Address:   125 South Webster St. – 2nd Floor
  Madison WI 53703-3474
Mail:   PO Box 7873, Madison, WI 53707-7873
Analysis Prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI)
Statutes interpreted
Sections 600.01, 601.41 (3), 628.34 (12), Stats.
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The proposed rule is promulgated under the Commissioner's authority to prescribe misleading, deceptive and prohibited practices for insurers and insurance intermediaries.
Related statutes or rules
The proposed rule relates to existing statutes and rules defining misleading, deceptive and prohibited practices for insurers and insurance intermediaries under ch. 628, Wis. Stats., and s. Ins 6.60, Wis. Adm. Code.
Plain language analysis
Chapter Ins 6, Wis. Adm. Code, sets forth general information regarding prohibited business practices insurers and insurance intermediaries. Recently, states have identified a possible fraudulent marketing and sales activity related to the use of senior-specific certifications in the sale of insurance products to seniors. In 2008, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) created a committee to establish a model rule setting standards for the use of senior specific certifications and professional designations by insurance producers in the sale of life insurance and annuities to all consumers regardless of age. The NAIC Model Rule was adopted in July of 2008. The proposed Wisconsin rule follows the NAIC Model with two exceptions. First, the proposed rule adds the term advertising to the list of practices and conduct to which the rule applies. Second, the proposed rule adds health insurance to life insurance an annuity products in the list of insurance products to which the rule applies.
Comparison with federal regulations
The North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) Model Rule, adopted March 20, 2008, addresses the use of senior specific certifications or designations by any person in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of securities. The NAIC Model Rule, adopted in September of 2008, addresses the use of senior specific certifications and professional designations by insurance producers in the sale of life insurance and annuities.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
To date, Iowa is the sole state, adjacent to Wisconsin to adopt the NAIC Model Rule. Nationally, several non-adjacent states have adopted the NAIC Model Rule, including, California, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Utah. Similar legislation is pending in Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia. The degree to which each state's regulations track the Model Rule varies widely. Utah and Ohio also expanded the scope of the regulation to include health insurance.
Illinois: n/a
Iowa Administrative Code 191-10.19, tracks the NAIC Model Rule.
Michigan: n/a
Minnesota: n/a
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
OCI review of complaints, NAIC models, similar legislation in other states, and insurer's financial information.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small businesses
This rule relates to prohibited business practices of insurance intermediaries and there is no significant effect on small businesses.
Small Business Impact
This rule does not impose any additional requirements on small businesses and will have little or no effect on small businesses.
The OCI small business coordinator is Eileen Mallow and may be reached at phone number (608) 266-7843 or at email address
Fiscal Estimate
State or local government fiscal effect
There will be no state or local government fiscal effect.
Private sector fiscal effect
This rule change will have no significant effect on the private sector regulated by OCI.
Notice of Hearings
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 85.16 (1), 86.31 (6) and 227.11 (2), Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold public hearings at the following locations to consider the creation of Chapter Trans 206, relating to the local roads improvement program.
Hearing Information
Monday, July 20, 2009 — 1:00 PM
Department of Transportation
Hill Farms State Transportation Building
4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 144-B
Madison, WI
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 — 12:00 Noon
North Central Technical College
1000 W. Campus Drive, Main Building
Room E101
Wausau, WI
An interpreter for the hearing impaired will be available on request for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
Parking for persons with disabilities and an accessible entrance are available.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the proposed rule may be obtained upon request from Lori Richter, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads & Harbors, Room 951, P. O. Box 7913, Madison, WI 53707-7913. You may also contact Lori by phone at (608) 266-0254 or via e-mail:
Agency Contact Person and Submission of Written Comments
The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until August 5, 2009, to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at either hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to:
Lori Richter, Department of Transportation
Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Railroads & Harbors
Room 951
P. O. Box 7913
Madison, WI 53707-7913.
Phone: (608) 266-0254
To view the proposed amendments to the rule, view the current rule, and submit written comments via e-mail/internet, you may visit the following website:
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Statutes interpreted
Sections 86.31(1) (am), (b) and (c), (2) (a), (b), (d) and (e), (3g), (3r) and (6) (d), (f), (g) and (h), Stats.
Statutory authority
Sections 85.16 (1), 86.31 (6) and 227.11 (2), Stats.
