Section 343.10, Stats., and Ch. Trans 117, Wis. Admin. Code, which deal with the issuance of occupational licenses, are also related to this proposed rulemaking. Subdivision 343.10(5)(a)3., Stats., provides that if a court orders a driver’s operating privilege restricted to “BAIID” equipped vehicles, any occupational license the department issues must include that restriction. s. 343.10(7)(cm), Stats., prohibits the department from issuing such an occupational license until the applicant proves that the motor vehicle the applicant will be permitted to operate has been equipped with a functioning BAIID. Other licenses issued to drivers subject to a BAIID order also must contain a BAIID restriction. ss. 343.13(3) and 343.38(5), Stats. Behavioral requirements related to BAIIDs and penalties for violations of those requirements are established in s. 347.413, Stats. Plain Language Analysis: This rulemaking is intended to update Ch. Trans 313 to reflect changes in legislation, accommodate changes in ignition interlock design, features, performance, programming capability of, consider best practices recommended by the American Ignition Interlock Program Administrators (AIIPA) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) as well as laws that have been implemented by neighboring states. Chapter Trans 313 was first adopted in 1993, when installation of a breath alcohol ignition interlock device (“BAIID”) was one of three vehicle-related “sanctions” available to courts when sentencing drivers convicted of repeat operated while intoxicated offenses. Operating privilege restrictions were limited to persons that were issued occupational licenses. In 1999, Wisconsin Act 109 added voluntary installation of an ignition interlock device as an alternative to vehicle immobilization. The early semi-conductor-based BAIIDs were prone to interference from chemicals other than alcohol, had limited functionality, and could be easily bypassed. Over time, BAIID providers incorporated anti-circumvention sampling techniques to reduce the likelihood that a compressor or other air supply could be substituted for human breath. At that time, accessing the data stored in the device required removal of the handset from the vehicle and physically printing pages and pages of data that was not easily read or interpreted. At that time, there were no requirements to ensure a device was properly calibrated, reducing reliability of chemical analysis results. Early devices did not provide a means of determining who submitted a breath sample or who was operating the vehicle at the time the test was provided. Because 60 days or longer could pass between the time a sample was submitted and the time the results were retrieved from the device, it was very difficult to determine who was responsible for the failed sample. Accordingly, the devices and reports from the devices provided limited value to law enforcement and treatment providers.
Modern BAIIDs make use of electrochemical fuel cells to measure alcohol. Unlike the early devices, these fuel-cell based BAIIDs do not identify other compounds as if they are alcohol. The internal workings of modern BAIIDs can incorporate technology that evaluates a sample to determine whether detected values for humidity, temperature, or the chemical composition of the sample are consistent with human breath. Those technologies make successful circumvention more challenging. Instead of multi-color lights and scrolling LEDs, modern devices have liquid crystal and full-color displays. Devices can now incorporate cellular, wi-fi, or other electronic communication technologies to upload data remotely for official use and storage in an online reporting system. Virtually all devices currently marketed in the U.S. have an option to mount a small camera in the vehicle, which has the advantage of allowing positive identification of the person submitting a breath sample or attempting to circumvent the BAIID.
In this rulemaking, the department proposes to update ch. Trans 313 to incorporate these technological advances and adopt best practices of consortium groups that result in more uniform device and reporting requirements nationwide. Each of the surrounding states, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan have updated their rules and regulations to incorporate these improvements in recent years. While drafting the proposed rule, we incorporated many of these improvements, particularly in the areas of applications for approval, device function, and data reporting. This rulemaking also proposes to amend s. Trans 313.01 to update statutory references in that section. The Wisconsin statutes related to BAIIDs in Wisconsin have been significantly changed since the Department promulgated Ch. Trans 313 in 1993. The department proposes to update the definitions contained in s. Trans 313.03 to reflect changes in how ignition interlock devices function, current industry trends, to adopt industry-standard vocabulary, and to incorporate best practices recommended by the American Ignition Interlock Program Administrators (AIIPA) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). New definitions included in this section include 313.03(3m), which adds a definition for “alert mode” to address automotive technology advances. Older vehicles had standard headlights and horns that could be activated by direct electrical connection to the vehicle’s lights and horn systems. Many vehicles today utilize a controller area network (CAN bus) through which microcontrollers regulate various vehicle components, including the horn. This modification eliminates traditional wiring for the horn, and greatly complicates the ability to use the horn as a signal that a driver has failed a required BAIID test while driving. The definition now permits use of systems other than the vehicle’s built-in lights and horn to create flashing lights and sound in alert mode.
