2005 Minnesota Statutes

     14.15 Administrative law judge's report. 

    Subdivision 1.    Time of preparation.  After allowing a 
 comment period during which written material may be submitted 
 and recorded in the hearing record for five working days after 
 the public hearing ends, or for a longer period not to exceed 20 
 days if ordered by the administrative law judge, the 
 administrative law judge assigned to the hearing shall write a 
 report as provided for in section 14.50.  Before writing the 
 report, the administrative law judge shall allow the agency and 
 interested persons a rebuttal period of five working days after 
 the comment period ends to respond in writing to any new 
 information submitted.  During the comment period and five-day 
 rebuttal period, the agency may indicate in writing whether 
 there are amendments suggested by other persons which the agency 
 is willing to adopt.  Additional evidence may not be submitted 
 during this five-day rebuttal period.  The written responses 
 must be added to the rulemaking record.  

    Subd. 2.    Deadline to complete report; extensions.  
 The report shall be completed within 30 days after the close of 
 the hearing record unless the chief administrative law judge, 
 upon written request of the agency or the administrative law 
 judge, orders an extension.  An extension shall not be granted 
 if the chief administrative law judge determines that an 
 extension would prohibit a rule from being adopted or becoming 
 effective until after a date for adoption or effectiveness as 
 required by statute.  The report shall be available to all 
 affected persons upon request for at least five working days 
 before the agency takes any further action on the rule. 

    Subd. 3.    Finding of substantial difference.  If the 
 report contains a finding that a rule has been modified in a way 
 which makes it substantially different, as determined under 
 section 14.05, subdivision 2, from that which was originally 
 proposed, or that the agency has not met the requirements of 
 sections 14.131 to 14.18, it shall be submitted to the chief 
 administrative law judge for approval.  If the chief 
 administrative law judge approves the finding of the 
 administrative law judge, the chief administrative law judge 
 shall advise the agency and the revisor of statutes of actions 
 which will correct the defects.  The agency shall not adopt the 
 rule until the chief administrative law judge determines that 
 the defects have been corrected or, if applicable, that the 
 agency has satisfied the rule requirements for the adoption of a 
 substantially different rule.  

    Subd. 4.    Need or reasonableness not established.  If 
 the chief administrative law judge determines that the need for 
 or reasonableness of the rule has not been established pursuant 
 to section 14.14, subdivision 2, and if the agency does not 
 elect to follow the suggested actions of the chief 
 administrative law judge to correct that defect, then the agency 
 shall submit the proposed rule to the legislative coordinating 
 commission and to the house of representatives and senate policy 
 committees with primary jurisdiction over state governmental 
 operations for advice and comment.  The agency may not adopt the 
 rule until it has received and considered the advice of the 
 commission and committees.  However, the agency is not required 
 to wait for advice for more than 60 days after the commission 
 and committees have received the agency's submission.  

    Subd. 5.    Harmless errors.  The administrative law 
 judge shall disregard any error or defect in the proceeding due 
 to the agency's failure to satisfy any procedural requirement 
 imposed by law or rule if the administrative law judge finds: 

    (1) that the failure did not deprive any person or entity 
 of an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the rulemaking 
 process; or 

    (2) that the agency has taken corrective action to cure the 
 error or defect so that the failure did not deprive any person 
 or entity of an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the 
 rulemaking process. 

    HIST: 1957 c 806 s 2; 1974 c 344 s 1-3; 1975 c 380 s 2; 1975 c 
 413 s 1; 1976 c 138 s 1; 1977 c 443 s 2; 1980 c 615 s 
 3-7,9-11,39-50; 1981 c 253 s 5-19; 1981 c 357 s 25; 1Sp1981 c 4 
 art 2 s 1; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1983 c 210 s 5-7; 1984 c 640 s 
 10,32; 1987 c 384 art 2 s 1; 1992 c 494 s 3,4; 1995 c 233 art 2 
 s 15,16; 1997 c 98 s 8; 2000 c 469 s 2; 2001 c 106 s 9