Opinion ID: 1649998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Issues of Statutory Interpretation

Text: Plaintiffs contend § 116F.06 does not give the MPCA power to promulgate regulations and thus the regulations do not have the force and effect of law. Defendants respond that the regulations should be considered to be legislative rules enacted pursuant to delegated powers to make substantive law, rules which thereby have the force and effect of law. There is no reference in § 116F.06 to MPCA authority to promulgate regulations. However, § 116F.06, subd. 3, does provide, in part: The agency shall adopt and may amend or rescind guidelines identifying the types of new or revised containers and packaging that are subject to its review after notice and hearing as provided in section 15.0412, subdivision 4. (Italics supplied.) Section 15.0412, subd. 4, provides the procedure by which an agency must adopt a rule and provides in part for public hearing and notice of the hearing to interested persons. [7] After such notice and hearing, the MPCA promulgated the regulations here in issue. We hold that the regulations do not have the force and effect of law. The absence of a specific provision in § 116F.06 authorizing the MPCA to promulgate regulations with the force and effect of law is, in our view, the critical factor in issue. The legislative history of § 116F.06 indicates the omission of authority to promulgate regulations with the force and effect of law was deliberate. The Bill, as first introduced in the House of Representatives, House File 1821, would have authorized regulations: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 15, the Agency may adopt, amend or rescind regulations and standards for the prevention, abatement, or control of solid waste generation; and such regulations and standards shall have the force and effect of law. Section 6. On May 4, 1973, this section was amended to delete reference to regulations and to replace it with guidelines: The agency shall prepare guidelines identifying the types of new or revised containers and packaging that are subject to its review. Journal of the House, 1973, p. 2598. The Bill was passed as amended, without any material change in the language. The legislature's decision to permit the MPCA to adopt guidelines and its refusal to grant the MPCA authority to adopt regulations with the force and effect of law indicate the legislature intended to restrict the MPCA's legislative rulemaking power. Authorization for the promulgation of regulations with the force and effect of law is, then, plainly absent from § 116F.06  and, as we recently stated in State v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 310 Minn. 528, 534, note 6, 246 N.W.2d 696, 700 (1976):    Courts cannot properly aid the agency by construing the statute to confer upon it implicit authority, when to do so would contravene the legislature's apparently deliberate failure to explicitly grant it such authority. The MPCA's regulations, as required by § 116F.06, subd. 3, were promulgated after notice and hearing, as provided in § 15.0412, subd. 4, and except as hereafter indicated in this opinion, are valid, whether they be termed regulations or guidelines. However, despite the name the MPCA uses to identify these guidelines, they do not have the force and effect of law. The scope of the grandfather clause contained in § 116F.06, subd. 2, is a subject of sharp disagreement between plaintiffs and the MPCA. Section 116F.06, subd. 2, directs the MPCA to review new or revised packages (except when changes involve only color, size, shape, or printing) to determine if the package would constitute a solid waste disposal problem or be inconsistent with state environmental policies. This subdivision also outlines the steps in the reviewing process, which ultimately can result in prohibition of the sale of the package in the state. The last sentence of the subdivision provides, This subdivision shall not apply to any package or container sold at retail in this state prior to final enactment of sections 116F.01 to 116F.08. Final enactment took place on May 24, 1973. Minn.Reg. SR-1(b)(3) of the MPCA's regulations defines a new or revised package, subject to review, to include a package sold prior to May 25, 1973, which carries a product in a different five-digit Standard Industrial Classification code than it earlier carried. The question posed is whether the MPCA has attempted to regulate packages which were intended by the legislature to be exempt under the grandfather clause. Plaintiffs argue the grandfather clause by its language unequivocally exempts any package sold at retail in Minnesota before May 25, 1973, and since there is no language or legislative history indicating the legislature intended to restrict the exemption by reference to the contents of a package, the MPCA cannot include the package in its regulations, even if a different product is put into the package. Defendants argue the propriety of their construction of the grandfather clause is a fact question, and the fact question is whether a package having its contents changed is a revised package. Defendants cite evidence indicating a package and the product it contains are inextricably related and argue that such a finding of fact by the trial court cannot be set aside unless it is clearly erroneous. The question of what the legislature intended to exempt via the grandfather clause is one of statutory interpretation and, as such, is not one of fact. Cf., No Power Line v. Minnesota Environ. Quality Council, 262 N.W.2d 312, 320 (Minn.1977). Because this is not a fact question, the clearly erroneous standard of review is inapplicable. The language of the grandfather clause is unambiguous. It states that the subdivision does not apply to any package sold at retail prior to the final enactment of the statute. Defendants produce no evidence that the legislature intended by these words to exclude from the grandfather clause's protection packages sold at retail prior to final enactment of the statute but which, after final enactment, contained different products. Defendants' arguments would justify regulations defining a new or revised package to include a package previously approved by the MPCA but presently containing a different product as long as the original package was not sold at retail in Minnesota before May 25, 1973, but such arguments are not relevant in deciding legislative intent as expressed in a clear and unambiguous provision of a statute. Speaking of the grandfather clause in the Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act, we noted in No Power Line v. Minnesota Environ. Quality Council, 262 N.W.2d 312, 320, All cases construing grandfather clauses share one thought in common  namely, that it is unfair to penalize the regulated party for something begun prior to the enactment of the statute. In the Package Review Act, the legislature seemingly intended to exempt from the statute any package sold at retail before passage of the statute in order not to overly burden companies which had packages already being used in the state and which had planned and developed the packages before the conditions imposed by the statute became known. The language of the statute indicates the legislature intended to exclude from MPCA review any package sold at retail prior to May 25, 1973. To the extent the MPCA's regulations purport to include such packages, they are contrary to the language and intent of § 116F.06, subd. 2, and are therefore invalid. [8] Plaintiffs contend the regulations do not give sufficient notice to a package manufacturer of the MPCA's intention to review a package. The regulatory scheme set up by the regulations contains four stages of package review. At the first stage, the MPCA reviews the package and determines if it constitutes a solid waste disposal problem or is inconsistent with state environmental policies. At the second stage, the MPCA, after notice and hearing as provided by Minn.St. c. 15, can by order prohibit sale of the package in this state. At the third stage, the MEQB may review the proposed prohibition. Finally, the prohibition will continue only if the legislature enacts the prohibition into law by the end of the next legislative session. The problem with the first stage of review is that, under the regulations, it is possible a manufacturer of a package will not receive the MPCA's notice of intention to review the package. See, Minn.Reg. SR-3(c). This is because such notice is sent to the package user, and the package user is defined in the regulations as the industry which combines packages/containers and products to create a unit intended for sale at retail. Minn.Reg. 1(b)(8). The definition does not include plaintiffs who manufacture packages and sell the empty packages to packers, even though they would be affected if their package were banned from sale in the state. We think it is clear from the language of § 116F.06, subd. 2, that the legislature intended that a package manufacturer be an active participant during the entire package review process, thus requiring a statutory construction that a package manufacturer be notified of the MPCA's intention to review the manufacturer's package. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. OTIS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.