Other technological advances in vehicles, including those with motors that are powered by electricity, or a combination of fuel products and electricity, have resulted in changes to language to reflect engine or vehicle operation and are no longer limited to the traditional “ignition.” For example, Trans 313.03(20) now defines “restart” to include activation of electric and hybrid vehicles as well as traditional combustion engine vehicles.
Section Trans 313.03(16g) is proposed to add a definition for “minimum sample acceptance criteria.” Each manufacturer evaluates breath quality in order prevent circumvention of the device. This may include the capacity to monitor for volume, flow, temperature, humidity or any combination of those factors, or to chemically analyze the sample for consistency with the chemical composition of human breath. Each breath sample is assessed to determine whether it is being provided by a human being and to evaluate the sample’s alcohol concentration. At the time the existing rule was written, a mechanical purge, literally pulling outside air through the device, was required. This has been replaced by automatic clearing and establishing baseline before notifying the user they can provide a breath sample. As a result, the definition for “purge,” in s. Trans 313.03(19), is being deleted as unnecessary. The existing rule definition for tampering in s. 313.03(9) considered any disruption of power to the device to qualify as prohibited tampering. Proposed revisions to that definition and the creation of s. Trans 313.04(5)(k) in this rulemaking would specifically allow removal of the handset when the vehicle is turned off, for vehicle repair and service, and for calibration of BAIID. Allowing the handset to be removed when the vehicle is turned off is beneficial in cold weather because it will allow the device to warm up and measure a breath sample more quickly than a device that has been stored in a cold car. It will also reduce battery drain required to preheat the device before measuring a sample in cold weather. Additional new defined terms in proposed s. Trans 313.03(21m), 313.03(16r), 313.03(20m) and 313.03(23m) for “sample sequence,” “passing breath sample,” “result” and “start sequence” clarify various operations performed by the device and differentiate between functions used when starting a vehicle and those used when it is being operated. The current rule assumes that manufacturers produce and market BAIIDs and that they employ service centers to install and service the devices and that they would apply for device approval in this state. This rule takes a broader view of the marketplace and attempts to allow for future development of the industry. Manufacturers produce and repair devices, and those devices must be approved by the department under this proposed rule. The department uses the term “vendor” to identify the person that markets the device. Finally, a service center may install or provide limited service for a device, such as exchanging the handset, but may not open the device to service it. Any of these entities may apply to have a device approved for use in the State of Wisconsin. Definitions of “applicant”, “vendor”, “manufacturer”, and “service provider” in amended s. Trans 313.03 reflect this approach. While the existing rule requires each service center to be at a fixed location, changes to the definition of “service center” in this rulemaking also makes it clear that the state will allow service of BAIIDs by mobile service centers.
Industry standard and AIIPA standard vocabulary terms proposed for inclusion as defined terms in the rule are the definition for calibration in Trans 313.03(7), for “violation” in Trans 313.03(26m) and for “permanent lockout” Trans 313.03(17).
Under existing Ch. Trans 313, repeated failed breath alcohol tests can result in a “temporary lockout” that prevents anyone from attempting to start the vehicle for 15 minutes. The department has received numerous complaints regarding this requirement over the years, and it is not a requirement in most states. The department proposes in this rulemaking to eliminate the 15-minute temporary lockout requirement. The department believes the requirement is especially punitive for individuals that struggle to provide samples. A forced delay in starting the car may be problematic or dangerous in sub-zero temperatures. Finally, inadvertent consumption of small amounts of alcohol from a beverage, food, or personal hygiene product, will not result in a significant delay to the driver under the proposed amendments. A person should be able to rinse his or her mouth with fresh water, pass the chemical analysis test, and operate the vehicle. A BAIID will prevent vehicle operation when a subject’s alcohol concentration is above the device’s setpoint. The required delay does nothing to improve that performance. Other changes or deletions in the definitions will align the chapter with court-ordered sanctions, to properly indicate the name of the unit that is responsible for approval of ignition interlock devices, delete a term that was not included in the chapter (filtering agents) and correct grammatical errors.
