101 S Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-2452
Regulation and Licensing
Subject
Revises section
RL 25.02 (2), relating to the number of required educational programming hours for initial licensure as a real estate broker.
Objective of the Rule
This rule will increase the number of required educational programming hours necessary to obtain initial licensure as a real estate broker in Wisconsin from 36 hours to 72 hours.
Policy Analysis
The current rule, s.
RL 25.02 (1) (a), requires an applicant for initial broker licensure to present evidence satisfactory to the department of successful completion, within 5 years before application for a license, of the educational program in sub. (2), which has been approved in accordance with this chapter, and either satisfy the salesperson's educational requirements in s.
RL 25.03 (3) or present evidence satisfactory to the department of licensure as a salesperson.
The educational program stipulated in sub. (2) states that an approved educational program will cover a required set of topics, that if doing so in a classroom setting, would be presented in a period of no less than 36 hours. The proposed change to the rule would require an additional 36 hours of education, for a minimum of 72 hours.
The need for such a rule change is two-fold: first, it will require greater education and knowledge for those entering this profession, which will directly benefit the applicant, as well as the public in that it helps to ensure the safe and competent practice of said professionals. Second, this rule change will bring Wisconsin more in line with other jurisdictions throughout the country that have significantly higher pre-license education requirements for those seeking licensure as a real estate broker.
This rule change will have clear implications for prospective broker applicants, as well as implications on the current structure of approved educational programs for real estate training in the new and/or additional courses may need to be developed. However, pre-licensure educational training is offered on a wide scale locally and nationally, thereby reducing the significance of any impact that might result from this rule change.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation regarding this matter as it is a regulatory activity undertaken by individual states.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Applicants for first-time real estate broker licensure, institutions of higher education offering pre-license education courses and other course providers.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
150 hours.
Transportation
Subject
Revises Chapter
Trans 101, relating to the Graduated Driver License, demerit points for parking violations, and demerit points for serious traffic offenses.
Objective of the Rule
Section
Trans 101.10 administratively interprets the Graduated Driver License (GDL) retractions and extensions. The GDL allows novice drivers (ages 15
½ to 18) to gain knowledge and driving experience while under the supervision of an experienced mentor under a specified set of restrictions as they progress through the learning stages. Restrictions are extended if the driver violates these restrictions, is convicted of a moving traffic violation, or if the person's license is revoked or suspended for any reason.
For efficiency, DMV has made its demerit point regulations consistent with Graduated Driver License provisions. This also makes the law considerably easier to administer and explain to drivers. In working on one individual case that recently arose, however, DMV discovered an inconsistency between the regulations that needs to be corrected.
Currently, DMV is treating convictions for parking on a highway under ss.
346.475,
346.51 (1) and
346.52 (1) (f), Stats., as moving violations and assessing two demerit points per violation. In contrast, parking convictions under s.
346.51 (1), Stats., are not treated as moving violations and no demerit points are assessed for those violations. Parking is not a moving violation; it is the exact opposite — a violation that occurs when vehicle operation ceases. Accordingly, parking violation should not extend GDL restrictions. (See s.
343.085 (2m) (b) 1. a., Stats.)
A further ambiguity in Ch.
Trans 101 that needs to be addressed is related to offenses that occur on a highway but outside of traffic lanes. Section
Trans 101.02 (4) (d) assesses two demerit points for parking on a highway in a traffic lane. No demerit points are assessed for parking on a highway but off the roadway under s.
Trans 101.02 (5) (sm). The rule does not address parking that falls into neither category: parking on a highway, on a roadway, but outside of a traffic lane. When ch.
Trans 101 was first promulgated, there were few paved shoulders on state highways, so this inconsistency would not have been important. Today, however, such violations are not uncommon and the rule should specify the demerit point repercussions of such violations.
DMV's current practice of attempting to distinguish between on and off roadway parking or between in and out of traffic lane parking is problematic. Because the offenses themselves do not include these items as elements of the offense, DMV is forced to attempt to discern the nature of the charge from other paperwork submitted by police, by asking courts, or various other burdensome mechanisms.
For consistency with GDL restrictions and for administrative efficiency, the Department proposes to eliminate demerit point repercussions for those parking offenses that are not already demerit point exempt: offenses committed on highway roadways.
A separate and distinct issue to be addressed in this proposed rule making relates to the determination of whether a person can be subject to more than one license withdrawal for a single conviction. DMV recently amended ch.
Trans 101 to provide that convictions that result in a license withdrawal will generally not be used in a point case to affect the driver's license a second time. There are a number of exceptions to that rule: CDL disqualification actions under s.
343.315, Stats.; withdrawals related to failure to pay the citation; and withdrawals under the a habitual traffic offender law. The Department proposes in this rule making to permit “reuse" of convictions for serious traffic violations committed by an occupational license holder. Occupational license holders whose operating privileges are suspended for committing a serious traffic violation could also be subject to a demerit point suspension for that offense and any other offenses committed within a one-year period from the date of that offense.
Policy Analysis
Amendment #1 — Amend ch.
Trans 101 so that demerit points are not assessed for any parking offenses.
The alternative would be to permit assessment of demerit points for these offenses but change DMV computer systems in a manner that disconnects the current parallel between demerit point assessment and Graduated Driver License repercussions. Such programming would be extremely expensive and of little public benefit. It would also make explaining the system to the public much more difficult. At present, drivers understand that so long as no demerit points are assessed for an offense, they don't have GDL concerns. Disconnecting the two will require drivers (and all persons in the criminal justice system dealing with driver licensing) to keep track of separate lists of offenses of import for demerit point and GDL purposes.
Pros: The Department's proposal to eliminate demerit points for parking offenses is simple to understand, consistent with statutes, and inexpensive to implement. Implementing the change saves significant costs in reprogramming computer systems and eliminates a process of reviewing citations by hand in DMV offices.
Cons: Parking in a travel lane is dangerous. It is unlikely, however, that assessment of demerit points for that offense has much deterrent value. Drivers who are not concerned about the safety of their vehicles probably aren't worried about receiving 2 demerit points, either.
Amendment #2 — Permit demerit points assessed for serious traffic offenses that trigger suspensions of occupational licenses to be used in demerit point cases and potentially trigger a demerit point suspension in addition to the occupational license suspension.
Pros: The Department's proposal to allow use of serious traffic violations to suspend occupational licenses and trigger demerit point cases is consistent with statutes and inexpensive to implement. Implementing the change saves significant costs in reprogramming computer systems.
Cons: The proposal complicates rather than simplifies the already complicated demerit point system.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
The federal government does not regulate driver behavior or assess demerit points. There is no relevant federal law on points.
Entities Affected by the Rule
This rule making will have no effect on entities other than the people involved in the relevant driving offenses.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
5 hours.
Transportation
Subject
Amends Chapter
Trans 315, relating to safety belt medical use exemption.
Objective of the Rule
The rule will delete the authority of any person other than physicians to exempt persons from safety belt use requirements. This rule making will result in increased use of safety belts, and increase receipt of federal moneys for highway safety activities.
Policy Analysis
Current rules allow chiropractors and Christian Science practitioners to grant medical exemptions from safety belt use requirements, in addition to physicians. The legislature is currently deliberating a safety belt use law, in part to become eligible for federal safety belt use grants. State law encourages the Department to maximize receipt of federal aid. This rule making is required to conform to federal policy regarding medical exemption from safety belt use laws, a necessary condition of receiving the federal grants.
Statutory Authority
Comparison with Federal Regulations
Federal law provides safety belt use grants to states that require use of safety belts. Federal policy implementing the grants recognizes a medical exemption issued by physicians. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers the grants, has informed this state that any medical exemption must conform to federal policy to be eligible for the grants.
Entities Affected by the Rule
Patients under the care of chiropractors or Christian Science practitioners who may desire an exemption from safety belt use laws.
Estimate of Time Needed to Develop the Rule
20 hours
