69-2400-4302-1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
In the Matter of the
Proposed Adoption of
Rule Amendments of the
Department of Public Safety
Governing Driver Training
Programs, Minn. Rule
Parts 7411.0100 to 7411.0800.
REPORT OF THE
ADMiNISTRATIVE
LAW JUDGE
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law
Judge Steve M. MihalchicK on Friday, February 16, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. in
conference room D, 5th floor of the Veteran's Service Building in St. Paul,
Minnesota.
This report is a part of a rulemaking proceeding held pursuant to Minn.
Stat.
14.131 to 14.20, to hear public comment, to determine whether the
Department has fulfilled all relevant substantive and procedural requirements
of law or rule and to determine whether or not the rules, if modified, are
substantially different from those originally proposed.
The Department panel appearing at the hearing consisted of J. Gary
Cunningham, Charles E. Mertz and David E. Orren. Jeffrey Lebowski of the
Attorney General's office represented the Department.
Approximately 50 persons attended the hearing, 31 signed the hearing
register. The hearing continued until all interested persons, groups, or
associations had an opportunity to be heard concerning the adoption of the
proposed rules. Seven written exhibits were submitted by members of the
public prior to the hearing. The Department submitted eleven written
exhibits. Eleven post-hearing comments were received from members of the
public. The Department staff submitted one post-hearing reply to the
comments.
The Department must wait at least five working days before taking
final action on the rules; during that period, this Report must be made
available to all interested persons upon request.
any
Pursuant to the provisions of Minn. Stat.
14.15, subd. 3 and 4, this
Report has been submitted to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for his
approval. If the Chief Administrative Law Judge approves the adverse
findings
of this Report, he will advise the Department of actions which will correct
the defects and the Department may not adopt the rule until the
Administrative
Law Judge determines that the defects have been corrected. However, in those
instances where the Chief Administrative Law Judge identifies defects which
relate to the issues of need or reasonableness, the Department may either
adopt the Chief Administrative Law Judge's suggested actiors to cure the
defects or, in the alternative, if the Department does not elect to adopt the
suggested actions, it must submit the proposed rule to the Legislative
Commission to Review Administrative Rules for the Commission's advice and
comment.
If the Department elects to adopt the suggested actions of the Chief
Administrative Law Judge and makes no other changes and the Chief
Administrative Law Judge determines that the defects have been corrected,
then
the Department may proceed to adopt the rule and submit it to the Revisor of
Statutes for a review of the form. If the Department makes changes in
the
rule other than those suggested by the Administrative Law Judge and the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, then it shall submit the rule, with the
complete
record, to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a review of the changes
before adopting it and submitting it to the Revisor of Statutes.
When the Department files the rule with the Secretary of State, it shall
give notice on the day of filing to all persons who requested that they
be
informed of the filing.
Based upon all the testimony, exhibits and written comments, the
Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
On December 15, 1989, the Department of Public Safety (hereinafter
"the Department") filed the following documents with the Chief Administrative
Law Judge:
(a)
Statutes.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
A copy of
the
The Order for
The Notice of
The Statement
The statement
proposed rules certified by the Revisor of
Hearing.
Hearing proposed to be issued.
of Need and Reasonableness.
of additional notice.
2.
On January 3, 1990, a corrected Order for Hearing was filed with
the
Chief Administrative Law Judge.
3.
On January 8, 1990, a Notice of Hearing and a copy of the proposed
rules were published at 14 State Register 1755.
4.
On January 11, 1990, the Department mailed the Notice of Hearing to
all persons and associations who had registered their names with the
Department for the purpose of receiving such notice.
5.
On January 19, 1990, the Department filed
documents
with the Chief Administrative Law Judge:
the
following
(a) The Notice of Hearing as mailed.
(b) The Department's certification that its
accurate
and complete.
-2-
mailing
list
was
(c)
The Affidavit of Mailing the Notice to all persons on the
Department's list.
(d) A copy of the State Register in which the proposed rules were
published.
(e) The Affidavit of Mailing Discretionary Notice of Public Hearing.
(f) The names of Department personnel who will represent the
Department
at the hearing.
These documents were available for inspection at the Office of
Administrative Hearings from the date of filing to the date of the hearing.
The documents listed in Findings 1 through 5 were timely filed pursuant to
Minn. Rule 1400.0600.
6.
The period for submission
remained
open through February 28, 1990, the
hearing at eight working days. The
three working days through March 5,
Nature of the-proposed
of written comment and statements
comment period having been set during the
record remained open for an additional
1990, for responses to filed comments.
rule amendments.
7.
The proposed rule amendments clarify, improve and reorganize
existing rules for commercial driver training schools and motorcycle safety
courses. In addition, the rules also cover, for the first time, driver
education courses at private and parochial high schools and other nonpublic
schools. Previously these programs were regulated by policy rather than by
formally promulgated rules. These changes promote uniformity and make the
rules regulating driver training in the Department of Public Safety and the
Department of Education more similar, where appropriate.
Small Business Considerations
8.
Minn. Stat.
14.115 requires the Department to consider the
effect
on small businesses when it adopts rules. The rules as amended will have a
direct effect on commercial driver training schools and on the driver
training
programs at private and parochial high schools and other nonpublic schools.
All of the commercial schools are small businesses as defined by
14.115,
subd. 1. All of the private, parochial, and other nonpublic schools are
arguably small businesses, too.
9.
Section 14.115, subd. 2, states in part:
When an agency proposes a new rule, or an amendment to an
existing rule, which may affect small businesses
the agency shall consider each of the following methods
for reducing the impact of the rule on small businesses:
(a) the establishment of less stringent compliance
or reporting requirements for small businesses;
(b) the establishment of less stringent schedules
or deadlines for compliance or reporting requirements for
small businesses;
-3-
(c) the consolidation or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses;
(d) the establishment of performance standards for
small businesses to replace design or operational
standards required in the rule; and
(e) the exemption of small businesses from any or
all requirements of the rule.
10. The Department has considered the specific methods for reducing
the
impact of the rules on small businesses, as required by Minn. Stat.
14.115,
subd. 2. The Department has reduced the impact of the rules on small
businesses as follows:
a.
Less stringent requirements. The Department has established less
stringent requirements by: extending the number of years a vehicle may be
used for driver training; allowing concurrent classroom and laboratory
instruction; eliminating the residency requirement for instructors; reducing
the number of restrictions on becoming an instructor; reducing the period of
ineligibility for persons who have failed the instructor's test; removing or
lessening location requirements for driver training programs; and lessening
record keeping requirements.
b.
