Specific authority in law requirement for rulemaking
Impact
The passage of SF211 will lead to a more structured and legally grounded approach to rulemaking across Minnesota state agencies. The immediate effect will be a clarification of the limits within which agencies can operate, potentially resulting in fewer regulations being imposed without explicit legislative backing. This could streamline the regulatory process but may also slow down the implementation of necessary rules as agencies would need to seek legislative approval for any new or revised regulations.
Summary
SF211 focuses on ensuring that state government agencies have specific authority in law before they can engage in rulemaking. The bill amends Minnesota Statutes, specifically section 14.05, to limit the ability of agencies to adopt, amend, suspend, or repeal rules unless expressly authorized by law. This change is intended to increase government accountability by aligning regulatory actions closely with legislative intent and oversight, thereby minimizing the scope for agencies to enact regulations unilaterally.
Contention
There are notable points of contention surrounding SF211, particularly in discussions about its implications for agency autonomy and regulatory efficiency. Supporters argue that it enhances democratic oversight and protects citizens from overreach by regulatory bodies. However, critics may raise concerns that it curtails the flexibility and responsiveness of agencies to address emergent issues that require swift regulatory adaptations. The tension lies in balancing appropriate oversight with the need for a responsive and adaptive regulatory framework to meet the state's needs.
Administrative Procedure Act requirements addition to emphasize statutory authorization for rules and governor's statutory authority to authorize rules in an emergency rescindment provision
Administrative Procedure Act requirements added to emphasize statutory authorization for rules, governor's statutory authority to authorize rules in an emergency rescinded, and court deference to agency rule interpretation precluded.
Manure management plan requirements for feedlots modified, minimum setbacks and inspection frequencies established, penalties for manure management plan violations specified, rulemaking authorized, and money appropriated.