Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB276

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/30/25
• Refer: 5/30/25
• Report Pass: 12/2/25
• Refer: 12/2/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to renumber and amend 227.135 (5); to amend 227.14 (6) (c) 1. a.; to create 227.135 (1) (g), 227.135 (5) (b) and 227.135 (7) of the statutes; Relating to: statements of scope for administrative rules. (FE)

Summary

AB276 would change Wisconsin’s administrative rulemaking process by requiring agencies to identify in a statement of scope whether they intend to pursue a permanent rule or an emergency rule. If an agency plans to pursue both types of rules on the same subject, it would have to file separate statements of scope. The bill also limits each statement of scope to supporting only one permanent rule or one emergency rule. For permanent rules, the bill keeps the current 30-month expiration period for a statement of scope. For emergency rules, it creates a much shorter six-month expiration period, after which an agency could no longer promulgate an emergency rule based on that statement. The bill also amends the statute governing withdrawal of proposed rules to align with these new expiration rules and applies the changes only to statements of scope published on or after the act’s effective date.

Impact

The bill would amend Wisconsin Statutes sections 227.135 and 227.14, tightening procedural requirements for agency rulemaking and limiting how long agencies may rely on a statement of scope. It would create a new statutory distinction between emergency-rule scopes and permanent-rule scopes, shorten the usable life of emergency-rule scopes to six months, and restrict agencies to one rule per scope. These changes would affect state agencies, the Department of Administration review process, the Governor’s approval role, and the Legislative Reference Bureau’s publication and tracking of scopes.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at increasing procedural discipline and transparency in rulemaking, which may appeal to those concerned about administrative oversight and limiting prolonged or repeated rulemaking efforts. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.

Contention

The main likely point of contention is whether the bill would unduly constrain agency flexibility, especially for emergency rules that may be needed quickly in response to urgent conditions. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s tighter deadlines and one-rule-per-scope limit as a way to prevent scope creep and ensure clearer legislative oversight. Opponents would likely argue that the six-month expiration for emergency-rule scopes is too restrictive and could make it harder for agencies to respond efficiently to time-sensitive problems or to refine rules during the promulgation process.