
5. Estimates of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
200 hours and no other resources are necessary to develop the rule.
6. List with Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
No impact is anticipated by the repeal, since it maintains the status quo.
7. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of Any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by this rule.
8. Anticipated Economic Impact of Implementing the Rule (Note if the Rule is Likely to Have a Significant Economic Impact on Small Businesses)
significant economic impact on small businesses?
yes
X no
local/statewide economic impact (choose one)
X minimal or none (< or = $50,000)
moderate ($50,000--$20,000,000)
significant (>$20,000,000)
Contact person
Justice
The statement of scope was approved by the governor on September 25, 2014.
Rule No.
Relating to
Awards for victims of crime.
Rule Type
Permanent.
Subject
The proposed rules will be additions to the regulations relating to awards for victims of crime contained in Wis. Admin. Code Chapter
Jus 11. The new proposed rules would govern the provision of awards to health care providers under the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (“SAFE") program outlined in Subchapter
II of Chapter 949 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Under the SAFE program, a health care provider who performs a forensic examination on a sexual assault victim may apply for an award for the cost of the examination
regardless of whether the victim cooperates with law enforcement.
Objective of the Rule
The State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (the “department") proposes to promulgate rules, as required by Wis. Stat. s.
949.22, for the provision of awards to health care providers under the SAFE program. The proposed rules have the specific objectives of establishing guidelines for examinations, procedures, tests and medications that will be paid for as “examination costs" under Wis. Stat. s.
949.20 (3) and establishing procedures to ensure that any limitation of an award is calculated in a fair and equitable manner. The rules will comply with the statutory requirement in Wis. Stat. s.
949.22 “that any limitation of an award is calculated in a fair and equitable manner."
Policy Analysis
No existing rules will be changed because there are no existing administrative rules governing the SAFE program. The department currently makes SAFE compensation awards to health care providers on a case-by-case basis based on the statutory language in Chapter
949. There are no alternatives to the proposed rules because the statutes direct the department to promulgate rules for SAFE compensation awards.
Statutory Authority
The proposed rules will implement subchapter II of chapter 949, Wis. Stats. ss.
949.20 through
949.38, which governs SAFE compensation awards to health care providers
. Wisconsin Stat. s.
949.22 explicitly directs the department to “promulgate rules for the implementation and operation of this subchapter" and that the rules “include procedures to ensure that any limitation of an award is calculated in a fair and equitable manner."
Entities Affected by the Rule
The proposed rule will primarily affect health care providers that perform examinations under the department's Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (“SANE") program and the department, which makes SAFE compensation awards and will administer the rule.
Comparison with Federal Regulations
The proposed rules will comply with 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-4(b)(2) and (d)(1), which provides that states may not receive federal funding to compensate patients or health care providers for the cost of forensic examinations unless the sexual assault victim receives the examination free of charge and without regard to whether the victim participates in the criminal justice system or cooperates with law enforcement. There is no other specific existing or proposed federal regulation that addresses the activities to be regulated by the rule.
Economic Impact
The department anticipates that the rule revision will have minimal or no economic impact, either locally or statewide.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
180 hours.
Agency Contact
Jill Karofsky, Director, Office of Crime Victims Services, Wisconsin Department of Justice, 17 West Main Street, Post Office Box 7951, Madison, WI 53707-7951, (608) 264-9497,
karofskyjj@doj.state.wi.us.
Justice
The statement of scope was approved by the governor on September 30, 2014.
Rule No.
Relating to
The sale and distribution of oleoresin of capsicum devices to private citizens.
Rule Type
Permanent.
1. Description of the Objective of the Rule
The objective of this rule is to repeal Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Jus 14 regarding oleoresin of capsicum (“pepper spray") devices because this administrative rule chapter can no longer be enforced by the Wisconsin Department of Justice (“DOJ"). Pepper spray devices are described in Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (a) as “any device or container that contains a combination of oleoresin of capsicum and inert ingredients but does not contain any other gas or substance that will cause bodily discomfort."
