Regulatory Comment Letter - Minnesota

COMMENTS ON MINNESOTA PROPOSED RULE

Filing Gate

Identify the rulemaking track before using this form.

Complete the filing record:

Date: [________________________________]

To: [AGENCY RULEMAKING CONTACT]

Agency: [________________________________]

Submission method/address: [________________________________]

Re: Comments on [RULE TITLE], Minnesota Rules [CITATION]

State Register citation: [VOLUME] State Register [PAGE] ([DATE])

Dear [RULEMAKING CONTACT]:

[COMMENTER LEGAL NAME] submits these comments on the proposed rule identified above. These comments are submitted by the deadline and method stated in the State Register notice.

1. Commenter and Affected Interest

1. Commenter is a [resident / business / nonprofit / association / local government / other] located at [address].

2. Commenter's relevant activities are [describe operations, license, program participation, regulated conduct, or other interest].

3. The proposal would affect Commenter by [identify the cost, duty, benefit, procedure, license, reporting requirement, or other direct effect].

4. [NAME AND TITLE] is authorized to submit these comments for Commenter.

2. Requested Action

Commenter asks the Agency to:

1. [Adopt / revise / withdraw] proposed Minnesota Rules [part];
2. Replace [quoted proposed language] with [exact replacement language];
3. Address the evidence in Exhibits [____]; and
4. [Take another action within the Agency's authority].

3. Enabling Authority, Notice, and Rulemaking Track

The notice cites [STATUTE AND SECTION] as authority for the proposal. That provision authorizes the Agency to [quote or accurately summarize the delegation].

The Agency is using [direct-hearing / no-hearing / dual-notice] procedure. The applicable notice states [comment period, hearing information, hearing-request method, and other material instructions].

Commenter submits that proposed part [____]:

☐ Fits the cited authority because [________________________________].

☐ Should be narrowed because [compare the proposed text with the statutory delegation].

☐ Contains an issue not clearly addressed in the notice or Statement of Need and Reasonableness. The issue and practical effect are [________________________________].

Use the Minnesota procedure and proposed text, not federal rulemaking labels, to explain the asserted defect.

4. Section-by-Section Comments

Comment 1 — [Short descriptive heading]

The proposal states: "[quote the proposed text]".

Commenter recommends: "[provide replacement text]".

The revision is warranted because [enabling authority, factual evidence, technical feasibility, administrative effect, unintended consequence, or other grounded reason]. Supporting material appears at Exhibit [____], page [____].

Comment 2 — [Short descriptive heading]

The proposal states: "[quote the proposed text]".

Commenter recommends: "[provide replacement text]".

The revision is warranted because [________________________________].

5. Statement of Need and Reasonableness

Minn. Stat. § 14.131 requires the Agency to prepare, review, and make the Statement of Need and Reasonableness available for public review by the rulemaking-notice date. Address its Minnesota-specific factors with evidence.

Key assumptions and sources: [wage rates, affected units, frequency, implementation period, source documents, and uncertainty range].

Commenter asks the Agency to use [alternative assumption, method, or estimate] because [________________________________].

6. First-Year Small-Business or Small-City Cost — Optional

Complete this section only if Minn. Stat. § 14.127 may apply.

Section 14.127 requires the Agency to determine whether first-year compliance will exceed $25,000 for any one business with fewer than 50 full-time employees or any one statutory or home-rule charter city with fewer than ten full-time employees. The determination is made before the hearing record closes, or before submission to the administrative law judge when there is no hearing, and is reviewed by the administrative law judge.

☐ Commenter is a covered business with fewer than 50 full-time employees.

☐ Commenter is a covered city with fewer than ten full-time employees.

Commenter asks the Agency and administrative law judge to determine [that the threshold is / is not] exceeded because [________________________________].

If the threshold is exceeded or a below-threshold determination is disapproved, subdivision 3 permits a qualifying business or city to file a written temporary-exemption statement; the rule then does not apply to that filer until legislative approval, subject to the exceptions and severability provisions in subdivisions 4 and 5. Obtain legal review before relying on this mechanism.

7. Public-Hearing Request — No-Hearing Track Only

Delete this section if the Agency is already proceeding directly to a hearing or if no request is desired.

Under §§ 14.22 and 14.25, a hearing is required when 25 or more persons submit valid written requests during the 30-day comment period. A valid request must include the requester's name and address and identify the rule portions objected to or state opposition to the entire rule. One request alone does not trigger the hearing.

Requester name: [________________________________]

Address: [________________________________]

Objected-to rule parts or entire-rule opposition: [________________________________]

Requested change, if any: [________________________________]

Commenter requests a public hearing and asks the Agency to count this request under § 14.25. Commenter understands that at least 25 valid requests are required.

8. Modifications and Procedural Requests

Section 14.24 allows a modification when it is supported by data and views submitted to the Agency and does not produce a substantially different rule. A substantially different rule requires compliance with the procedures for adopting such a rule.

Commenter submits that the following requested or anticipated modification is supported by the record and is [not substantially different / potentially substantially different]: [________________________________].

Commenter also requests that the Agency:

1. Confirm receipt of these comments at [email];
2. Add the supporting exhibits and data to the rulemaking record;
3. Address the identified Statement of Need and Reasonableness and § 14.127 issues; and
4. [State another request grounded in the notice, enabling act, or agency rule].

Do not demand an automatic 60-day supplemental comment period. Do not add ex parte-disclosure language or a generic judicial-review reservation without separate authority applicable to the agency, procedure, and commenter.

9. Conclusion

For the reasons above, Commenter asks the Agency to [adopt, revise, or withdraw specified provisions] and use the exact revisions stated in Sections [____].

Please direct questions concerning this submission to [name, title, telephone, and email].

Respectfully submitted,

Signature: ______________________________

[Name]

[Title / organization]

[Address]

[Telephone / email]

Exhibit List

Filing Checklist

☐ Identified the direct-hearing, no-hearing, or dual-notice track

☐ Read the complete State Register notice and proposed text

☐ Verified the agency's enabling statute and any specialized procedure

☐ Confirmed the comment, hearing, and hearing-request dates

☐ Reviewed the Statement of Need and Reasonableness

☐ Checked the § 14.127 first-year cost threshold when relevant

☐ Followed the exact recipient, delivery, format, and copy instructions

☐ Removed unsupported federal terminology, ex parte language, and generic litigation reservations

☐ Supported factual and cost claims with exhibits and reproducible calculations

☐ Retained proof of timely submission and receipt

Current Minnesota Rulemaking Notes

• Under § 14.22, the no-hearing track supplies a 30-day comment period and notice of the 25-valid-request hearing trigger.
• Under § 14.14, a direct rulemaking hearing generally requires at least 30 days' notice and an opportunity for affected interests to participate.
• Section 14.24 uses Minnesota's supported-modification and substantially-different-rule framework; do not import a federal “logical outgrowth” formula or an automatic 60-day period.
• Section 14.131 requires the Minnesota-specific Statement of Need and Reasonableness; it is not a generic small-business certification.
• The former Office of Administrative Hearings was renamed the Court of Administrative Hearings by Laws 2025, chapter 39, article 2, section 17. Current Revisor pages flag the terminology update for the 2026 statutes.

Official Sources

• Minn. Stat. § 14.14: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/14.14
• Minn. Stat. § 14.22: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/14.22
• Minn. Stat. § 14.24: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/14.24
• Minn. Stat. § 14.25: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/14.25
• Minn. Stat. § 14.127: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/14.127
• Minn. Stat. § 14.131: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/14.131
• Laws 2025, chapter 39, article 2, section 17: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2025/0/39/laws.2.17.0