The requirements currently contained in section Trans 313.04 include sections on the application, a time for decision, the evaluation process, and standards and specifications. The proposed changes will more clearly define the application process, adopt the most recent federal model specifications, and, by reorganizing content, more clearly specify requirements for device function and reporting. One area that has been problematic for the last decade has been ensuring that the operating system (software, firmware, configuration files, and device settings) has not been modified by the manufacturer. The proposed rule requires the device to provide its configuration information as part of its reporting function. This reporting will make it easier for service providers, law enforcement, and the department to track modifications made to the device.
Subsection Trans 313.04(1) is proposed to be split into two sections to ensure that any person distributing a device in this state does so with a compliant BAIID program. Accordingly, the proposed rule makes device approval personal to the applicant. If an applicant sells or transfers its business to a third party, that third party needs to re-apply for device approval in this state. Retesting of the device is not required, provided it is unchanged, but review of the new applicant’s practices, procedures, and policies is undertaken so that the state can be satisfied that the devices will continue to be distributed and serviced in a manner conforming to the requirements of Wisconsin law by the new applicant.
Section Trans 313.04 describes the application process for approval of a BAIID in Wisconsin. This rulemaking proposes a number of changes to the rule consistent with best practice recommendations of both AAMVA and AIIPA. The application process as defined by the proposed rule, requires a standard set of materials be submitted as part of the application. These materials are used by the department to determine whether a proposed device meets the requirements contained in this chapter. As proposed to be amended by this rulemaking, s. Trans 313.04 would require applicants for BAIID approval to provide various information as part of that application. Operating instructions, training materials, repair and quality assurance protocols, and maintenance and removal instructions are provided as part of the application to facilitate testing of the device consistent with its intended operation and maintenance procedures and to provide a basis for determining whether service providers for the device are following manufacturer-specified protocols in their service procedures. The department proposes to require program participants to submit copies of contracts or other agreements used between the program participant and its customer. Access to these documents and participant charges for device installation, use, and removal will enable the department to better respond to citizen questions and complaints. Furthermore, the department is requiring costs of device installation, use, removal, and all possible peripheral costs to be disclosed to the customer in the contract. This should reduce complaints from citizens about alleged unscrupulous practices by some providers. The department believes that transparency in contract provisions and fees should enhance competition in the BAIID marketplace. Other materials required are proof that the device has met federal regulatory testing protocol requirements and authorization to obtain information from other states that have reviewed a device. These materials will assist the department to identify deficiencies in device function and performance; correspondence with other regulatory agencies may streamline or expedite device evaluation and approval process. Evidence of an applicant’s valid legal status to conduct business in this state and contact information for its registered agent is also required.
The BAIID device applicant must agree to provide testimony in court if its participation is needed for prosecution of a BAIID restricted driver who violates the laws related to installation or use of the device. State employees overseeing the interlock program would probably not qualify as expert witnesses under s. 907.02, Stats. Finally, the proposed rule requires the applicant to promptly respond to questions or requests for information. The primary reason for this requirement is to keep an evaluation moving along as quickly as possible to reduce delay for other applicant devices waiting to be tested. To facilitate orderly processing of applications, the rule proposes to create a queue of pending applications and a procedure to promptly work through requests for approval in queue order. This should provide more predictability for applicants regarding the expected timeframe for department evaluation of a device.
The evaluation process may be the most important portion of the device approval process. Department staff verifies device performance, functionality, and reporting requirements contained in this chapter by testing one or more standalone units in a laboratory and then, after ensuring proper function, in a state-owned vehicle. The only way to successfully and uniformly conduct some of these tests is to deactivate settings that identify attempts to circumvent the device. This section specifies that the applicant must provide test devices with differing configurations to facilitate this testing. It requires that the department have immediate access to test data in order to speed up the evaluation process. In the event a device does not pass, s. Trans 313.04(4)(e) provides for a 6-month waiting period before re-evaluation can be started. The department believes that period allows ample time for an applicant to address deficiencies in their device revealed in earlier testing. If the applicant is able to prove material changes have been made to the device, the department may waive the 6-month waiting period. This will hopefully result in an approval from the department at the following evaluation and provide an opportunity for the department to evaluate other instruments in the queue, if any. The Chemical Testing Section has, occasionally, received devices for acceptance testing that were not adequately prepared and tested by an applicant prior to submission to the State. The 6-month default wait time is intended to provide an incentive to applicants to have software and hardware properly debugged and ready for deployment prior to submission for acceptance testing. Proper prior internal testing by the applicant should reduce delays in approving devices by the Chemical Testing Section.