Less strirgent-schedules. The Department has established less
stringent schedules by eliminating the requirement of annual inspection of
driver training vehicles,
C.
Consolidation or simplification of requirements. The Department
has
consolidated or simplified requirements by: reorganizing the rules and
rewriting certain portions to make the rules more easily understood;
combining
the set of rules for motorcycle driver training with the set of rules for
driver training in other vehicles; and making the rules more similar, where
applicable, to department of education rules governing driver education in
public schools.
d.
Performance stAndArds. The Department has established performance
standards by requiring that vehicles be maintained in safe operating
condition
rather than by requiring any set inspection or maintenance schedules.
e.
Exemption. The Department has
schools and other nonpublic schools from
other safeguards in place to ensure that
that
students' interests are protected.
The
motorcycle instructors from some of the
objective criteria for showing that the
exempted private and parochial high
certain requirements where there are
there is quality instruction and
Department has also exempted
new requirements where there are
instructors are competent.
11. The Department has increased requirements on small business in
several instances but each of these increased requirements is justified by an
overriding public concern.
The most substantial increased requirement is that a motorcycle
instructor will now have to have 68 hours of instruction. Previously, the
requirements were that a person had to have the 40 hours of training
necessary
-4-
to teach automobile driver training plus an additional ten hours of
motorcycle
training. The total hours of instruction for a motorcycle student has also
been increased, from 14 to 15 hours. These increased requirements in
motorcycle instruction are appropriate because research has shown that
driving
a motorcycle is very much different than driving an automobile and is more
complicated and more hazardous than driving an automobile.
The other added requirements are relatively minor and relate to
physicals
for instructors, instruction methods tests for instructors, and certain
notification requirements for programs. These other added requirements and
the reasons for them are set out in detail in the Statement of Need and
Reasonableness. The impact of these rules on small businesses is reasonable
and the requirements of the Minn. Stat.
14.115 have been met.
Statutory Authority
12. There has been no challenge to the statutory authority as amply
cited by the Department. There is adequate statutory authority to adopt
these
rules in Minn. Stat.
169.974, 171.04 and 171.33 to 171.41.
Fees imposed by the rules.
13. Minn. Stat.
16A.128, subd. 1, does not apply because the
proposed
amendments do not set or change any fees. Therefore, no approval is required
from the Commissioner of Finance.
Fiscal impact
.
14. The proposed amendments to these rules will not force any local
agency or school district to incur costs. A fiscal note, as described by
Minn. Stat.
3.982, is therefore not required.
Agricultural land impact.
15. Minn. Stat.
14.11, subd. 2, is inapplicable because the proposed
amendments to these rules will not have any direct or substantial adverse
impact on agricultural land.
Other statutory requirements.
16. Minn. Stat.
115.43, subd. 1, 116.09, subd. 6, and
subd. 4, do not apply to these rules as amended.
144A.29,
Substantive Provisions.
17. The portions of the proposed rules that received comment or
otherwise need to be examined will be discussed below. Any rule not
mentioned
is found to be needed and reasonable. Also, any rule not mentioned is found
to be authorized by statute.
7411.0900
definitions.
18. Subp. 4, certificate and Subp. _5.
certified;certified program.
This is the first time that certified programs have been included in the
-5-
rules. Most of the requirements for certified and licensed programs are
the
same, but there are a few differences. The main differences are that
teacher
licensing requirements and fees paid by the programs differ depending upon
whether a program is either licensed or certified. The public at the
hearing
was confused about the distinction between certified and licensed programs.
In general, private and parochial high school programs are certified by the
Department of Public Safety while commercial driver training programs are
licensed by the Department of Safety. While the definitions are not
unreasonably worded, they could be amended to make the distinction more
clear. One suggestion for appropriate language for Subp. 4 would be:
Certificate. "Certificate" refers to the written
document issued by the commissioner to a private or
parochial college university or high school that offers
driver training to person under eighteen as part of the
normal program for such institutions.
EDITOR'S NOTE original has stricken out language that could not be
scaned.
indicating the
department's approval of the school's
driver training under Minn. Stat.
171.04(l),,and.rules 7411.0100 through 7411.0800.
A suggestion for appropriate changes for Subp. 5 would be:
Subp. 5. Certified; certified program. "Certified" and
"certified program" refer to a private or parochial
college university or high school that offers driver
training as part of the normal program for such
institution and that holds a current-certificate from the
commissioner indicating that it As in compliance with
department driver training reqiirements.
These changes clarify the somewhat ambiguous definitions and accurately
reflect the Department's interpretation of "certificate", "certified", and
"certified program".
Even if the Department had intended (which it did not) to include
commercial schools under the certified program regulations, it could not do
so, because this would be outside of its statutory scope of authority. Some
of the requirements for certified programs contained in the rules are
clearly
prohibited from being applied to commercial driver training programs. For
instance, Minn. Stat.
171.34 states that instructors in commercial driver
training schools can not be required to have a teacher's certificate. Yet
Rule 7411.0610, Subp. 1 requires instructors in certified programs to
fulfill
Board of Education licensing requirements. The new language helps to
clearly
avoid an interpretation of the rules that would be in conflict with
Minnesota
Statutes.
Interested parties received adequate notice that the determination of
where commercial driving schools fit in the rules could be an issue as shown
-6-
by testimony received during the hearing. The suggested language or a
similar
variation would not constitute a substantial change.
Part 7411.0100 subp. 9 Commerical Driver training Schoo;
.
19. This definition as written refers to Minn. Stat.
171.33, subd.
1.
This statute is further modified by Minn. Stat.
171.39, which exempts many
organizations such as private schools from the commercial driver training
school regulations.
The standards for form for Minnesota Rules are contained in Minn.
Stat.
14.07, subd. 3. The standards state that the rules should "minimize
duplication of statutory language" and "to the extent practicable, use plain
language . . ." In some cases there is a conflict between clarity and
avoiding duplication of statutory language. In this case, because the
definition is so crucial to understanding the rest of the rules (see Finding
17 above), and because the statutory language is fairly concise, the
following
changes are proposed to make the rules more clear.
Subp. 9 Commercial driver training school. "Commercial
driver training school"
means a business enterprise
conducted by an individual association, partnership
or
corpQration, which_ chArges_a fee__for_the educatIonal
training of persons_to drill motor vehicles or for the
preparation of an applicAnt for a_driver's license
examination given by the state -and that is required to
be- licnsed by-the commissioner under Minn Stat
sec.
