12-0900-14018-1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIAVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
In the Matter of the Proposed Repeal
of Rules Relating to Migrant Labor REPORT OF THE
Camps, Minnesota Rules, Parts ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
4630.4800 to 4630.6550 and
Amendment to Part 4717.7000
Administrative Law Judge Steve M. Mihalchick conducted a hearing on these proposed rule amendments beginning at 9:30 a.m. on March 2, 2001 at the Minnesota Department of Health Distance Learning Center, 3rd Floor, 130 E. 7th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota. The hearing was also broadcast via interactive video-conferencing in the cities of Olivia and Moorhead, Minnesota. The hearing continued until everyone present had an opportunity to state their views on the proposed rules.
This Report is part of a rulemaking process governed by the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act.[1] The legislature has designed the rulemaking process to ensure that state agencies have met all the requirements that Minnesota law specifies for adopting rules. Those requirements include assurances that the proposed rules are necessary and reasonable and that any modifications that the agency may have made after the proposed rules were initially published are not impermissible substantial changes. The rulemaking process also includes a hearing, when a sufficient number of persons request one. The hearing is intended to allow the agency and the administrative law judge reviewing the proposed rules to hear public comment regarding the impact of the proposed rules and what changes might be appropriate.
Stephen Shakman, Legal Affairs Coordinator, Office of the Commissioner; 121 East Seventh Place, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared for the Department of Health (“Department”). Several Department employees were on a panel available to provide the public with information about the proposed rules and to answer any questions. The panel members were: Lesli Kramer, R.S., Environmental Health Division, Southwestern District Office; Colleen Paulus, Manager, Environmental Health Services; Jeanne Eggleston, Rules Coordinator, Environmental Health Division; and Larry Murral, Supervisor, Environmental Health Division. Also appearing on the panel was Randy Vogt, Building Code and Standards Division, Department of Administration. Approximately five members of the public attended the hearing at the St. Paul location. Approximately thirteen individuals attended the video conference in Olivia, and two individuals attended the video conference held in Moorhead. Twenty-five individuals from the three locations signed the hearing register.
After the hearing ended, the record remained open for five working days, until March 9, 2001, to allow interested persons and the Department an opportunity to submit written comments.[2] During this initial comment period the administrative law judge received five written comments. Two written comments were received after the initial comment period. Following the initial comment period, the record remained open for an additional five working days to allow interested persons and the Department the opportunity to file a written response to the comments submitted. The deadline for response to the comments was March 16, 2000. One responsive comment was received from the Department. The hearing record closed for all purposes on March 16, 2001.
The Department must make this Report available for review for at least five working days before the Department takes any further action to adopt final rules or to modify or withdraw the proposed rules. During that time, this Report must be made available to interested persons upon request. If the Commissioner of Health makes changes in the rules, she must submit the rules, along with the complete hearing record, to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a review of those changes before she may adopt the rules in final form.
After adopting the final version of the rules, the Department must submit the rules to the Revisor of Statutes for a review of their form. After the Revisor of Statutes approves the form of the rules, the rules must be filed with the Secretary of State. On the day of that filing, the Department must give notice to everyone who requested notice of that filing.
Based upon all the testimony, exhibits, and written comments, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1. On March 27, 2000, the Department published a Request for Comments on Planned Repeal of Rules at 24 State Register 1362-63.[3] In developing the proposal to repeal rules, the Department consulted with various organizations, state, federal and local agencies, and associations including the Minnesota Migrant Services Consortium; the Chicano Latino Affairs Council; United Migrant Opportunity Services; Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, Inc. - Migrant Legal Services; numerous county environmental health agencies; the Minnesota Department of Administration, Building Code and Standards Division; the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Fire Code Division; the Minnesota Electricity Board, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry and the United States Department of Labor.[4]
2. On October 9, 2000, the Department published a Notice of Intent to Repeal Rules Without a Public Hearing at 25 State Register 803-05.[5] The Department received 25 requests for hearing.
