Laserfiche WebLink
Role of the Work Groups <br />• Input, not decision making. The role of the work group is to provide input to the DNR on the <br />establishment of new districts and the development of standards and criteria for each district. <br />The DNR will look to work group members for feedback and expertise in developing these <br />regulations. The work group does not have voting authority on what will go in the rules. The <br />DNR Commissioner makes the final decisions on the content of the draft rules. However, input <br />from the work groups will inform and influence the rule content. The DNR hopes work group <br />members will represent their own and constituent views fairly, and will actively participate in <br />the process. <br />• Identify issues and ideas. The DNR will look to work group members to identify issues and <br />concerns, and to provide ideas and information to enhance rulemaking. <br />• Express your ideas /interests. Each member was appointed so that at a variety of interests, <br />viewpoints, and geographic perspectives are present. We encourage you to communicate with <br />others within and outside of the work groups, so that a broad base of perspectives is expressed. <br />• Reasonable comments and suggestions. The DNR will carefully consider all comments and <br />suggestions about the rules. Suggestions will be most useful if they are supported in the same <br />manner as the justification the DNR must use to show the need for and reasonableness of <br />proposed rule requirements as provided below. <br />Regulatory Analysis <br />Minnesota Statutes, section 14.131, sets out seven factors that an agency must analyze and include in <br />the SONAR when it adopts rules. The DNR may look to work group members as appropriate and as time <br />allows for advice and information as we analyze these factors: <br />1) a description of the classes of persons who probably will be affected by the proposed rule, <br />including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit from <br />the proposed rule; <br />2) the probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and <br />enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues; <br />3) a determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for <br />achieving the purpose of the proposed rule; <br />4) a description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that <br />were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were rejected in favor of the <br />proposed rule; <br />5) the probable costs of complying with the proposed rule, including the portion of the total costs <br />that will be borne by identifiable categories of affected parties, such as separate classes of <br />governmental units, businesses, or individuals; <br />6) the probable costs or consequences of not adopting the proposed rule, including those costs or <br />consequences borne by identifiable categories of affected parties, such as separate classes of <br />government units, businesses, or individuals; and <br />7) an assessment of any differences between the proposed rule and existing federal regulations <br />and a specific analysis of the need for and reasonableness of each difference. <br />MRCCA Rulemaking Project - Work Group Member Handout l 3 <br />