181.33 through 181.41.
This change clarifies the definition and makes the rules more easily
understood. Interested parties received adequate notice that this could be
an
issue as shown by the numerous questions received during testimony regarding
the treatment of commercial driver training schools. The suggested language
or a similar variation would not constitute a substantial change.
Part-7411.0100, Subp. 12.
Driver
training _program_-
program.
20. This definition can be simplified to bring it in line with the new
definitions of "commercial driver training school", and "certified program".
A suggestion for appropriate changes for Subp. 12A. would be:
A.
A commercial driver training school
The following would be an appropriate substitution for the current
Subp. 12B.
B.
A certified program;
The rest of Subp. 12 would remain the same.
The suggested language or a
similar variation would not constitute a substantial change.
-7-
Rant 7411 0100.
Subps. 4, 5 and 12
" Institute
21. Dr. John Palmer suggested that the term "institute" be defined or
deleted. The Department responded that the word was taken from Minn. Stat.
171.04, subd. l(l), and has no special meaning other than Its common
definition.
Findings 18, 19 and 20 suggest alternate wordings for Subps. 4, 5 and
12
that do not use the word institute. The suggested language makes these
definitions more clear, and does not compromise the Department's authority.
The word "institute" would add nothing more to the definitions than is
already
included. As noted above, the suggested language would not constitute a
substantial change.
Part 7411.0100, Subp. 17.
lnstruction time.
22. David Aguilar asked if "instruction" included both classroom
laboratory. He preferred that classroom instruction would have some
reasonable break-time provision.
and
Break time is not counted as instruction time under the proposed rules.
The proposed requirement merely changes the wording and not the substance of
the former requirement. The former requirement said: "A one-hour lesson
shall mean one hour of actual instruction." Since there is no change, no
justification is required.
Part 7411.0100, Subp..19.
Laboratory instruction.
23. Bob Esse suggested that the Department continue to use the term
"behind-the-wheel instruction" instead of replacing it with "laboratory
instruction". He said the new term would not fly with students.
The Department is using the term "laboratory instruction" because it
covers both the behind-the-wheel instruction in enclosed vehicles and the
astride-the-motorcycle instruction for motorcycles. When talking to
students,
a program is not prohibited from using the term behind-the-wheel training if
it feels that this term is more descriptive. It is reasonable that the
Department not change this subpart.
Part 7411.0400 subps. 1 and 5 Vechicle Inspections and maintenance records
.
24. Bonnie Kittelson, Mardi Lacher, and several other commercial driver
training school owners and operators submitted oral or written testimony on
behalf of the Professional Associated Driving Schools of Minnesota (PADSM).
PADSM is apparently made up of some, but not all, of the commercial driver
training schools in Minnesota. PADSM recommended that vehicle inspections
and
maintenance histories be required.
The old rules required annual vehicle inspections. Under the proposed
rules, annual vehicle inspections will no longer be required. In place of
annual vehicle inspections, the rules will require that vehicles be
maintained
in safe operating condition and that unsafe vehicles be taken out of service
until the unsafe condition is corrected. Also, the Commissioner retains the
authority to require an inspection when there is good cause to believe that a
-8-
vehicle does not meet the requirements of the rules. This change
substitutes
performance standards for operational standards and establishes less
stringent
compliance schedules for small businesses as required by Minn. Stat.
14.115,
subd. 2. The Statement of Need and Reasonableness discusses this issue in
depth. It is in the best interests of a program to keep its vehicles in
top
condition and maintenance records up to date. The Department does not
need to
add an extra layer of requirements to ensure this. The rule is necessary
and
reasonable as proposed.
Port 7411,0400, Subp. 2.
Vehicle age for cars.
25. Mardi Lacher recommended that the age limit for cars be extended
to
ten years, based on her experience in encountering vehicles that are in
excellent condition, but that are older than the rules will allow.
Bob Esse recommended that vehicle age be set at five years to
correspond
to the limit of car loans and to keep the fleet as new as possible.
The proposed rules will extend the age limit for vehicles from four
model
years to six years in service. This will result in savings for programs
in
two ways. One, the program will be able to use the vehicle for two more
years
than before. Two, the program will be able to purchase a vehicle at the
end
of the model year when prices are low without losing a year's worth of use.
With the proposed rules, the Department has greatly increased the usable
life
of a driver training vehicle. Until the effect of this change is
determined,
it is not appropriate to extend the age limit for vehicles any further than
it
has been extended by these proposed rules. The rule is both needed and
reasonable.
Part 7711.04000, Subp. 2.
Vehicle age for motorcycles.
26. Karen Kadar suggested an exemption for motorcycles for up to 10
years of being in service. She said it would affect about 10% of her
program's vehicles that must be retired each year.
The present rules have a vehicle age limit of four model years. The
proposed rules will extend this limit to six years in service, with an
extension of up to two more years for motorcycles if certain maintenance is
done. With the proposed rules, the usable life of a training motorcycle
has
been greatly increased. At this time, it is not appropriate to extend the
age
limit for vehicles any further than it has been extended by these proposed
rules. The rule is both reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411l.0400, Subp. 4. Student driyer-signs on driver training
vehicles.
27. The PADSM recommended that the Department drop the requirement of
student driver signs on driver training vehicles. PADSM stated that there
is
no proof that student driver signs enhance safety and stated that student
driver signs in fact provoke abusive behaviors against student drivers.
Mardi
Lacher and Rachel Anthony gave specific details of incidents of abusive
behaviors directed against student drivers that they believe were
precipitated
by student driver signs. It was also stated that public school driver
training vehicles often do not have any type of student signs even though
such
signs are required by the Department of Education rules governing public
-9-
school driver education programs.
David Aguilar wrote that he wanted to retain the option to display
student driver signs even if they were no longer required. He stated that
the
many lane changes, turns, and parks made by a driver training vehicle
coupled
with a student's natural hesitation and limited judgment indicate that some
people want these vehicles identified so they can keep their distance. Bob
Esse was in favor of student driver signs to let the police and public know
that it is a student driver.
The Department suggests that the great majority of drivers read and
observe signs and will be particularly careful near a vehicle that displays
a
student driver sign. While the incidents described by Ms. Lacher and Ms.
Anthony are serious and present a hazard to student drivers, the evidence of
problems attributed to student driver signs is not outweighed by the
positive
effect of drivers who observe these signs. The rule is both needed and
reasonable.
