Problem: Agencies struggle to enact even the most simple, non-controversial rules because the formal rulemaking process is too inefficient, lengthy, and bureaucratic.

Objective: Build a more efficient and accountable rulemaking process.

1. Expedited Rules Process

• Implement expedited rules process as the default for non-controversial rule changes and repeals (see Dave Orren memo to the Rules Reform Task Force, DEO #4, 12/11/00).

• Safeguard: add a trigger mechanism to pull the rule out of expedited process and back into the traditional rulemaking process if a certain number of stakeholders and citizens believe the rule is too controversial or complex for an expedited process. Enhanced notice requirements to stakeholders and affected citizens serves as a protection against bad rules.

• Consider: a sunset clause to force review of this process.

• Benefits: allows rule changes that make good, common sense to have a "fast track" option so the public is better served.

2. Governor’s Veto Authority

• Implement extension of Governor’s authority to veto agency rules (i.e. remove sunset clause).

• Benefit: protects the regulated community from needless, burdensome, or inappropriate rules by providing a "check" on agency rules.

• Consider: imposing a 3-week time limit on the review period to ensure a quick review and approval of agency rules (note: procedures were revised on 12/1/00 to reflect this time limit). Extending the veto period to within 21 days of receiving a copy of the rule from the Secretary of State would provide the Governor’s Office with an adequate time frame to review rules and meet the publication deadlines for a notice of veto in the State Register.

3. Limited Legislative Review

• Recommend a limited legislative review of existing agency rules (see Dave Orren memo to the Rules Reform Task Force, DEO #2, 12/11/00).

• Consider: focusing on one or two rule chapters or topic areas per legislative committee that merit legislative attention and scrutiny.

• Benefit: a limited review is more manageable for the legislature and state agencies, and is likely to produce more constructive results.

4. Dedicated Oversight

• Implement dedicated, centralized oversight of the administrative rulemaking process.

• Benefit: someone would be responsible for coordinating the internal rules review process, maintaining a state rulemaking docket, and collaborating with state agencies to collect citizen/stakeholder feedback on the rules process and implement changes that reduce regulatory burdens and increase compliance.

• Consider: assigning this responsibility to a position in the Governor’s Office or Minnesota Planning. Ensure that this oversight function will add value and not add another level of bureaucracy to the process.

Problem: Rule books are full of outdated and obsolete rules.

Objective: Clean up obsolete and outdated rules.*

5. Legislative Review of Rule Repeals

• Encourage the Legislature to review rule repeals in policy committees early in the legislative session.

• Benefit: committees with expertise in a policy area would consider rule repeals in their policy context. It also helps to avoid unwanted rule repeals at the end of session and allows for public consideration and feedback in the committee process.

• Consider: implementing a better process for dealing with statutory rule repeals (i.e. Revisor’s bill process).

*An expedited rules process for rule repeals will also address this problem by giving agencies a "fast-track" option for repealing outdated and obsolete rules.

 

Problem: The regulated community is not always adequately informed of regulations that apply to them. The community is forced to comply with multiple rules regulations that cross many state and federal agencies.

Objective: Increase public access, awareness and opportunities for input; and improve the coordination of laws and rules.

6. Public Access to Information

• Implement increased web access to state agency public rulemaking dockets, rule notices and other related documents; link agency rulemaking dockets to a centralized state rulemaking docket.

• Benefit: the regulated community would have easier access to information about agency rules, timelines, and opportunities for input.

• Consider: making the statewide docket available to legal newspapers in each county.

7. Obtain Citizen Feedback

• Implement greater solicitation of feedback from citizens and stakeholders to provide the broadest possible perspective on the need, reasonableness, clarity and enforceability of agency rules and on the administrative rulemaking process itself.

• Benefit: Additional (early) feedback gives the state ideas for reducing the burden of complying with rules and improving the overall rulemaking process.

• Consider: training opportunities to assist agencies, boards and commissions with implementing citizen advisory committees, feedback panels, focus groups or other citizen input mechanisms where they currently are not used.

8. Coordination of Multiple Laws and Rules

• Implement system where the regulated community will face fewer regulatory burdens through better coordination of laws and rules.

• Benefit: this one-stop-shopping concept allows businesses to focus on business and less on multiple state and federal regulations.

• Consider: targeting a highly regulated industry with many operators throughout the state as a pilot project (e.g. gas stations, farms, restaurants, etc.). The Governor’s Office could work with agencies to improve coordination by reducing duplicative reporting requirements and creating an index for regulated parties explaining who regulates what.

Problem: Stakeholders are dissatisfied because rulemaking is inflexible and takes too long. Agencies can’t effectively serve their "customers" (i.e. the regulated community).

Objective: Increase stakeholder compliance.*

9. Alternatives to Reduce Regulatory Burden & Achieve Compliance

• Implement expansion of alternatives to reduce regulatory burdens and give agencies more flexibility to achieve greater compliance, such as technical assistance/education, best management practices, interpretive notices and administrative penalty orders (see Dave Orren memo to the Rules Reform Task Force, DEO #3, 12/11/00).

• Benefit: agencies can respond better to industry needs by getting information out quickly. Provides certainty and predictability for stakeholders. "Alternatives" can be designed to encourage compliance, which may reduce costs.

• Consider: a thorough analysis of alternatives currently used in state agencies before determining where and how to expand their use.

10. General Variance Law

• Implement general variance law.

• Benefit: allows state agencies to vary or "fine tune" a rule if the purpose of the rules is met, the regulatory burden is minimized and the statutory standard remains intact.

• Consider: identifying rules that should not be varied in each agency in order to protect the public. Determine how to coordinate a general variance provision with existing variances and waivers used by state agencies.