3. On November 28, 2000, the Department requested that a hearing be scheduled and filed the following documents with the Chief Administrative Law Judge:[6]
a. A copy of the proposed rules certified as to form by the Revisor of Statutes;[7]
b. A draft of the Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR);[8]
c. The Notice of Hearing proposed to be published;[9] and
d. The Department’s request for prior approval of its Notice Plan for the Notice of Hearing.[10]
4. The Administrative Law Judge approved the Department’s Notice Plan on December 8, 2000.[11]
5. The Department mailed the Notice of Hearing to all persons and associations who had registered their names with the agency for the purpose of receiving such notice.[12]
6. The Notice of Hearing was published on January 29, 2001 at 25 State Register 1329-31.[13] The Notice was also distributed to the entities specified in Finding 1. In addition, the Department developed an interested persons mailing list to whom the Notice of Hearing was mailed. The list included migrant and minority-based organizations, industry organizations, employers (processors and growers), local government entities and state agencies with an interest in agriculture and migrant labor issues.[14]
7. On the day of the hearing, the Department placed the following additional documents into the record:[15]
a. Certificate of Mailing the Statement of Need and Reasonableness to the Legislative Reference Library and a copy of the transmittal letter.[16]
b. Certificate of Mailing the Notice of Hearing including certification of giving notice pursuant to the Additional Notice section of the Department's Statement of Need and Reasonableness, and the Certificate of Mailing List, current as of January 25, 2001, with a copy of the lists and the notice as mailed attached.[17]
c. Certificate of Sending Notice to Legislators and copies of the transmittal letters.[18]
d. A copy of a letter to the Chicano Latino Affairs Council.[19]
e. A copy of a letter to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.[20]
f. A map demonstrating county delegation status of the Food, Beverage and Lodging Program and duties related to manufactured home parks and recreational camping areas.[21]
g. A letter from Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, Inc. dated April 25, 2000.[22]
8. The following comments were received by the Administrative Law Judge:
a. A letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated February 28, 2001.[23]
b. A letter from the Redwood-Renville Community Health Services dated February 28, 2001.[24]
c. A letter from the Midwest Food Processors Association, Inc. dated March 2, 2001.[25]
d. A letter from Redwood-Renville Community Health Services dated March 6, 2001.[26]
e. A comment from Pete Padilla dated March 5, 2001.[27]
f. Comments from the Department of Health dated March 9, 2001.[28]
g. A comment from Centro Campesino dated March 8, 2001.[29]
h. A comment from Jimmy P. Byun dated March 10, 2001. [30]
i. A comment from Pauline Redmond dated March 10, 2001.[31]
j. The post-hearing reply of the Department of Health dated March 16, 2001.[32]
9. The Department has met all of the procedural requirements under the applicable statutes and rules.
10. This rulemaking proceeding involves the repeal of existing rules of the Minnesota Department of Health governing migrant labor camps. The current rules proposed for repeal govern the permitting of migrant labor camps and establish requirements for siting, water supply, waste disposal, housing, heating, electricity, toilets, bathing, laundry, cooking and eating facilities, refuse disposal, insect and rodent control, and sleeping facilities. The Department is also proposing to make conforming amendments to the lettering contained in Minn. R. 4717.7000 as a result of the proposed repeal.
11. Minnesota Statutes, section 144.12, subd. 1, provides the commissioner of health the authority to "adopt reasonable rules pursuant to chapter 14 for the preservation of the public health." This section further provides that "the commissioner may control, by rule, by requiring the taking out of licenses or permits, or by other appropriate means any of the following matters:…(12) The construction, equipment, and maintenance, in respect to sanitary conditions, of lumber camps, migratory or migrant labor camps, and other industrial camps.”
12. The Administrative Law Judge finds that the Department has the statutory authority to adopt the proposed rules.
13. Under Minnesota law,[33] one of the determinations that must be made in a rulemaking proceeding is whether the agency has established the need for and reasonableness of the proposed rules by an affirmative presentation of facts. In support of a rule, an agency may rely on legislative facts, namely general facts concerning questions of law, policy and discretion, or it may simply rely on interpretation of a statute, or stated policy preferences.[34] The Department prepared a SONAR in support of its proposed rules. At the hearing, the Department relied upon the SONAR as its affirmative presentation of need and reasonableness for the proposed amendments. The SONAR was supplemented by comments made by Department staff and panel members at the public hearing, and by the Department’s written post-hearing comments.