The standards and specifications for ignition interlock approval by the department have been updated to incorporate the current (2013) NHTSA Model Specification and update the street address of the program. The current regulation incorporates 1992 Federal Standards that are far out of date.
Consistent with adopting industry standards, this proposed rule would allow a driver to attempt an unlimited number of tests within a specified timeframe. By not limiting the number of attempts our program will become consistent with industry standards and national trends and regional requirements. The current regulation allows maximum of three sample attempts in a five-minute interval, which has proven to be a problematic feature for device manufacturers to program into devices. This regulatory change will make Wisconsin’s program consistent with those of our neighboring states as well as AIIPA and AAMVA best practices related to this issue.
Another industry standard proposed for adoption as a new requirement is to obtain confirmation samples for failed retests. This provides for a driver who appears to have submitted a failing sample with an opportunity to provide another sample to a verify alcohol concentration. These confirmation samples are especially helpful to distinguish between what is commonly referred to as false positive samples (an alcohol result from eating, drinking, or environmental contamination) and actual alcohol consumption. It is not uncommon for samples to be aborted if a user faces traffic that requires his or her full attention or some other event, such as sneezing, interrupts the sample process. Consistent with requirements in other states, the department proposes that devices not enter alert mode until a confirmation sample is obtained or refused.
The initial start sequence for a BAIID-equipped vehicle is proposed to be modified in similar fashion. Like retest samples, the user will be allowed an unlimited number of attempts to start the vehicle. This rule also proposes to permit or require devices to incorporate a number of technological advances that have been made in the past decade, such as wireless transmission of data, the use of vehicle-mounted cameras to identify the individual providing samples, and providing online access to uploaded interlock data. These proposed changes are all consistent with current industry standards and similar requirements of Wisconsin’s neighboring states. Moreover, they will allow the Wisconsin program to meet the statutory requirements of s. 110.10(4) and (5), Stats. Ideally, access to the data will provide a mechanism for probation and parole agents, treatment officials and the courts, to provide better supervision of those in the program and a means to address noncompliance in a timely manner. One area where Wisconsin’s program would vary from minimum requirements under the federal regulations is that Wisconsin proposes to allow only alcohol-specific devices in this state. Manufacturers that previously distributed semiconductor-based devices have withdrawn them from BAIID use in this state and Wisconsin sees no benefit of allowing that outdated technology to return. Those old technology devices can falsely report alcohol when other compounds are present. In light of the increased value of reporting under the proposed new program, elimination of those old less-reliable devices is important.
This proposed rule updates requirements related to attempts to bypass the device, restarting the vehicle and tamper detection, consistent with current industry standards. It does require devices to correctly report the time at which such events occur.
Because Wis. Stat. s. 343.301 only calls for restriction of class D operating privileges of drivers, it has been possible for drivers subject to an BAIID restriction to legally operate motorcycles without the device. Nonetheless, consistent with now repealed federal law, s. 343.301 also required offenders to install the devices in all of their vehicles including motorcycles. The creation of s. 343.301(1m)(b) by 2019 Act 70 allow courts to refrain from ordering installation of BAIIDs on motorcycles until there is a practical way to accomplish that end. The department proposes to remove the option of installing a BAIID on a motorcycle. The department feels strongly that the use of a BAIID on a motorcycle is profoundly dangerous. If the driver were to use the BAIID while in motion, they must remove their hand from the handlebars which will adversely impact steering, breaking, and shifting capabilities. This would be further complicated by the use of full-face helmets which would require the driver to maneuver the device to their mouth through the helmet and face shield. Additionally, if the motorcyclist were to pull over, they would likely have to navigate un-paved or debris covered shoulders without dropping the bike while their attention is divided by the BAIID requesting a sample. Once stopped, the motorcyclist would represent a potential roadway target that other drivers may strike. Proposed s. Trans 313.04(6) describes the department’s proposed mechanism for implementing the requirements of data collection and reporting set forth in s. 110.10(4), Stats. The department proposes to initially leverage current industry data collection and reporting systems in order to provide data access to persons involved in the OWI enforcement and treatment processes such as courts, police agencies, corrections, probation and parole agents, assessment agencies, treatment providers, the department, and academic researchers. Whether uploaded at a service appointment or wirelessly transmitted, data is stored in the manufacturer or vendor’s data system, who may grant permission to access the data to authorized officials. The regulation also provides an opportunity for development of a more centralized data warehouse to facilitate access to the data. If such a system is developed, BAIID providers would be required to transmit data to that warehouse but would not be required to provide online access to data any longer. Provisions of the rule related to the possible denial, suspension, or revocation of device approval are updated in this rulemaking. Violation of Ch. Trans 313 provisions has always been a basis for such action; this proposed rulemaking would add violation of any state statute as a basis for denial, suspension, or revocation of device approval. Other bases for denial, suspension, or revocation of device approval include: -Failing to provide service in an assigned service area.
