HF936

This legislative bill introduced by Nash involves revisions and additions regarding the process of administrative rulemaking in Minnesota. Here are the key points and changes proposed in the bill:

1. Cost-Benefit Analysis Requirement: State agencies are required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for any proposed rules to demonstrate that the benefits of the rule exceed its costs. This analysis must be prepared both in preliminary form for proposed rules and as a final version when the rules are adopted.

2. Definition Additions: The bill expands definitions related to rulemaking including:

   • "Benefit" as any value gained from a rule, expressed in dollars.
   • "Best practices" relating to state-of-the-art methodologies within a discipline.
   • "Cost" defined as value lost due to a rule, also in dollar terms.
   • "Stakeholder," which includes any individual or entity affected by a rule.

3. Transparency and Methodology Standards: Agencies must use standardized analytic methods, maintain transparency about these methods, and publish all relevant documents and data used in the cost-benefit analysis.

4. Review and Correction Mechanisms: Requires that a deficient cost-benefit analysis or one that significantly deviates from the preliminary analysis (without sufficient justification) can lead to rule adjustments or rejections unless corrected.

5. Exemptions: Certain types of rules, such as those for emergencies, expedited procedures, and specific legislative exemptions, are not subject to these new cost-benefit analysis requirements.

6. Updated Procedures for Adopting Exempt Rules: The bill specifies that certain rules exempt from standard rulemaking procedures still need approval and publication processes involving several legislative bodies and the secretary of state.

7. Judicial Review: The validity of a rule can be challenged in court if it significantly impacts the petitioner's legal rights or if the supporting cost-benefit analysis is found to be significantly deficient.

Overall, the bill aims to enhance the transparency, accountability, and justification of administrative rules by emphasizing cost-effectiveness and stakeholder impact while providing mechanisms for public and judicial review.