14. The question of whether a rule has been shown to be reasonable focuses on whether it has been shown to have a rational basis, or whether it is arbitrary, based upon the rulemaking record. Minnesota case law has equated an unreasonable rule with an arbitrary rule.[35] Arbitrary or unreasonable agency action is action without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case.[36] A rule is generally found to be reasonable if it is rationally related to the end sought to be achieved by the governing statute.[37] The Minnesota Supreme Court has further defined an agency’s burden in adopting rules by requiring it to “explain on what evidence it is relying and how the evidence connects rationally with the agency’s choice of action to be taken.”[38]
15. Reasonable minds might be divided about the wisdom of a certain course of action. An agency is entitled to make choices between possible approaches so long as its choice is rational. Generally, it is not the proper role of the Administrative Law Judge to determine which policy alternative presents the “best” approach since this would invade the policy-making discretion of the agency. The question is, rather, whether the choice made by the agency is one that a rational person could have made.[39]
16. In addition to need and reasonableness, the Administrative Law Judge must also assess whether the rule adoption procedure was complied with, whether the rule grants undue discretion, whether an agency has statutory authority to adopt the rule, whether the rule is unconstitutional or illegal, whether the rule constitutes an undue delegation of authority to another entity, or whether the proposed language is not a rule.[40]
17. Minnesota Statutes, section 14.111, imposes an additional notice requirement when rules are adopted that affect farming operations. In essence, the statute requires that an agency must provide a copy of any such proposed rule change to the Commissioner of Agriculture at least thirty days prior to publishing the proposed rule in the State Register.
18. The Administrative Law Judge finds that the Department has complied with the notice provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 14.111 by providing notice and a copy of the proposed rules to the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture on July 11, 2000.
19. Minnesota Statutes, section 3.9223, requires additional notice for proposed rules of a state agency that will have a primary affect on Chicano/Latino people. The statute requires that an agency submit such proposed rules to the Chicano Latino Affairs Council for review and recommendation at least fifteen days prior to the initial publication in the State Register.
20. The Administrative Law Judge finds that the Department has complied with the notice provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 3.9223 by providing notice and a copy of the proposed rules to the Chicano Latino Affairs Council on June 1, 2000.
21. Minnesota Statutes, Section 14.131 requires an agency adopting rules to include in its SONAR:
(1) a description of the classes of persons who probably will be affected by the proposed rule, including classes that will bear the costs of the proposed rule and classes that will benefit from the proposed rule;
(2) the probable costs to the agency and to any other agency of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rule and any anticipated effect on state revenues;
(3) a determination of whether there are less costly methods or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule;
(4) a description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons why they were rejected in favor of the proposed rule;
(5) the probable costs of complying with the proposed rule; and
(6) an assessment of any differences between the proposed rule and existing federal regulations and a specific analysis of the need for an reasonableness of each difference.
22. The SONAR includes the analysis performed by the agency to meet the requirements of the statute.[41]
23. The proposed repeal of rules will affect migrant workers and their families, employers of migrant workers, and third parties who provide housing to migrant workers.[42]
24. The proposed rule repeal will also affect the Minnesota Department of Health and other state agencies, including the State Fire Marshall's Office and the Department of Administration. In addition, local jurisdictions that have delegated authority to administer housing regulations will be affected.[43]
25. The Department anticipates that the repeal of the rules will benefit migrant workers and their families by providing for clearer application of statewide housing regulations. The Department asserts that the rule repeal will result in improved housing for migrant workers as housing used by the migrant workers will be brought up to the same standards as other housing in the state.
