SB313,76,5 227.19 (2) Notification of legislature. An agency shall submit a notice to the presiding officer of each house of the legislature when a proposed rule is in final draft form and approved by the governor. The notice shall be submitted in triplicate and shall be accompanied by a report in the form specified under sub. (3). A notice received under this subsection on or after September 1 of an even-numbered year shall be considered received on the first day of the next regular session of the legislature. Each presiding officer shall, within 7 working days following the day on which the notice and report are received, refer them to one committee, which may be either a standing committee or a joint legislative committee created by law, except the joint committee for review of administrative rules. The agency shall submit to the revisor for publication in the register a statement that a proposed rule has been submitted to the presiding officer of each house of the legislature. Each presiding officer shall enter a similar statement in the journal of his or her house.

SB313, s. 185 Section 185. 227.19 (3) (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:

SB313,76,13 227.19 (3) Form of report. (intro.) The report required under sub. (2) shall be in writing and shall include the proposed rule in the form specified in s. 227.14 (1), the material specified in s. 227.14 (2) to (4), a copy of any economic impact report prepared by the agency under s. 227.137, a copy of the report prepared by the department of administration under s. 227.138, a copy of the written approval of the governor under s. 227.185, a copy of any recommendations of the legislative council staff, and an analysis. The analysis shall include:

SB313, s. 186 Section 186. 227.19 (3) (a) of the statutes is amended to read:

SB313,76,17 227.19 (3) (a) A detailed statement explaining the need for basis and purpose of the proposed rule, including how the proposed rule advances relevant statutory goals or purposes.

SB313, s. 187 Section 187. 227.19 (3) (am) of the statutes is created to read:

SB313,76,21 227.19 (3) (am) An analysis of policy alternatives to the proposed rule, including reliance on federal regulatory programs, and an explanation for the rejection of those alternatives.

SB313, s. 188 Section 188. 227.19 (3) (b) of the statutes is amended to read:

SB313,77,2 227.19 (3) (b) An A summary of public comments to the proposed rule and the agency's response to those comments, and an explanation of any modification made in the proposed rule as a result of public comments or testimony received at a public hearing.

SB313, s. 189 Section 189. 227.19 (3) (cm) of the statutes is created to read:

SB313,77,5 227.19 (3) (cm) Any changes to the analysis prepared under s. 227.14 (2) or the fiscal estimate prepared under s. 227.14 (4).

SB313, s. 190 Section 190. 227.40 (4m) of the statutes is created to read:

SB313,77,13 227.40 (4m) (a) In any proceeding under this section for judicial review of a rule, the court shall conduct the review without a jury. The review shall be confined to a substantial inquiry of the agency record, as necessarily and appropriately supplemented by evidence presented to the court. The agency record includes the economic impact report and documentation required under s. 227.137 (3), the analysis and documentation required under ss. 227.14 (2) and 227.19 (3), and public comments on the rule.

SB313,77,16 (b) The court shall treat separately disputed issues of agency procedure, interpretations of law, and determinations of fact or policy within the agency's exercise of delegated discretion.

SB313,77,24 (c) When reviewing whether a rule is invalid as promulgated for failure to comply with statutory rule-making procedures under this chapter, the court shall determine the adequacy of the factual basis to support the rule and the related reasoning employed by the agency to reach its conclusions. When determining the adequacy of the factual basis to support the rule, the court shall consider relevant comments on and alternatives to the rule's approach offered by affected parties during the rule-making process. Based on this review, the court shall find the rule invalid if the agency's decision-making process was arbitrary and capricious.

SB313,78,4 (d) The court shall find a rule invalid if it determines that the adequacy of the rule-making process or that the validity of the regulatory approach was impaired by a material error in agency procedure or a failure of the agency to follow prescribed procedure.

SB313,78,10 (e) When an agency's statutory authority to promulgate a rule is predicated on the rule being comparable to relevant federal programs or standards, including requirements that the rule be similar to, consistent with, or no more restrictive than federal programs or standards, the court shall conduct a de novo review of the agency record to determine if the agency determination that the rule was comparable to the federal program or standards was supported by substantial evidence.

SB313,78,15 (f) When an agency's statutory authority to promulgate a rule exceeding relevant federal programs or standards is predicated on the agency making a finding of need, including a need to protect human health or the environment, the court shall review the agency's record to determine if the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

SB313,78,18 (g) If a court finds that the agency's analysis and determinations under s. 227.137 (3) are arbitrary and capricious, the court shall find the rule invalid as without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures set forth in this chapter.

SB313, s. 191 Section 191. 227.43 (1g) of the statutes is created to read:

SB313,78,21 227.43 (1g) The administrator of the division of hearings and appeals shall randomly assign hearing examiners to preside over any hearing under this section.

SB313, s. 192 Section 192. 227.44 (2) (d) of the statutes is created to read:

SB313,78,23 227.44 (2) (d) The name and title of the person who will conduct the hearing.

SB313, s. 193 Section 193. 227.445 of the statutes is created to read:

SB313,79,4 227.445 Substitution of hearing examiner. (1) A person requesting a hearing before a hearing examiner may file a written request for a substitution of a new hearing examiner for the hearing examiner assigned to the matter. The written request shall be filed not later than 10 days after receipt of the notice under s. 227.44.

SB313,79,5 (2) No person may file more than one such written request in any one hearing.

SB313,79,14 (3) Upon receipt of the written request, the original hearing examiner shall have no further jurisdiction in the matter except to determine if the request was made timely and in proper form. If the hearing examiner fails to make a determination as to allowing the substitution within 7 days, the hearing examiner shall refer the matter to the administrator of the division of hearings and appeals for the determination and reassignment of the hearing as necessary. If the written request is determined to be proper, the matter shall be transferred to another hearing examiner. Upon transfer, the hearing examiner shall transmit to the new hearing examiner all the papers in the matter.

SB313, s. 194 Section 194. 227.45 (7) (intro.) of the statutes is renumbered 227.45 (7) and amended to read:

SB313,79,25 227.45 (7) In any class 2 proceeding, each party shall have the right, prior to the date set for hearing, to take and preserve evidence as provided in ch. 804. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought in any class 2 proceeding, and for good cause shown, the hearing examiner may make any order in accordance with s. 804.01 which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. In any class 1 or class 3 proceeding, an agency may by rule permit the taking and preservation of evidence, but in every such proceeding the taking and preservation of evidence shall be permitted with respect to a witness: