227.26(4)(b)3.a.a. Approve the agency’s petition if the committee determines that the proposed rule would repeal an unauthorized rule.

227.26(4)(b)3.c.c. Request that the agency make changes to the proposed rule and resubmit the petition and proposed rule under subd. 1.

227.26(4)(c)(c) If the joint committee for review of administrative rules approves a petition to repeal an unauthorized rule as provided in par. (b) 3. a., the agency shall promulgate the proposed rule by filing a certified copy of the rule with the legislative reference bureau under s. 227.20, together with a copy of the committee’s decision.

227.26 AnnotationRule suspension under sub. (2) (d) does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. Martinez v. DILHR, 165 Wis. 2d 687, 478 N.W.2d 582 (1992). See also Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1 v. Vos, 2020 WI 67, 393 Wis. 2d 38, 946 N.W.2d 35, 19-0614.

227.26 AnnotationIn this case, the facial challenge to sub. (2) (im) failed. If one three-month suspension was constitutionally permissible, two three-month suspensions were as well. Under such a scenario, the six-month, rather than three-month, delay was still followed by acceptance of the rule or repeal through bicameral passage and presentment. That fit comfortably within the unchallenged reasoning of Martinez, 165 Wis. 2d 687 (1992)—a modest suspension that was temporary in nature. Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 1 v. Vos, 2020 WI 67, 393 Wis. 2d 38, 946 N.W.2d 35, 19-0614.

227.26 AnnotationA collective bargaining agreement between the regents and the teaching assistants association is not subject to review by the committee. 59 Atty. Gen. 200.

227.26 AnnotationIn giving notice of public hearings held under sub. (2), the committee should concurrently employ the various forms of notice available that best fit the particular circumstances. 62 Atty. Gen. 299.

227.26 AnnotationIf an administrative rule is properly adopted and is within the power of the legislature to delegate, there is no material difference between it and a law. No law, including a valid rule, can be revoked by a joint resolution of the legislature as such a resolution deprives the executive its power to veto an act of the legislature. 63 Atty. Gen. 159.

227.26 AnnotationLegislative Committee Review of Administrative Rules in Wisconsin. Bunn & Gallagher. 1977 WLR 935.

227.265227.265 Repeal or modification of rules. If a bill to repeal or modify a rule is enacted, the procedures under ss. 227.114 to 227.21 and 227.26 do not apply. Instead, the legislative reference bureau shall publish the repeal or modification in the Wisconsin administrative code and register as required under s. 35.93, and the repeal or modification shall take effect as provided in s. 227.22.

227.27(1)(1) In construing rules, ss. 990.001, 990.01, 990.03 (1), (2) and (4), 990.04 and 990.06 apply in the same manner in which they apply to statutes, except that ss. 990.001 and 990.01 do not apply if the construction would produce a result that is inconsistent with the manifest intent of the agency.

227.27(2)(2) The code shall be prima facie evidence in all courts and proceedings as provided by s. 889.01, but this does not preclude reference to or, in case of a discrepancy, control over a rule filed with the legislative reference bureau under s. 227.20 or modified under s. 227.265, and the certified copy of a rule shall also and in the same degree be prima facie evidence in all courts and proceedings.

227.27 AnnotationWhen interpreting administrative regulations, a court uses the same rules of interpretation as the court applies to statutes. DaimlerChrysler v. LIRC, 2007 WI 15, 299 Wis. 2d 1, 727 N.W.2d 311, 05-0544.

227.27 AnnotationAn administrative agency’s interpretation of its own rules or regulations is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations. For an agency’s interpretation of its own rules or regulations, if the interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the intended purpose, a court generally applies either “controlling weight” or “great weight” deference. DaimlerChrysler v. LIRC, 2007 WI 15, 299 Wis. 2d 1, 727 N.W.2d 311, 05-0544. But see Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. DOR, 2018 WI 75, 382 Wis. 2d 496, 914 N.W.2d 21, 15-2019.

227.29(1)(1) By March 31 of each odd-numbered year, each agency with any rules published in the code shall submit a report to the joint committee for review of administrative rules listing all of the following rules promulgated or otherwise administered by that agency:

227.29(1)(a)(a) Unauthorized rules, as defined in s. 227.26 (4) (a), together with a description of the legislation that eliminated the agency’s authority to promulgate any such rule.

227.29(1)(b)(b) Rules for which the authority to promulgate has been restricted, together with a description of the legislation that restricted that authority.

227.29(1)(c)(c) Rules that are obsolete or that have been rendered unnecessary, together with a description of why those rules are obsolete or have been rendered unnecessary.

227.29(1)(d)(d) Rules that are duplicative of, superseded by, or in conflict with another rule, a state statute, a federal statute or regulation, or a ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction, together with a citation to or the text of any such statute, regulation, or ruling.

227.29(2)(a)(a) A description of the agency’s actions, if any, to address each rule listed in the report. If the agency has not taken any action to address a rule listed in the report, the agency shall include an explanation for not taking action.