Part 74ll.0400 Subp. 4.
Other Signs on driver_training vehicles.
28. The PADSM stated that the Department should not
of
advertising signs of driver training vehicles.
require
approval
The approval of signs other than student driver signs on vehicles is
necessary so that these signs do not distract from or obscure the student
driver signs. Further, this requirement remains unchanged from existing
rules. This rule is reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411.0400,,new suvpart.
Maximum size for a motorcycle.
29. Karen Kadar recommended that the Department adopt 500 cc's as the
maximum size for motorcycles used in the basic rider training. She stated
that Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) guidelines have a 350 cc limit, but
that many organizations feel that 350 cc's may be too restrictive and that
the
MSF may consider changing its limit. She cited statistics that show large
displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents, but
overrepresented in injury severity.
While
to
be used in
safety
experts at
reasonable
it may make some sense to set a limit on the size of motorcycles
basic rider training, there is no consensus among motorcycle
this time as to what the limit should be.
that the rules set no limit at this time.
Part 7411,510, Subp. 3.
Therefore, it is
Classroom curriculum
30. James Harelson stated that the classroom curriculum was too
to
allow him the flexibility to meet the needs of all his students.
rigid
The classroom curriculum objectives are minimum standards. There is
nothing in the rules that prevents the program from doing more to meet the
needs of its students. This rule is both reasonable and necessary.
-10-
Part 7411.0510 subp. 4
.
Three-hours of classroom
instruction per day
31. The PADSM recommended that six hours of classroom instruction be
allowed each day. Cordelia and Paul Sanvik of Range Driver Training also
recommended that the three hour limit be extended to six hours. PADSM stated
that seminars, workshops, and school days are longer than the three hour
maximum permitted under the present and the proposed rules. PADSM stated
that
this was detrimental to students in obtaining instruction on a timely basis.
Dr. John Palmer wrote in favor of keeping this limit at three hours per
day. He stated that the three hour limit would ensure that the driver
training course would be spread out over at least a ten day period as opposed
to a five day period if there were a six hour limit. This would allow for a
greater opportunity for the students to do homework. He also stated that the
attention span of 15 and 16 year old persons indicates that there should be
many short sessions as opposed to a few long sessions. Bob Esse also wrote
in
favor of keeping the three hour limit because learning tends to diminish
after
three hours.
The three hour limit is reasonable. It is hard to see how limiting the
number of hours of instruction in one day will prevent any significant number
of students from obtaining instruction. Further, even though students at
this
age have a school day that lasts six or more hours, it is unlikely that they
have any one class that lasts more than three hours in a day. This rule is
both reasonable and necessary.
Part_7411.0510, Subp. 4.
Sequence of classroom_curriculum.
32. Dr. John Palmer proposed that the following sentence be added to
this subpart, "The classroom curriculum guide must specify the beginning
lesson for classroom instruction, and students must begin classroom during
this lesson." Dr. Palmer based his proposal on the premise that instruction,
by its nature, must normally proceed from simple to complex.
Dave Moore of D & E Driving School explained that his school and several
other commercial driver training schools use a curriculum that has ten
lessons
of three hours each. He disagreed with Dr. Palmer's premise that the lessons
had to build on each other. He said that the lessons used by his school have
been designed so that they build within the lesson, but that they do not
depend on any of the other lessons. Paul Sanvik of Range Driver Training
echoed Mr. Moore's comments and also stated that his curriculum was designed
so that it did not need to be presented in a particular order,
There is not enough evidence at this time to justify changing the rule.
The rule as written is reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411.0510, Subp. 6.
Concurrent classroom And 1aboratory instruction.
33. James Harelson was opposed to concurrent instruction. He said it
was contrary to the general commercial driver training philosophy. David
Aguilar also objected to concurrent instruction on the basis that a student
would have little incentive to return to the class after receiving a permit.
-11-
The Department believes that it is possible to adequately conduct
driver's training while integrating the two phases of instruction. The
Department has seen no evidence to the contrary. It is true that a student
who is very close to being 18 years old may have very little incentive to
continue driver training. Most students, however, are relatively young,
and
the incentive for continuing and completing driver training is the ability to
obtain a driver's license before attaining age 18. This rule is both
reasonable and necessary.
Part,
74l1.0510 Subp. 7 Satisfactory Completion of instruction
.
34. David Aguilar questioned the use of "successfully" and
"satisfactorily" in relation to a student completing the classroom phase of
instruction.
It has been Department policy to interpret "satisfactory" or "successful"
completion of instruction to mean that the student has completed the required
topics and hours of instruction. This interpretation is based on the
Department's position that driver training programs provide instruction, but
the state has the responsibility to test a student to determine whether the
student is qualified to obtain a driver's license. The Department has
proposed changes to the first and third sentences of part 7411.0510, Subp. 7
as follows:
When a program conducts the classroom and laboratory
phases of instruction during separate time periods for
those wishing to obtain a class C license, the program
may not provide laboratory instruction to a student until
the student has completed the required
classroom instruction phase.
When a student has completed the required
classroom instruction phase, an authorized operator or
instructor may complete a certificate of enrollment
indicating when laboratory instruction will begin.
This change clarifies ambiguous requirements and accurately reflects the
Department's interpretation of the meaning of "satisfactory" or "successful"
completion of instruction. This change does not constitute a substantial
change. Interested parties received adequate notice that this could be an
issue as is shown by the submission of testimony on this subject. This
change
makes the rule both reasonable and necessary and ensures that programs will
issue certificates and verifications of completion in a consistent manner.
Part 7411.0510, Subp. 7.
laboratory
inslruction.
Maximum time period between classroom and
35. Several people spoke against the six-month maximum time period
between classroom and laboratory instruction. PADSM was also opposed to
this
provision, saying that it was not clearly worded and that it was not
workable. Several examples were given of why students could not begin
laboratory instruction within six months of completing classroom instruction.
In its post-hearing comments, the Department agreed with the testimony and
proposed to delete the sentence in this subpart that states:
-12-
The change removes an unclear and unworkable provision and does not
constitute
a substantial change.
Part 741l.0510- Subp.
B. Laboratory curriculum.
36. James Harelson stated that the laboratory curriculum was too rigid
to allow him the flexibility to meet the needs of all his students.