-Failing to provide notice of service center location changes or discontinuance.
-Failing to maintain an inventory of parts needed to perform needed repairs to devices.
-Failing to provide a device at the cost required under s. 343.301(3)(b), Stats. Section 110.10(intro), Stats., requires the department to make the BAIID program “conveniently available to persons throughout this state.” Proposed s. Trans 313.09 of this rulemaking would accomplish that statutory requirement adopting a methodology used by neighboring states. If there are geographical areas where service is not provided, an authorized vendor will be selected at random to provide service in that area. A BAIID provider cannot be selected more than once until all providers have been assigned a service area at least once. The rule will allow service to be provided by a mobile unit. Failure to provide service as required is therefore included in the list of offenses that can lead to revocation or suspension of device approval. For approval for use in Wisconsin, the manufacturer must provide evidence of a sufficient system for maintaining the devices. If the devices become unrepairable due to the passage of time, or are being replaced by newer models, authorization for the old or unrepairable device may be revoked.
Section 343.301(3)(b), Stats., sets requirements BAIID providers must meet with respect to providing service to lower income individuals. The proposed rule requires compliance with the statute as a condition of device being eligible for use in Wisconsin, allowing denial of approval or revocation or suspension of approval if a provider does not comply with the law. The proposed rule also requires the provider of an authorized BAIID to pay the costs related to removal and replacement of any device for which authorization is revoked or suspended. This rulemaking proposes to update communication requirements between device manufacturers and the department consistent with requirements of Iowa, Illinois and Michigan law. Material modifications made to approved devices need to be communicated to the department. If the manufacturer seeks to avoid departmental retesting of the modified device, submission of test data substantiating that the modifications do not materially affect device performance is required.
Proposed subsection Trans 313.04(7) makes clear that only a manufacturer or its authorized repair agents may repair the internal components of any device. Section Trans 343.10 is updated to reflect the duties expected of service providers by manufacturers today. Service providers inspect devices for tampering or circumvention, calibrate devices, exchange components as needed, and maintain the tools and devices needed to carry out those tasks. They do not open device components unless they are a manufacturer-authorized device repair facility. Service providers are required to retain evidence and notify the department if they observe indications of tampering or circumvention while servicing a device. Service providers give instruction on operation of the device and make sure the customer knows how to and can start their vehicle using the BAIID as part of their device installation protocol. Service providers are not required to install devices on commercial motor vehicles.
Proposed section Trans 313.10(11) would authorize service providers to meet customer needs with mobile service centers. It does require mobile service centers to keep the department apprised of their operations so that the department can audit and review the mobile service center’s operation. The department has included proposed language allowing for emergency service by mobile service centers without advance notice to the department. Section 347.413, Stats. provides that “No person may remove, disconnect, tamper with, or otherwise circumvent the operation of an ignition interlock device.” In s. Trans 313.14, the department makes clear that it interprets this provision as applying to unauthorized removal of the device. The rule allows customers to request a service provider remove a device in order to obtain a different device. It also allows service providers to remove devices of persons who intentionally damage a device, who don’t pay for it or otherwise fail to comply with their contract, or whose behavior is offensive or abusive. Finally, proposed s. Trans 313.16 outlines other conduct that is prohibited as part of a BAIID program. Persons may not discriminate in providing service, cannot change the breath volume required for a sample to less than 1.5 liters of air, change the device programming, configuration, or components of a device, repair a device without manufacturer authorization, or provide information to the customer that results in a lockout and requires the customer to pay fees to service the device. Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed Federal Statutes and Regulations:
The United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) adopted and published Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (“BAIID”) in 1992. (57 FR 11772) Federally provided model specifications were meant to standardize BAIID certification requirements across jurisdictions. Included in the model specifications document are requirements for device functionality, measurement accuracy and precision including extreme temperature performance, calibration stability, and rolling retesting features. Although many states incorporated NHTSA’s model specifications into their BAIID certification requirements, significant variability remained. Trans 313 was drafted in 1993 and incorporated requirements from NHTSA’s 1992 Model Specifications for BAIIDs
Prompted by widespread requirement variability across jurisdictions and rapidly evolving BAIID technology, NHTSA updated the Model Specifications document, soliciting comments in 2006 and 2010. (71 FR 8048 and 75 FR 61824, respectively). In 2013, NHTSA adopted and published their Model Specifications for BAIIDs. NHTSA’s 2013 Model Specifications for BAIIDs includes changes to device functionality, test procedures, and performance requirements. (78 FR 26853) This revision of Trans 313 proposes to adopt NHTSAs 2013 Model Specifications for BAIIDs.