26. Because the current program is being repealed, there are no implementation or enforcement costs to the Department. The Department does not assess a permitting fee on migrant labor camps so there will be no reduction in state revenues as a direct result of the repeal. There are however secondary financial costs to the Department, certain state agencies, and local units of government. The Department anticipates increased licensing revenues for migrant labor camp establishments that are reclassified as manufactured home parks or lodging establishments for which licensing fees are required to be paid. The Department anticipates costs associated with staff efforts to identify and inspect newly categorized establishments. The Department expects that local jurisdictions with delegated authority to regulate the migrant labor camps will incur similar costs. Local environmental health agencies, the State Fire Marshal's Office, the Department of Administration, and local planning and zoning departments are expected to bear additional costs associated with expanded workloads for increased oversight and involvement.[44]
27. In assessing alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rule repeal, the Department considered amending the rules by deleting all existing language and developing new program language. The Department rejected that alternative for a number of reasons. First, the Department's rules were originally written to address migrants employed in seasonal agricultural activities. The Department has found that the nature of migrant labor has since changed to include work in other industries including meat processing, construction, amusement parks and the computer industry. In addition, the types of housing utilized by migrant workers has also expanded to include apartments, motels, private and rental homes, manufactured homes, cabins and other types of housing. Some of the housing is provided by employers and third parties, while others are owned by the migrant workers. Because the nature of migrant labor has changed significantly, the Department found it difficult to write a rule that would address all migrant workers in the state and all types of housing. In rejecting creating new program language, the Department noted that there already exists a large body of law that regulates housing in Minnesota and determined that it could best meet its public health objectives through existing laws and regulations and avoid creating unnecessarily duplicative regulatory programs.[45]
28. Because this rulemaking proceeding involves a rule repeal, there is no direct cost of compliance. However, associated costs of the repeal will include the cost of licenses for the migrant labor camps that will be reclassified to other types of housing for which a license is required. Further, costs may be incurred by the owners of migrant housing if repairs and upgrades are required in order to secure their license. Some of the upgrades required could be substantial including improvements involving sewage treatment systems, water supply wells, storm shelters or plumbing systems.[46]
Differences between the proposed rules and federal regulation:
29. Because this rulemaking proceeding involves the repeal of rules, an analysis of differences with federal regulations is inapplicable.
Performance-Based Regulation:
30. Minnesota Statutes, section 14.131, requires that an agency include in its SONAR a description of how it “considered and implemented the legislative policy supporting performance-based regulatory systems set forth in section 14.002.” Section 14.002 states, in relevant part, that “whenever feasible, state agencies must develop rules and regulatory programs that emphasize superior achievement in meeting the agency’s regulatory objectives and maximum flexibility for the regulated party and the agency in meeting those goals.” In this case, the Department indicates that it is proposing to eliminate a regulatory program that has become obsolete. Further, the Department states that it does not want to duplicate regulatory programs already in place that address safe building and housing practices for the general public. The Department contends that the proposed repeal of the rules and the governance of migrant labor housing by already existing laws and regulations is consistent with the policy supporting performance-based regulatory systems.[47]
31. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department has met the requirements set forth in Minn. Stat. § 14.131 for assessing the impact of the proposed rules, including consideration and implementation of the legislative policy supporting performance-based regulatory systems.
32. This Report is limited to the discussion of the portions of the proposed rules that received critical comment or otherwise need to be examined, and it will not discuss each comment or rule part proposed for repeal. Persons or groups who do not find their particular comments referenced in this Report should know that each and every suggestion including those made prior to the hearing, has been carefully read and considered.
33. Minnesota Rules, Parts 4630.4800 - 4630.6550 govern Migrant Labor Camps. The rules regulate the permitting of migrant labor camps and contain requirements for siting, water supply, waste disposal, housing, heating, electricity, insect and rodent control, and sleeping facilities.
34. The migrant labor camp rules were first adopted in 1951. The present rules were amended and adopted in January of 1969. The Department asserts that the purpose was to guarantee safety in migrant housing at a time when other housing regulations were not yet fully established.
35. As other state and federal housing regulations came into being, the Department has found that these other regulations often require measures that exceed those established in the migrant labor camp rules. As a result, the Department indicates that two sets of housing regulations in the state exist -- one for migrant workers and another for the general public. The Department asserts that given its public health objective to ensure safe housing, it cannot justify lesser housing standards for migrant workers.
36. By way of example, the Department compared the existing Manufactured Housing Building Code with the rules governing migrant labor camp manufactured homes. The Code requires that a manufactured home contain hot and cold running water, a dishwashing sink, a lavatory, toilet and a bathtub or shower. The rule, however, only requires a cold water tap within 100 feet of the dwelling, privies or other toilet facilities within 200 feet, and bathing and handwashing facilities within 400 feet. No dishwashing sink is required under the rules.