The laboratory curriculum objectives are minimum standards. There is
nothing in the rules that prevents a program from doing more to meet the
needs
of its students. The rule is both reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411.0510 Subp 9 , item D.
simulator training for
laboratory training.
Substitution of
37. James Harelson stated his opposition to the use of simulator
training as a substitute for laboratory training. He stated that commercial
schools do not believe in the use of simulators and do not use them. He
stated that the six hours of laboratory training are best spent on the
streets. The PADSM also stated its opposition to simulators. PADSM feels
that all six laboratory hours need to be on the street.
Dr. John Palmer submitted a statement in support of the use of
simulators. He said that simulators allow the teacher to completely control
the driving environment, unlike on-street instruction. Using the maximum
substitution of three hours of laboratory at a four hours for one hour ratio,
a student would receive nine more hours of instruction than if the student
received on-street instruction only.
A driver training program is not required to use simulators to substitute
for laboratory training, if the program operator feels that simulators are
not
an adequate substitute for on-street instruction. However, as Dr. Palmer's
comments demonstrate, simulators can be used successfully by some trainers.
The rule is necessary and reasonable.
Part 7411,0510,_Subp._11.
Outside practice.
38. James Harelson was opposed to requiring a program or instructor to
encourage students to practice outside the school instruction course. He
recommended that this be left up to the discretion of the instructor.
This subpart requires that outside practice be encouraged when
permissible by law. Homework and practice outside of class is normally
important for every student, but there may be occasions where practice
driving
would be dangerous and inappropriate. Such occasions may arise where the
student has not mastered basic skills or would not have qualified
supervision. Such practice would probably not be "permissible by law," but
this provision could be improved and clarified by adding "and deemed
appropriate by the instructor."
-13-
Part 74l1.0550
Subp. -2
Classroom curriculum additions
39. Karen Kadar suggested that the Department add the following
classroom curriculum items:
-
Differences between cars and motorcycles;
Risk awareness and risk acceptance;
Procedures for advanced braking, cornering, and
swerving maneuvers; and
Procedures for carrying passengers or loads.
These items are not contained as main curriculum items in the MSF
material submitted by Ms. Kadar. Before making changes, there should be a
consensus among motorcycle safety experts, or more persuasive evidence than
is
available at this time. The rule is both reasonable and necessary as
proposed.
PArt 74l1.0550, Subp. 2.
Classroom curriculum
evaluation.
40. Karen Kadar pointed out that the proposed rules require programs to
evaluate students, but do not identify standards that students must meet to
pass the course. She suggested that the Department set a minimum standard of
performance that students must meet in order to pass or that the Department
require programs to identify their evaluation criteria.
The Department sets standards that students must meet to drive on
Minnesota roads. The students must demonstrate they meet these standards
when
they take the Minnesota driving and endorsement tests. Programs must provide
the training set out in these rules, but the Department will determine if the
student is qualified to operate a motor vehicle on the streets and highways
of
this state. The Department requires a program to evaluate a student so that
the student gets feedback on how he or she is doing. The rule is both
reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411-0550, Subp. 3.
Sequence of classroom-curriculum.
41. This issue and its disposition are the same as discussed under Part
7411.0510, Subp. 4. Dr. John Palmer proposed that a sentence be added
relating to the sequence of classroom curriculum. Dave Moore disagreed with
Dr. Palmer's premise. The Department's position on this issue is that it
does
not want to change classroom curriculum requirements at this time, but that
it
would be willing to listen to any evidence that there is a problem with the
current way of doing things. The rule is both reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411.0550.
Subp. 5.
Laboratory curriculum, additions.
42. Karen Kadar suggested that the Department add "selecting a safe
speed in cornering maneuvers" as a laboratory curriculum item. She also
suggested that the Department change from required to optional the following
curriculum items: Tight u-turns (counterbalancing); decreasing radius turns;
and surmounting obstacles. She included a copy of the MSF Overview of the
Instructional Plan which indicated that these were positions taken by the
MSF.
The Department was persuaded by Ms. Kadar's testimony. Since rules are
mandatory, not optional, the Department agreed to remove optional items. The
-14-
Department proposes that Part 7411.0550, Subp. 5, Items E and H, be changed
to
read:
E.
Scanning techniques for recognizing and responding to 4
obstacles;
H.
selecting a safe speed
in conering maneuvers
These changes clarify certain curriculum objectives that relate to
safety
and do not constitute substantial changes. Interested parties received
adequate notice that this could be an issue as is shown by the submission of
testimony on this subject. This change will ensure that programs will focus
on curriculum objectives that are recognized as relating to safety by
motorcycle safety experts. The rule as changed is both reasonable and
necessary.
Port 7411.0550. Subs. - 5
Laboratory curriculum
evaluation .
43. Karen Kadar suggested that the Department set a minimum standard
of
performance that students must meet to pass the laboratory portion of
motorcycle training.
As discussed above, the Department sets standards that students must
meet
to drive on Minnesota roads. The rule is both reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411,0500.
instruction.
Subp-. 6.
Eighr hours of laboratory_training for motorcycle
44. Duane Mettler gave his opinion that it was not cost effective to
increase the number of required motorcycle laboratory hours from six to
eight. He referred to statistics that showed decreasing motorcycle
fatalities
in recent years in Minnesota and asked why we should change.
Karen Kadar responded that the MSF recommends at least eight hours of
laboratory training. She stated that the Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program
has been giving eight hours of laboratory training to its students over the
last few years and conjectured that the decrease in fatalities could be due
to
this training. The rule is both reasonable and necessary.
Port 7411.0550, Subp. 7. Item-A.
motorcycle rider,training.
Ratio of students to instructor for
45. Bob Esse recommended that the ratio be ten students to one
instructor for motorcycle training on a driving range and five students to
one
instructor for motorcycle training on the road.
As stated in the Department's Statement of Need and Reasonableness, it
is
necessary to limit an instructor to a small number of students because of the
many safety concerns involved in riding a motorcycle. This provision sets
the
same limits as the Department of Education Rules Part 3500.500, Subp. 8. The
rule is both reasonable and necessary.
-15-
Part 7411.0550
Suvbp. 7- item E.
Range-size.
46. The proposed rules require that a driving range used for
motorcycle
training be at least 160 feet by 60 feet. The proposed rules provide for a
waiver of these minimum dimensions if the program demonstrates that the
curriculum objectives can be met without compromising the safety of the
students. Karen Kadar said that this size range was the absolute minimum
safe
size. She suggested that the provision for giving waivers be deleted.
