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.

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.

There are no existing or proposed federal regulations on this issue.

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.

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.

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.

Iowa does not mandate that drivers or vehicle owners carry insurance. Iowa has a safety responsibility law similar to Wisconsin's, which is used to compel uninsured drivers to post deposits in order to cover damages potentially attributable to them from an accident. Any person involved in an accident in Iowa, as either the driver or owner of a motor vehicle, is subject to the requirements of the law.

Iowa does not have a compulsory insurance law. Instead, the Financial & Safety Responsibility Act provides for:

Just as in Wisconsin, in Iowa drivers must file an accident report and must be filed with the Office of Driver Services within a set timeframe if an accident results in bodily injury, death or total property damage over a statutorily established amount. Drivers do not need to file a personal accident report if the accident was investigated by a law enforcement agency and the investigating officer files a report.

A driver who causes personal injury or damage exceeding $1,000 to the other party must prove his or her financial responsibility or be subject to license suspension. Similar to Wisconsin's safety responsibility law, drivers can prove financial responsibility by showing that they were covered by automobile liability insurance at the time of the accident, posting cash, getting releases from all other damaged or injured parties, being absolved of responsibility by a court judgment, filing an agreement to pay the other damaged or injured parties on an installment plan, or reaching a settlement with the injured persons. Iowa also allows the uninsured motorist to confess judgment and enter into a judicially-approved payment plan as a mechanism for resolving safety responsibility matters.

Both the owners and drivers of the vehicles involved in an accident must prove their financial responsibility. This means that the person who owns the vehicle involved in an accident has to show financial responsibility even if they weren't driving. Like Wisconsin, Iowa will suspend registrations of all the owners' vehicles if they do not comply. Similarly, the driver of the vehicle has to show financial responsibility or lose all licenses to operate motor vehicles.

Iowa does not appear to have a damage judgment law similar to Wisconsin's.

Overall, it appears that states having mandatory insurance laws do not have a safety responsibility law similar to Wisconsin's. Iowa, which has a safety responsibility law, does not mandate insurance.

Section 344.63, Stats., as created by 2009 Wis. Act 28, provides exceptions to the requirement of having a motor vehicle liability insurance policy to operate a motor vehicle on Wisconsin highways. The exceptions defined in the statutes are nearly identical to those provided for under Wisconsin's Safety Responsibility Law. The administration of the exceptions, as defined in this proposed rule, are purposely drafted to closely mirror the procedures currently in place under the Safety Responsibility Law.

This regulatory change has no impact on small business. This rule making largely codifies existing DOT policy with regard to the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. The Department does not anticipate any fiscal effect upon small businesses from this codification.

This regulatory change has no impact on small business. The safety responsibility and damage judgment portions of this rule making largely codifies existing DOT policy with regard to the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. This proposed rule making related to filings in lieu of mandatory insurance are not expected to impact small business in any manner. The new mandatory insurance law itself may require small businesses that lack automobile coverage to obtain insurance or make a filing in lieu of insurance with the Department. The Department does not anticipate any fiscal effect upon small businesses from this codification. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at ralph.sanders@dot.state.wi.us, or by calling (414) 438-4585.

The Department estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on private sector revenues or liabilities.

This rule making largely codifies existing DOT policy with regard to the administration of the safety responsibility and damage judgment laws. The Department believes any fiscal effect from this codification to be indeterminate as the number of citations issued for not carrying proof of liability insurance, failure to have liability insurance, or fraud in providing proof of liability insurance cannot be surmised at this time. The Department will incur costs for computer changes necessary to develop codes used to indicate the new types on convictions on violators driving records and an unknown amount of time spent by staff explaining insurance requirements and processing license suspensions and reinstatements for persons whose operating privilege is suspended for not paying the forfeitures associated with the violations listed above. The Department will also receive an indeterminate amount of revenue resulting from reinstatement fees collected from those persons whose operating privilege is suspended for not paying forfeitures. Local revenue has the potential to increase through collection of forfeitures and other charges related to the penalties associated with convictions for violations of the new charges.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss. 108.14 (2), 108.205, 108.22, and 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider rules revising Chapter DWD 111, relating to unemployment insurance rules for quarterly wage reporting requirements.

Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 267-9403 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in audiotape format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.

Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and will be afforded the opportunity to make an oral presentation of their positions. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their facts, views, and suggested rewording in writing.

An electronic copy of the proposed rules is available at http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. This site allows you to view documents associated with this rule's promulgation, register to receive email notification whenever the Department posts new information about this rulemaking order, and submit comments and view comments by others during the public comment period. You may receive a paper copy of the rule or fiscal estimate by contacting: Tracey Schwalbe, Research Attorney, Unemployment Insurance Bureau of Legal Affairs, Department of Workforce Development, P.O. Box 8942, Madison, WI 53708.

Written comments on the proposed rules received at the above address, email, or through the http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov web site no later than July 21, 2010, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.

Section 108.205 and 108.22, Stats.

Section 108.14 (2), 108.205, 108.22, and 227.11, Stats.

42 U.S.C. s. 1320b-7 (a) (3), ch. DWD 110.

Chapter 108, Stats., requires employers to file with the department a quarterly report showing the name, social security number, and wages paid to each employee who is employed by the employer during the quarter. The quarterly reports are due no later than the last day of the month following the completion of each quarter. The department may prescribe the manner and form for filing quarterly wage reports electronically. Sections 108.14 (2) and 227.11 (2), Stats., authorize the department to adopt and enforce all rules the department finds necessary to carry out the requirements of Chapter 108, Stats.

Wisconsin Act 59 in 2007 amended several provisions of ch. 108, Stats., related to how employers file reports with the department, the timeliness for filing reports, and the penalties for failing to do so. The proposed rule corresponds with the statutory changes in 2007 Wis. Act 59, eliminates provisions that duplicate statutory provisions, and eliminates obsolete provisions.

As amended by 2007 Wis. Act 59, Chapter 108 requires employer agents and employers of 25 or more employees to file quarterly wage reports electronically. Section 108.205, Stats. Quarterly wage reports must be filed by the last day of the month following the completion of the calendar quarter and may be assessed a penalty of $50 for each delinquent quarterly report. Sections 108.205 (1) and 108.22 (1) (a), Stats. In addition, an employer that fails to file the report in the required format may be assessed a penalty of $20 for each employee whose information is not reported in the correct format. Section 108.22 (1) (ac), Stats.

The proposed rule updates the requirements for filing quarterly wage reports to include electronically filed reports, and identifies the website where electronic reports may be filed. The proposed rule eliminates the need for employers to notify the department whether they provide access to a health insurance plan; this provision is obsolete. The rule currently provides that the time to file a report is extended if it is mailed as long as the report is postmarked by the due date or 3 days past the due date. However, pursuant to the statutes as amended by 2007 Wis. Act 59, quarterly wage reports are due the last date of the month following a quarter. This obsolete provision is removed from the rule. The proposed rule eliminates the obsolete provisions related to employers filing wage record data on combined quarterly contribution report forms. The proposed rule eliminates the obsolete penalties for delinquent wage reports. Finally, the department reviewed the rule to eliminate provisions that were repetitive or duplicated statutory provisions, and to edit for grammatical purposes.

Since 1988, federal law has required all States to have in effect, as a condition for compliance with federally aided assistance programs, a requirement that employers make quarterly reports of wages to the state.

Illinois requires that employers file wage reports either electronically or by paper on a printed packet together with the contribution report. The reports must be filed on or before the due date, the last day of the calendar month next following the calendar quarter. 56 Ill. Adm. Code s. 2760.120, .125 & 140.