37. Minnesota Statutes, Section 145A.07 provides for the delegation to local jurisdictions certain licensing, inspection, reporting, enforcement and other duties related to housing regulations. Currently, the Department has made full delegations to thirty-three counties of its authority to administer the Food, Beverage and Lodging Program and oversight of Manufactured Home Parks and Recreational Camping Areas. Eight counties have received a partial delegation to administer the Food, Beverage and Lodging Program. The Department maintains sole authority for the Food, Beverage and Lodging Program and oversight of Manufactured Home Parks and Recreational Camping Areas in forty-six counties. The Department has determined to eliminate the option of partial delegations. The counties have the option to relinquish the delegated authority back to the Department.
38. The Department indicated that there exists a large body of law and regulations that regulate housing in Minnesota. These include the Minnesota Building Code[48], the State Plumbing Code[49], the State Electrical Code[50], the Uniform Fire Code[51], the Manufactured Home Building Code[52], planning and zoning regulations and the Department of Health's rules on manufactured home parks[53] and lodging establishments[54]. The Department stressed that these existing laws make no distinction between dwellings inhabited by migrant workers or dwellings inhabited by the general public. Further these existing codes and regulations make no distinction between dwellings that will be inhabited on a seasonal basis versus dwellings that will be utilized year round. The Department acknowledges that in many cases these other regulations have not been applied or enforced on establishments that house migrant workers. The Department believes that this lack of enforcement may be due, in part, to the existence of the migrant labor camp rules which may have been deemed to be controlling and exclusive regulations on migrant labor housing.
39. The Department asserts that its public health objective can be better met by the regulations that already exist. The Department believes that the current rules on migrant labor camps are obsolete and unnecessarily duplicative of regulations and programs already in place and that the repeal of these rules will allow for a clearer understanding and application of existing regulations to ensure safe housing for migrant workers.
40. The Department also indicated that a large portion of migrant housing will fall under the existing Manufactured Home Park Rules administered by the Department or its delegates. While there is no licensing fee established under the current migrant labor camp rules, there are licensing fees associated with manufactured home parks. The Department believes that the transition from the migrant labor camps rules to the manufactured housing park rules and the associated funding through the licensing fees will result in increased enforcement.
41. A number of objections to the proposed repeal have been raised. Several individuals expressed that the objectives will be better met by updating the existing migrant labor camp rules and following through with diligent enforcement. Opinions were expressed that the Department of Health has failed in its responsibilities to enforce the migrant labor camp rules and is now "dumping" the responsibility to local units of government. The assertion was made that had the Department enforced the migrant labor camp rules, basic standards for health and safety would be in place in most instances. Because of the lack of enforcement by the Department, it was asserted that the transition of this responsibility to the local level is unduly burdensome and overwhelming.
42. Concerns were voiced surrounding the increased workload and expense that will be incurred by the counties as a result of the rule repeal. While the possibility of relinquishing its delegated authority back to the Department was acknowledged, this was noted to be an undesirable option because delegated authority for all programs would have to be returned, including other programs where county oversight has been particularly effective.
43. Other comments focused on the adequacy of regulating migrant housing through other existing housing regulations. For example, manufactured homes constructed before July 1, 1972, are exempt from the provisions of the State Manufactured Home Building Code. Further, the State Building Code applies only in instances where it has been adopted by the local units of government. Concerns were expressed that various types of migrant housing will "fall through the cracks" because they might be dwellings that are not subject to other existing codes or regulations.
44. Testimony at hearing also stated that the repeal of the rules will pose undue burdens on the owners of migrant labor housing. Specifically, several individuals raised concerns that it is unreasonable to apply year-round housing standards to dwellings that are inhabited on a seasonal basis. By way of example, it was noted that there should not be insulation and other heating-related standards applied to dwellings that are inhabited only during the summer months.
45. A concern was raised at the hearing that the rule repeal will result in relying upon migrant laborers to voice complaints in order to trigger intervention. It was expressed that migrant workers will not complain about housing conditions for fear of retaliation.
46. Other concerns were raised about the effective date of the rule repeal currently proposed to take place on January 1, 2002. A proposed extension of the effective date of the repeal to January 2005 was requested to allow added time for producers and local housing authorities to prepare for the transition.
47. Post-hearing comments also expressed the importance of allowing the migrant workers to play a role in shaping applicable laws.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1. The Minnesota Department of Health gave proper notice in this matter.