If Ms. Kadar is correct in her assertion that any range smaller than
160
by 60 would be unsafe, then it will not be possible for any program to prove
to the Commissioner that a smaller range is safe, and no waivers will be
granted. It would therefore be unnecessary to delete the waiver provision.
However, there may be ranges that deviate from the minimums only slightly
and
not in ways that would compromise safety. Specifically, the full length
and
width of a range is usually used in the training, but not the full extent of
all four corners. A small part of a corner of a range that is not paved
would
be enough to make the range non-standard, but may not be enough to make it
unsafe for motorcycle rider training. The rule is both needed and
reasonable.
PArt 7411.Q61Q, Subp. 4.
Instructor's driving record.
47. James Harelson recommended that a person be ineligible to be an
instructor for five years after having his or her driver's license suspended
instead of the three years under the proposed rules. He said that his
insurance rates would go up if he hired an instructor whose license had been
suspended within the last five years. Paul Sanvik also recommended that a
person be ineligible to be an instructor for five years after the person has
had his or her driver's license revoked or suspended for a traffic violation.
He said this would ensure quality instructors.
The rules set minimum standards. There is nothing in the rules that
requires a program to hire any person as an instructor. If a program's
insurance rates would go up for hiring a certain person as an instructor, the
program can choose to not hire that person. If a person cannot demonstrate
to
a program that he or she would be a quality instructor, the program can
choose
to not hire that person. The rule is reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411.0610, Subp, B.
40-hours of required training fro car bus and
-of
truck instructors.
48. This rule generated quite heated discussion. Dr. John Palmer
proposed that the number of hours of training required to become an
instructor
be increased from 40 hours to 80 hours. He also proposed that the
instructor
training correspond to that required by the Board of Teaching, with the
exception of the practicum and organization and administration requirements.
He attested to the increasing complexity of the driving task as the reason
for
recommending this increase in instructor training. Fred Schreiber made a
similar recommendation. He urged that the Department increase the required
instructor training to include the following three courses required by the
Board for teaching: Driver education classroom; driver education laboratory;
and driver education practicum.
-16-
PADSM recommended that the Department adopt the requirements for
training
instructors put forward by national professional associations such as North
American Driver Education Association and Driving Schools of America. These
requirements would involve 20 hours of classroom and 30 to 60 hours of
laboratory training for a person to qualify as an instructor. PADSM pointed
out that this training was greatly different than the training required by
the
Board of Teaching.
Paul Sanvik, Bob Esse, James Harelson, Nancy Waldschmidt, David Aquilar,
and others recommended that the training requirement of 40 hours remain
unchanged. Paul Sanvik stated he was a licensed teacher and a licensed
driver
training instructor and that the training his program gives to all of his
instructors is better than the training he received as a teacher. Bonnie
Kittelson also stated that she had received both kinds of training and found
the commercial school instructor training to be superior. Bob Esse asked
whether proof could be provided that one kind of instructor training was any
better than any other, and stated that there was no evidence that training
beyond the 40 hours was necessary for an instructor to be qualified. Nancy
Waldschmidt said that 40 hours of training is often not enough for her
instructors, but that she felt the decision to give more training should be
left up to the owner of the program.
Any increase of the number of required hours on the order suggested by
Dr. Palmer would be a substantial change in the proposed rule. There is no
proof in this record that instructors trained under the present system are
inadequate. The present requirement of 40 hours of training for instructors
is a minimum, and programs are free to give more training as they think
necessary. The rule is both reasonable and necessary. The Department may
wish to gather further evidence and propose a rule change at some future
time.
Part 7411.0610, Subp. 10.
instructors.
68-hours_of_required training for,motorcycle
49. Duane Mettler suggested that the approved course must be taken
through a university for credit as part of a course of study in traffic
safety
education. Dr. John Palmer of St. Cloud State University described the SCSU
traffic safety education program. Dr. Palmer and Karen Kadar confirmed that
the course offered for credit by SCSU is identical to the instructor training
offered for no credit by the Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program. No
evidence
was presented that instructors who have received credit for taking the course
are any more qualified than those who have not received credit for taking the
course.
There is no evidence that Mr. Mettler's suggestion would increase the
quality of motorcycle rider training. The rule is both reasonable and
necessary as proposed.
Part..74ll.0700. SubP. 1.
50.
Insurance-requirements.
Jeffrey Bartels wrote that he would like to see a requirement by the
Insurance Commissioner to set a standard rate for driver training with
public,
private, and commercial schools all charged equally.
-17-
The Department has no statutory authority to set insurance rates charged
to driver training programs.
Part-7411.0700
location
Subp
2
Item B. Separate License for each permanent
.
51. PADSM recommended that a program not have to pay an extra license
fee if it has an additional permanent location.
Under the former rules, each program location had to be permanent and
each location had to be licensed. Under the proposed rules, temporary
locations are allowed. Because of the provision for temporary locations,
commercial driver training schools can now serve the public in areas where
public schools no longer offer driver training. This rule decreases the
amount of regulation and allows programs to be more flexible. However, where
there are separate permanent locations, it is not unreasonable to require
separate licenses or certificates for each. The rule is reasonable and
necessary.
Part 7411.0700. Subp. 3, Item A.
Instruction record
52. Paul Sanvik wrote that he did not feel it was necessary to include
the name of the instructor in the record of each student. He also stated
that
a student's middle initial, not the middle name, should serve the
Department's
purpose.
The instructor's name is required so that any questions concerning the
course or the student can be directed to the right person. The Department
keeps its driver's license records filed according to each person's full
first, middle, and last names. Students must also supply their full names so
that the Department can cross-reference to the student's driver's license.
This rule is reasonable and necessary.
Fart 7411.07QO, Subp. 5.
Agreement and Contracts
53. Bob Esse suggested that there be a minimum price and that a school
be prohibited from charging students less than this minimum amount for driver
training. He said this would help upgrade instructor wages without the fear
of being undercut.
Removing price competition would probably be a disservice to the public
and is not within the Department's authority. The rule is reasonable as
proposed.
Part 7411.0700, Subp. 5
Item
No refund.
54. The PADSM objected to this item which requires that contracts
between programs and students must not contain the term "No Refund". PADSM
recommended that company policy be specified in a disclaimer such as "refunds
will not be given if the company is ready, willing and able to fulfill its
contract with the student."
What the rule prohibits is a program demanding full payment prior to
giving instruction and then refusing to give a refund under any
circumstances.
a
There is no conflict between the requirement of the rule and
-18-
statement of company policy that indicates that a refund will not be given
after a program has relied on the contract to its detriment. The proposed
rule is unchanged from the present requirements. It is reasonable that there
be no change.
Part 7411.0700 Subp. 7.
Use of a, driver -training
driver', license road test.
vehicle for rhe state
55. PADSM objected to the requirement that an instructor must accompany
an applicant to a driver's license road test when a driver training vehicle
is
used.
Bob Esse wrote in favor of keeping this requirement. He stated that
students are under a program's protection and that to allow non-instructors
to
drive a student to a road test would be considered negligence in case of an
accident.
The Department conducts driving record, health, vision, and criminal
history checks of persons before licensing them as instructors. The
Department conducts no such checks of anyone else who might be sent with a
student to a driver's license road test. Where a program's car is being
used,
it should be considered as part of the program. This rule is reasonable and
necessary.
Part 7411.0700
instruction.
Subp. 8, items A.-B And P.
"Satisfactory" completion of
56. PADSM recommended that references to "satisfactorily" or
"successfully" completing instruction should be deleted because they are
ambiguous. PADSM recommended that the certificates and verifications of
course completion should be issued when the student has completed the
required
hours of instruction. Dr. John Palmer recommended that the Department
establish criteria for successfully completing or passing the driver training
course.
As stated above at Part 7411.0510, Subp. 7, it has been Department
policy
to interpret "satisfactory" or "successful" completion of instruction to mean
that the student has completed the required topics and hours of instruction.
This interpretation is based on the premise that driver training programs
provide instruction, but the state has the responsibility to test a student
to
determine whether the student is qualified to obtain a driver's license.
The recommendation of PDSM is clearly consistent with Department policy
and the Department now proposes to change Part 7411.0700, Subp. 8, as
follows:
Subp. 8 Authorized official; certificates. A program
shall designate an authorized official to perform the
following duties:
A.
The authorized official shall furnish the
student:
(1) A certificate of course completion within
15 calendar days after a student
-19-
completes instruction, including both the-required
course of classroom instruction and the required
course of laboratory instruction; or
(2) A verification statement of completion of
classroom instruction within 15 calendar days after
the student completes thy required
course, pf classroom instruction and notifies the
program that the student tends to complete
laboratory instruction with another program.
B. The authorized official shall notify the
Department's driver and vehicle services division within
a reasonable period of time of when a student who is 15
years of age fails to continue or complete
the required automobile driver training course, including
laboratory instruction.
C.
The authorized official shall issue:
(1) A certificate of enrollment within 15
calendar days after a student
completes the classroom phase of the required
motorcycle safety course and enrolls in the
laboratory phase of the course, on a form provided
by the Department that must be presented to a
driver's license examiner at the time of application
for a motorcycle instruction permit or endorsement;
or
(2) A certificate of course completion within
15 calendar days after a student
completes both phases of the required motorcycle
safety course, on a form provided by the Department
that must be presented to a driver's license
examiner at the time of application for a motorcycle
instruction permit or endorsement and that may be
presented by the student, one time only, for
renewing the motorcycle instruction permit.
This change clarifies ambiguous requirements and accurately reflects the
Department's interpretation of the meaning of "satisfactory" or "successful"
completion of instruction. This change does not constitute a substantial
change. Interested parties received adequate notice that this could be an
issue as is shown by the submission of testimony on this subject. This
change
ensures that programs will issue certificates and verifications of completion
in a consistent manner. This rule as changed is both reasonable and
necessary.
Part 7411.070O, Subp. 8, Item A(l).
Certificate of course completion.
57. James Harelson suggested that a program not be required to issue a
certificate of course completion if a student has not paid for the course.
He
said this is the only way to ensure payment.
-20-
The proposed rules require a program to issue the certificate within
15
days of course completion. This is designed to ensure that programs issue
the
certificate in a timely manner. The Department states that the
certificate
was not intended to be used as a collection tool. Nevertheless, no school
or
university will allow a course to be completed or issue a diploma if
tuition
is not paid and there seems to be no justification for requiring a driver
training program to do so. While the programs may have all the regular
legal
remedies available to attempt debt collection, those remedies are quite
often
meaningless, particularly after the fact and particularly where young
people
are involved. Moreover, collecting debts of less than $200.00 often costs
more than the debt itself. The proposed 15-day rule, without any proviso
for
non-paying students, has not been demonstrated to be reasorable. The rule
is
unreasonable as proposed because it would, in some circumstances, require
programs to go without being paid for the services they provide. There
appears to be no rational basis for such a requirement. This defect could
be
cured by adding a new provision such as the following:
D.
Nothing in these rules shall require a program to issue
any certificate to a student who has-not-paid the
agreed-upon fees.
Such a change would not be a substantial change.
Part 7411.0700- Subp.-8
Item B.
fils to complete the course.
Notification.when a 15_year old student
58. David Aquilar asked why this requirement applies only to 15 year
old
students.
This item requires a program to notify the Department when a 15 year
old
student fails to continue or complete the course. This item applies only
to
15 year old students because only 15 year old students are required to
continue and complete driver training in order to maintain their
instruction
permits under Minn. Stat.
171.05. The rule is reasonable and necessary
as
written and no change is required.
Part 7411.0700 subp
programs.
11.
Limitation on students taught ,by
certified
59. The PADSM questioned the limitation on the age of students
may
that
be served by certified driver training programs. PADSM suggested that a
student should be able to begin driver training prior to age 15 since the
student can legally obtain an instruction permit upon reaching age 15.
PADSM
also questioned why certified programs could not offer a course to a
student
more than 18 years of age.
This subpart deals with the certified driver training programs and
does
not directly affect PADSM members who are all licensed driver training
programs. The authority to regulate certified programs comes from Minn.
Stat.
171.04, (1), which deals with 15, 16 and 17 year old persons who must
take
an approved driver training course before obtaining an instruction permit
or
driver's license. A certified program is exempt from the licensing
requirements for commercial driver training schools because of Minn. Stat.
171.39. If a certified program did not fit within these exemptions,
would
need to obtain a commercial school license.
