If a rule causes financial burdens to a business, must a trial-type hearing and cross-examination of experts be provided?

In administrative law, when evaluating whether a rule that imposes financial burdens on a business requires a trial-type hearing and cross-examination of experts, it's important to understand the context of due process and the nature of rulemaking versus adjudication.

Trial-type hearings and the opportunity for cross-examination are typically reserved for more formal adjudicative processes, where there are genuine disputes of fact that need to be resolved. In the context of rulemaking, agencies often engage in the notice-and-comment process, allowing interested parties to submit their views without necessitating a full-blown trial-like hearing.

The issuance of rules, even those that may have financial implications for businesses, does not automatically trigger the requirement for a hearing or for cross-examination. Such proceedings are generally not warranted unless there are particular statutory requirements or specific due process considerations that necessitate a more formal process.

In summary, the rule does not inherently require a trial-type hearing or cross-examination when financial burdens are involved, as the agency's rulemaking process is designed to balance efficiency with stakeholder input without the need for formal adjudicative protections.