2. The Department has fulfilled the procedural requirements of Minn. Stat. § 14.14, and all other procedural requirements of law or rule.
3. The Department has demonstrated its statutory authority to adopt the proposed rules, and has fulfilled all other substantive requirements of law or rule within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §§ 14.05, subd. 1; and 14.50 (i) and (ii).
4. The Department has demonstrated the need for and reasonableness of the proposed rules by an affirmative presentation of facts in the record within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §§ 14.131, 14.14, subd. 2; and 14.50 (iii).
5. Any Findings that might properly be termed Conclusions and any Conclusions that might properly be termed Findings are hereby adopted as such.
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the proposed rule repeal and the rule amendment be adopted.
|
S/Steve M. Mihalchick |
|
STEVE M. MIHALCHICK |
|
Administrative Law Judge |
[1] Minn. Stat. §§ 14.131 through 14.20 (2000). (Unless otherwise stated, all further references to Minnesota Statutes are to the 2000 version.)
[2] Minn. Stat. § 14.15, subd. 1.
[3] Ex. 1; Minn. Stat. § 14.101.
[4] Ex. 3.
[5] Ex. 10.
[6] Minn. Stat. § 14.225; Minn. Rules pt. 1400.2080, subp. 5.
[7] Ex.2.
[8] Ex. 3.
[9] Ex. 5.
[10] Minn. R. part 1400.2060.
[11] Ex. 7.
[12] Ex.6.
[13] Ex. 5.
[14] Exs. 3, 6.
[15] Minn. Stat. § 14.14, subd. 2a.
[16] Ex. 4.
[17] Ex. 6.
[18] Ex. 9; Minn. Stat. § 14.116.
[19] Ex. 8; Minn. Stat. § 3.9223.
[20] Ex. 8; Minn. Stat. § 14.111.
[21] Ex. 13.
[22] Ex. 14.
[23] Ex. 11.
[24] Ex. 12.
[25] Ex. 17.
[26] Ex. 18
[27] Ex. 19.
[28] Ex. 20.
[29] Ex. 21.
[30] Ex. 22; This comment and the next one were sent by email to a Department employee on March 10, 2001. They were one day late for the comment period. But they repeated the theme of the Centro Campesino comment that the hearing should be continued to secure the participation of more migrant laborers during the summer, so they have been considered.
[31] Ex. 23.
[32] Ex. 24.
[33] Minn. Stat. § 14.14, subd. 2; Minn. R. part 1400.2100.
[34] Mammenga v. Department of Human Services, 442 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1989); Manufactured Hous. Inst. v. Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d 238, 244 (Minn. 1984).
[35] In re Hanson, 275 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 1978); Hurley v. Chaffee, 231 Minn. 362, 43 N.W.2d 281, 284 (1950).
[36] Greenhill v. Bailey, 519 F.2d 5, 19 (8th Cir. 1975).
[37] Mammenga, 442 N.W.2d at 789-90; Broen Mem’l Home v. Minnesota Dep’t of Human Services, 364 N.W.2d 436, 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
[38] Manufactured Hous. Inst. v. Pettersen, 347 N.W.2d at 244.
[39] Federal Sec. Adm’r v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U.S. 218, 233 (1943).
[40] Minn. R. part 1400.2100.
[41] Ex. 3, pp. 10-16.
[42] Id. at 10.
[43] Id. at 12-13.
[44] Ex. 3, pp. 11-13.
[45] Ex. 3, pp. 13-14; Testimony of Lesli Kramer.
[46] Ex. 3, pp. 14-15.
[47] Id. pp. 16-17.
[48] Minn. Stat. §§ 16B.59-16B.75; Minn. R., Chapter 1300.
[49] Minn. Stat. §§ 326.37-326.45; Minn. R., Chapter 4715.
[50] Minn. Stat. §§ 326.241-326.248; Minn. R., Chapter 3800.
[51] Minn. Stat. § 299F; Minn. R., Chapter 7510.
[52] Minn. Stat. §§ 327.31-327.35; Minn. R., Chapter 1350.
[53] Minn. R., Parts 4630.0200-4630.2210.
[54] Minn. R. Parts 4625.0100-4625.2300.