-21-
it
The Department stated that PADSM's point regarding students
younger than
15 was well taken. A certified program could offer driver training to a
student younger than age 15 and still be exempt from obtaining a commercial
school license under
171.39. Further, under
171.39, a certified program
conducted by a college, university, or high school could give driver
training
lessons to 18 year old students as part of the normal program for such
institution. The Department proposes that the second paragraph of Part
7411.0700, Subp. 11, be changed to read:
A certified program shall not offer a course in driver
education to a student unless the student is
not more than 18 years of age and the student is
taking the course to qualify for a class C instruction
permit or driver's license or unless the_program is
conducted by a college university or high school as
This change clarifies the limitations on certified programs and is
consistent with Minn. Stat.
171.39. This is not a substantial change.
Interested parties were given adequate notice that this could be an issue at
the hearing. Further, this change will not adversely affect any party
to this
proceeding.
Part_7411.0700, Subp, 13.
Department .
SituAtions-requiring-programs to notify the
60. The Professional Associated Driving Schools of Minnesota
recommended
that the Department be notified of traffic violations or accidents for all
categories of instructor, including commercial, public, private, or
parochial. PADSM also gave the opinion that the Department could easily get
this information from its own computer system.
The Department does not have the statutory authority to regulate driver
training instructors at public high schools. The Department does not
have the
computer capability to automatically obtain updates to the driving records of
instructors. No change is necessary. The rule as written is reasonable.
Part_7411.0700 __Subp, 14.
Types ,of instruction
.
61. PADSM stated that the word "complete" was not defined and suggested
that this subpart be clarified.
The Department agreed that this subpart should be clarified. A
"complete" course is one that covers the required topics and continues
for the
required number of hours. The Department proposed to change Part 7411.0700,
Subp. 14, as follows:
Subp. 14. Types of instruction. A program shall offer a
driver training student under 18 years of age
the_required course of classroom instruction and
the reqiired course of laboratory instruction.
This change clarifies the requirement of this subpart and does not
constitute a substantial change. Interested parties received adequate notice
-22-
that this could be an issue as is shown by the submission of testimony on
this
subject. This change will not adversely affect any party to this proceeding.
Part 7711.0800, Subp
8- item G -
62. This item is one of a list of grounds for license discipline. The
PADSM stated that the wording of this item was "balky and tenuous." PADSM
proposed that the item read: "The program or instructor has conducted
business in a way that substantially departs from commonly accepted
instructional or business practices."
Item G, as proposed, refers to "commonly accepted practices as used by
other driver training programs and instructors." The substance of the rule
is
unchanged from previous versions. A program regulated by these rules will be
held to the commonly accepted practices of other programs regulated by these
rules. From the diversity of opinions and practices advocated at the
hearing,
it is clear that a wide variety of businesses are currently operating under
the rules. The Department desires to restrict accepted practices to those
used in the driver training business, not all business. That is appropriate.
The rule as written is reasonable and necessary.
Part 7411.0800 Subp. 8. Suspension-and revocation and Subp. 8a
administrative review. -Time- frame for a review-of an acting-against a
program
or instructor license.
63. James Harelson stated that there is no time frame stated between
the
receipt of a request for a review of an adverse action against a program or a
licensee and the review. He said that any long delay in getting a hearing
would put most commercial schools out of business.
The Department responded:
There is no provision in this subpart that makes a
license action effective before a review is held. A
program may continue operating while a review or the
outcome of a review is pending. Note that the license
action will automatically become effective if a program
does not request a review within the time frames set out
in this subpart.
The rule is not entirely clear that proposed licensing actions do not become
effective until thirty days has elapsed or, if a review or hearing is
requested, until completion of those proceedings. It would be helpful to add
such a provision to clarify the Department's intent.
Similarly, the first sentence of Subp. 8A, Item B (formal hearing) could
be changed in the following way to more correctly indicate the intent of the
rule.
B. The program or instructor may request a formal
hearing with or without undergoing the review
process in Item A. The request must be in writing
and must be received within 30 days after the
program or instructor receives notice of the
revocation, suspension, or refusal__or Within IQ
-23-
days after the party receives notice of an adverse
determination under A, whichever period is longer.
This change would insure that an informal appeal could be completed
before the more costly and time consuming formal hearing process is started.
This seems to be the intent of the rules. In theory, the informal process
would have to be completed within 20 days. Then another 10 days is allowed
in
order to file an appeal for a formal hearing. The above change would
preserve
the right to a formal hearing even if the informal review were delayed.
The above changes clarify ambiguities and more accurately reflect the
Department's intent. Interested parties received adequate notice that this
could be an issue as shown by testimony received at the hearing. The
suggested language or a similar variation would not constitute a substantial
change.
Fees.
64. PADSM questioned the fees that apply to the different types of
driver training programs operating in Minnesota.
The fees for obtaining a commercial driver training school or
instructor's license are set by Minn. Stat.
171.36. Minn. Stat.
exempts certified programs from paying a fee. The Department has no
statutory
authority to set the fees.
171.39
"Driver training" versus "driver_education".
65. Duane Mettler suggested that the Department use "driver education"
instead of "driver training" in the rules because it carries a more
professional connotation.
Minn. Stat.
171-33 to 171.41, give the Department authority to
regulate "commercial driver training schools." The terms "driver training"
and "driver education" both refer to instruction given to help a person learn
how to drive. We "train" pilots and astronauts. The term "driver training"
is reasonable for these rules.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS
1.
Stat.
The Department gave proper notice of the hearing in this matter.
2. The Department has fulfilled the procedural requirements of Minn.
14.14, and all other procedural requirements of law or rule.
3. The Department has documented 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, subds. 1, 14.15, subd. 3,
and
14.50(i) and (ii).
-24-
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.
14.14, subd. 2 and 14.50(iii), except as
noted in Finding 57.
5.
The additions and amendments to the proposed rules that were
suggested by the Department after the publication of the proposed rules in
the
State Register do not result in rules which are substantially different from
the proposed rules as published in the State Register within the meaning of
Minn. Stat.
14.15, subd. 3, Minn. Rule 1400.1000, Subp. I and 1400.1100.
6.
The Administrative Law Judge has suggested action to correct the
defect cited in Conclusion 4 as noted at Finding 57.
7.
Due to Conclusion 4, this report has been submitted to the Chief
Administrative Law Judge for approval pursuant to Minn. Stat.
14.15, subd.
3.
8.
Any Findings that might properly be termed Conclusions and any
Conclusions that might properly be termed Findings are hereby adopted as
such.
9.
A finding or conclusion of need and reasonableness in regard to any
particular rule subpart does not preclude and should not discourage the
Department from further modification of the rules based upon an examination
of
the public comments, provided that no substantial change is made from the
proposed rules as origina