Comparison with Rules in Adjacent States:
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota all have ignition interlock device programs similar to Wisconsin’s. Links to relevant laws, regulations or program materials are provided below and summarized in the table that follows.
Illinois:
Iowa:
Michigan:
-Michigan Vehicle Code Act 300 of 1949, 257.625k Ignition interlock device manufacturer; certification; approval; requirements; rules; cost; notice to department by certifying laboratory; list of manufacturers; BAIID manufacturer; approval of BAIID service center; inspections; prohibited conduct by individual; installation requirements; installer qualifications and requirements; approval; renewal. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jcivly55zk2h4yi0itwrkqn4))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-257-625k.pdf. Minnesota:
A side-by-side comparison of program requirements for Wisconsin and its neighboring states is provided on the following table: [See PDF for proper table formatting]
Item | Illinois | Iowa | Michigan | Minnesota |
Annual Recertification | Required | | Required | Required |
Calibration & Download | 67 days | real time or 67 days | | 30 days or real time 67 days |
Camera | Required | Required | Required | Required |
Install on CMV | Not Allowed | | | Not Allowed |
Install on motorcycle | Not Allowed | | | Not Allowed |
Medical Exemption | Yes, with rules | | | Yes, with rules |
Oversight Department | Secretary of State | Department of Public Safety | Secretary of State | Driver and Vehicle Services |
Real-time reporting | Allowed | Allowed *if used with fuel cell and pass additional testing, can calibrate every 187 days | | Allowed |
Reciprocity | Yes, with rules | | | Yes, with rules |
Report logs to state | Within 7 days | As requested, 30 days tamper, 10 days missed calibration | | |
Set-point | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.02 |
Work Exemption | Yes, with rules | | | Yes, with rules |
Item | Illinois | Iowa | Michigan | Minnesota |
Anti-Circumvention | Required, blow pattern or hum | | | |
BAIID Installer Certification | | | Required | |
Dead Zone | 75 miles | | 50 miles | |
Fee Schedule reported | Required | | | |
Indemnify State | Required | | Required | |
Journal | Required | | Suggested | |
Liability Insurance | Required | Required | Required | |
List where operate(d) | Required | List where revoked | | |
Maintain customer service number | Monday - Friday, normal business hours | 24/7/365 | | |
Mobile Install | Allowed with rules | | | |
NHTSA Tests | 2013 | 1992 | 2013 | 2013 |
Provide State Staff Training | > 10 hours | | | |
Provide Testimony | Required | | | |
Purge before sample | | Required | | |
Record Retention | 3 years after removal | 5 years after removal | | |
Rectify malfunctioning device | 48 hours | | | |
Report (de)install to state | 7 days | | | |
Send in part of BAIID for calibration/download | allowed | | | |
Service Center certification | | Required | Required | |
Share all documents (P&P, QC, contract, etc.) | Required | | | |
Soft/firm-ware modifications | Pre-approved | Pre-approved | Pre-approved | |
Technology Requirements | Not Solid-State | Fuel Cell | | |
Item | Illinois | Iowa | Michigan | Minnesota |
Calibration Window | 30 days 1st, 67 days thereafter | 67 days or more frequently | | |
IRT | 5-15 min | 10 min | 15 min | 5-7 min |
RRT | 2 per hour within 45 minutes of IRT | 2 per hour | 15-45 min | 15-45 min |
Sample window | | | 5 min, multiple attempts | 10 min |
Free Restart | | Yes, unless in RT or failed | Yes, unless failed | |
Horn and/or light | didn’t provide RT sample | >0.025 | >0.025 | |
Lockout | 3 > 0.05 30 min | didn’t provide RT sample | | |
Violation | >10 start fails | fail to complete RT | >0.025 | fail start, 5 min lockout, 10 min to provide pass |
| fail to complete RT | >0.025 | 3 start fails (minor) | fail to pass RT |
| > 0.05 * | bypass | miss calibration (minor) | refuse RT 3x in 7 days |
| Tamper * | tamper | fail to complete RT | Tamper |
| Circumvent * | | OWI arrest | Circumvention |
| Miss Calibration | | Tampering | Operate without BAIID |
| Operate without BAIID * | | Circumvention | ≥0.02 |
| BAIID removed * | | 3 minor violations | Obstruct image capture |
| OWI or alcohol-related charge * | | Remove Device | If cancelled license, failure to provide 30 start samples a month |