Section
10 of
2013 Wisconsin Act 77 (“Act 77") created Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (m), which expressly prohibits DOJ from enforcing any rule that regulates pepper spray devices. Wisconsin Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (m) states: “The department of justice may not promulgate or enforce any rule that regulates a device or container described under par. (a)."
2. Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed To Be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background, and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Prior to Act 77, Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (i) 2. required DOJ to promulgate rules governing standards for pepper spray devices, including percentage of active ingredients, range of spray, and weight. In addition, Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (j) 2. required DOJ to promulgate rules governing safety packaging for pepper spray devices. The statute also made it a Class A misdemeanor to sell a pepper spray device that did not satisfy DOJ's safety rules or include the required packaging.
See Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (i) 1. and
(j) 1. (2011-12).
Act 77 has repealed Wis. Stat. s 941.26 (4) (i), including both subparagraphs 1. and 2. DOJ's authority to promulgate rules governing standards for pepper spray devices has been eliminated, as has the prohibition on the sale of pepper spray devices that do not meet those standards.
Act 77 also repealed Wis. Stat. s. 941.26 (4) (j) 2., thereby eliminating DOJ's authority to promulgate rules governing safety packaging for pepper spray devices. The remaining portions of Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (j) have been revised and amended so that it is now a Class A misdemeanor to sell a pepper spray device that does not come with a proper label and written safety instructions. The previous requirement prohibiting sale of a device that did not comply with DOJ's safety packaging rules has been eliminated.
In addition, Act 77 created Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (m), which expressly prohibits DOJ from promulgating or enforcing any rule that regulates pepper spray devices.
It is clear from these provisions that Act 77 has eliminated DOJ's former rulemaking authority under Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 and has rendered legally unenforceable Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Jus 14. That chapter of the administrative code is without legal effect, and DOJ has no further rulemaking responsibilities vis-à-vis pepper spray devices.
To reflect the public policy of Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (m) and to eliminate possible confusion to the public of having Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Jus 14 in the administrative code, DOJ proposes this permanent rule.
3. Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
A. Wis. Stat. s.
227.10 (2): “No agency may promulgate a rule which conflicts with state law."
DOJ finds that Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Jus 14 conflicts with state law in Wis. Stat. s.
941.26 (4) (m). DOJ's repeal of Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Jus 14 will effectuate the public policy in Wis. Stat. s.
227.10 (2).
(2) Rule-making authority is expressly conferred on an agency as follows:
(a) Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation. All of the following apply to the promulgation of a rule interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by an agency:
1. A statutory or nonstatutory provision containing a statement or declaration of legislative intent, purpose, findings, or policy does not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency's rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature.
2. A statutory provision describing the agency's general powers or duties does not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency's rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature.
3. A statutory provision containing a specific standard, requirement, or threshold does not confer on the agency the authority to promulgate, enforce, or administer a rule that contains a standard, requirement, or threshold that is more restrictive than the standard, requirement, or threshold contained in the statutory provision.
This statute confers on DOJ the power to determine whether existing administrative rules interpreting the statutory provisions created and amended by Act 77—rules which are no longer to be enforced or administered by DOJ—are necessary to effectuate the purpose of Act 77. DOJ finds that Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Jus 14 is no longer necessary to effectuate the purpose of Act 77, and in fact would conflict with Act 77. Since DOJ finds that Wis. Admin. Code ch.
Jus 14 is no longer necessary and is in fact contrary to public policy, DOJ has the authority to promulgate an administrative rule to repeal the existing rules, as long as the proposed rule does not exceed the bounds of correct interpretation of the governing statutes.
4. Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees Will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
It is estimated that state employees will spend approximately 8 hours on the rulemaking process for the proposed rule, including research, drafting, and compliance with required rulemaking procedures.
5. Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
DOJ does not believe that any entities will be impacted by the rule.
6. Summary and Preliminary Comparison of Any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