Explanation of agency authority
Chapter Trans 206 interprets and administers s. 86.31, Stats., the local roads improvement program. Section 86.31 was revised in 1999 Wis. Act 9 (eff. October 29, 1999), in 2001 Wis. Act 16 (eff. September 1, 2001), in 2003 Wis. Act 33 (eff. July 26, 2003), and in 2005 Wis. Act 25 (eff. July 27, 2005). The proposed rule will incorporate these statutory revisions and other related changes.
Related statute or rule
Sections 84.01 (9) and 84.02 (11), Stats.
Plain language analysis
1997 Wis. Act 27, s. 86.31 (3g), Stats., incorporates the county highway improvement discretionary program (CHIP-D) for high cost county highway projects of at least $250,000 in eligible total project costs. This proposed rule making creates procedures and criteria for the selection of projects.
1999 Wis. Act 9, s. 86.31 (3r), Stats., created a new Municipal Street Improvement Discretionary Program (MSIP-D) to fund a competitive, municipal street improvement program similar to the existing discretionary programs for high-cost town roads and county highways. It specified that eligible projects must have a total estimated cost of at least $250,000. This proposed rule making creates procedures and criteria for the selection of projects.
This proposed rule making amends s. Trans 206.03 (14) to indicate that it applies to recipients of entitlement projects only; it does not apply to recipients of CHIP-D, TRIP-D or MSIP-D projects.
1999 Wis. Act 9 requires the Department to amend ch. Trans 206, relating to the Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP), to incorporate the changes set forth in the Act regarding the provisions for projects that can be done by county highway departments and the solicitation and awarding of bids for town projects.
1999 Wis. Act 9 eliminates the provisions set forth in s. 86.31 (2) (d) 1., 2. and 3., Stats., that restrict the amount of work on county trunk highways that may be done by county highway departments under the county highway improvement program (CHIP) and CHIP-D.
1999 Wis. Act 9 provides that county highway departments may do work under the basic county highway improvement program or the discretionary county highway improvement discretionary program if they demonstrate that doing so will be cost-effective, provided that each county highway department uses competitive bidding for the funds provided by the state under the CHIP and the CHIP-D programs.
The Act eliminates the provision that requires each county highway improvement district committee to ensure compliance with the provisions related to the amount of work that may be done by county highway departments and, instead, requires these committees to: (1) review each project proposed by a county highway department and to determine if it would be cost-effective for the county highway department to perform the work; and (2) to approve the proposed project prior to its being performed by the county highway department.
The Act modifies the membership of each county highway improvement district committee to specify that it shall be composed of the highway commissioners from each county in the Wisconsin County Highway Association district.
The Act requires DOT to amend the existing rule to include: (a) criteria for determining whether a project can be done cost-effectively by county highway departments; and (b) procedures for departmental review of disputes relating to whether proposed work by a county highway department is cost-effective.
The Act eliminates the provision in s. 86.31 (2) (b), Stats., that allows towns to contract with counties to perform work under the town road improvement program and the town road improvement discretionary programs (TRIP and TRIP-D) if the town does not receive a responsible bid on a project. Instead, the Department must amend ch. Trans 206 to include criteria and procedures for determining when a contract for a project under the TRIP and TRIP-D programs may be awarded to a county. The criteria must include: (a) a requirement that a written and sealed estimate of the cost of the improvement that includes the source of the estimate be prepared prior to the time set for the opening of bids for the improvement and not be opened until after the opening of all bids; (b) a requirement that all bids may be rejected and the contract awarded to a county for the improvement if the lowest bid exceeds the cost estimate by at least 10% and the town board notifies the lowest two bidders or, if only one bid was received, the single bidder, to provide information on the accuracy of the cost estimate; (c) a requirement that the amount of the contract with a county for the improvement be at least 10% below the lowest bid received for the improvement; and (d) a provision that permits re-bidding if the amount of the proposed contract with a county for the improvement is less than 10% below the lowest bid received for the improvement.
The proposed rule limits the number of times a project may be substituted under the LRIP program to one, requires county highway commissioners to review and maintain required documents for project approved within their counties, except for applications from cities or villages with populations of 20,000 or more. It also requires funds committed under the LRIP to be reimbursed within three biennia of when the funds were originally committed. It also requires that the number of projects that can be submitted in a given biennium for funding under TRIP and MSIP less than 20,000 in population is not to exceed one half of the number of towns or eligible cities or villages.
Comparison with federal regulations
This is a state program for local governments assisting in the improvement of deteriorating local highways, streets and roads. There are no existing or proposed federal regulations.
Comparison with rules in the following states
No similar program.
Links to Admin. Code and Statutes in this Register are to current versions, which may not be the version that was referred to in the original published document.