Penalty | * = revocation | | Minor = 3-month extension | 1st = 180-day extension |
| 1st = 3-month suspension | | Major = revocation | 2nd = 1-year extension |
| 2nd = 6-month suspension | | | 3rd + = 545-day extension |
| 3rd + = 12-month suspension | | | |
Summary of the Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies:
Section 110.10, Stats., charges the department with responsibility for implementing a breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID) program that will be conveniently available to persons throughout the state. The statute requires that the program include approval criteria for BAIID installation, service, and removal, provisions for reporting BAIID installation, use, and a periodic review of fees customers are charged. It also requires that BAIIDs be available to customers without a court order and that courts may order a lower fee structure for those determined to be indigent. The statute directs the department to adopt rules that implement the statute. The decision to promulgate rules in this environment is therefore legislatively directed. The basic goal of an BAIID program is to improve traffic safety through clearly developed standards that outline the establishment of, participation in, and compliance with the program as well as device functionality requirements. Four main issue areas make up the program: device functionality requirements, provider oversight, participant oversight, and a standardized reporting process. Coleman, Angela, et. al.: Ignition Interlock Program Best Practices Guide, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (2018).
While installed, BAIIDs reduce recidivism and improve traffic safety. Kaufman, Elinore and Wiebe, Douglas: Impact of State Ignition Interlock Laws on Alcohol-Involved Crash Deaths in the United States, American Journal of Public Health (2016); Teoh, Eric, et. al.: State Alcohol Ignition Interlock Laws and Fatal Crashes, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2018); Fleming, Susan: Alcohol Ignition Interlocks Are Effective While Installed; Less is Known About How to Increase Installation Rates, United States Government Accountability Office (2014). BAIIDs are designed to prevent a driver from operating a vehicle when the driver’s breath alcohol concentration is at or above a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC). BAIIDs also require drivers to provide breath samples periodically while operating the vehicle to ensure that their breath alcohol concentration remains below the PAC. Pre-approval of devices and oversight of their providers ensures consistent BAIID functionality and administration throughout the state. Ciccel, De Carlo: Model Specifications for Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDs), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013). The department has administered the BAIID program since the 1990’s and found it to be effective.
Analysis Regarding Rule’s Effect on Small Businesses:
The department has polled companies that manufacture devices currently approved in Wisconsin to determine what modifications or costs they expect would be associated this proposed rulemaking and that would affect small businesses, such as independent service providers. The department has relied on their expertise in preparing this small business analysis.
Effect on Small Business:
The proposed rule would require BAIIDs installed in Wisconsin to include features not currently required in this state, such as a camera and communications technology. Local service centers would be required to train their installers and service professionals on how to install and service these new features. The businesses would need to make modifications to their installation procedures to implement installation of devices with these new features. The department expects this would have a one-time effect on small businesses that act as service providers.
Because the proposed rule would change many of the Wisconsin program’s requirements and procedures, the department expects all persons involved in the ignition interlock program including manufacturers, service providers, police, assessment and treatment agencies, courts and department personnel will need to learn about the program changes that result from implementation of any rulemaking related to ignition interlocks.
Agency Contact Person:
