BP BHEAD INT H

AN ACT Relating to regulatory reform; and amending RCW 4.84.350, 34.05.375, and 34.05.570.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 4.84.350 and 1995 c 403 s 903 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award a qualified party that prevails in a judicial review of an agency action fees and other expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, unless the court finds that the agency action was substantially justified or that circumstances make an award unjust. A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.

(2) The amount awarded a qualified party under subsection (1) of this section shall not exceed:

(a) For cases involving rule validity:

(i) Twenty-five thousand dollars for superior court cases; and

(ii) Fifteen thousand dollars for appeals to the court of appeals and the supreme court; and

(b) For cases involving other agency action:

(i) Fifty thousand dollars for superior court cases; and

(ii) Fifteen thousand dollars for appeals to the court of appeals and the supreme court.

(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply unless all parties challenging the agency action are qualified parties. If two or more qualified parties join in an action, the award in total shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. The court, in its discretion, may reduce the amount to be awarded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, or deny any award, to the extent that a qualified party during the course of the proceedings engaged in conduct that unduly or unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy.

(4) Qualified parties shall receive awards under this section for cases pending July 23, 1995.

Sec. 2. RCW 34.05.375 and 1988 c 288 s 314 are each amended to read as follows:

No rule proposed after July 1, 1989, is valid unless it is adopted in substantial compliance with RCW 34.05.310 through 34.05.395. Inadvertent failure to mail notice of a proposed rule adoption to any person as required by RCW 34.05.320(3) does not invalidate a rule. No action based upon this section may be maintained to contest the validity of any rule unless it is commenced within ((~~two~~)) seven years after the effective date of the rule.

Sec. 3. RCW 34.05.570 and 1995 c 403 s 802 are each amended to read as follows:

(1) Generally. Except to the extent that this chapter or another statute provides otherwise:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity;

(b) The validity of agency action shall be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time it was taken;

(c) The court shall make a separate and distinct ruling on each material issue on which the court's decision is based; and

(d) The court shall grant relief only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.

(2) Review of rules. (a) A rule may be reviewed by petition for declaratory judgment filed pursuant to this subsection or in the context of any other review proceeding under this section. In an action challenging the validity of a rule, the agency shall be made a party to the proceeding.

(b) The validity of any rule may be determined upon petition for a declaratory judgment addressed to the superior court of Thurston county, when it appears that the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs or immediately threatens to interfere with or impair the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner. The burden of demonstrating the validity of any rule is on the agency. The declaratory judgment order may be entered whether or not the petitioner has first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule in question.

(c) In a proceeding involving review of a rule, the court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that: The rule violates constitutional provisions; the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; the rule was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures; or the rule is arbitrary and capricious.

(3) Review of agency orders in adjudicative proceedings. The court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only if it determines that:

(a) The order, or the statute or rule on which the order is based, is in violation of constitutional provisions on its face or as applied;

(b) The order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency conferred by any provision of law;

(c) The agency has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure;

(d) The agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law;

(e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter;

(f) The agency has not decided all issues requiring resolution by the agency;

(g) A motion for disqualification under RCW 34.05.425 or 34.12.050 was made and was improperly denied or, if no motion was made, facts are shown to support the grant of such a motion that were not known and were not reasonably discoverable by the challenging party at the appropriate time for making such a motion;

(h) The order is inconsistent with a rule of the agency unless the agency explains the inconsistency by stating facts and reasons to demonstrate a rational basis for inconsistency; or

(i) The order is arbitrary or capricious.

(4) Review of other agency action.

(a) All agency action not reviewable under subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be reviewed under this subsection.

(b) A person whose rights are violated by an agency's failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514, seeking an order pursuant to this subsection requiring performance. Within twenty days after service of the petition for review, the agency shall file and serve an answer to the petition, made in the same manner as an answer to a complaint in a civil action. The court may hear evidence, pursuant to RCW 34.05.562, on material issues of fact raised by the petition and answer.

(c) Relief for persons aggrieved by the performance of an agency action, including the exercise of discretion, or an action under (b) of this subsection can be granted only if the court determines that the action is:

(i) Unconstitutional;

(ii) Outside the statutory authority of the agency or the authority conferred by a provision of law;

(iii) Arbitrary or capricious; or

(iv) Taken by persons who were not properly constituted as agency officials lawfully entitled to take such action.