An Act To Clarify the Role of Public Comment in the Agency Decision-making Process
Maine Legislature, Session 124, LD 1212
Committee: State and Local Government
Sponsors: PRATT, BERRY, CRAY, GIFFORD, JOY
Amends: 5 MRSA §8072, 12 MRSA §684

MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE 
The following document is provided by the 
LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY 
at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library 
http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib 
Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied 
(searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) 
n 
( 
\ 
. ) 
(~ 
STArE LAW I !""'~. 
<"1,=", " Ii I j 
Al !t;'?l !()'j» fi, 
'~Ii!!, 
' 
,~,~,' ,':;i I j,;, i;;:lioi hUt: 
'. 
.,~ 
124th MAl E LEGISLATURE 
FIRST RRGUi,AR SESSION-2009 
Legislative Document 
No. 1212 
H.P.837 
House of Representatives, March 26,2009 
An Act To Clarify the Role of Public Comment in the Agency 
Decision-making Process 
Reference to the Committee on State and Local Government suggested and ordered printed. 
Presented by Representative PRATT of Eddington. 
7Y/~~ 117· 7l!iLC~{ 
MILLICENT M. MacFARLAND 
Clerk 
Cosponsored by Representatives: BERRY of Bowdoinham, CRAY of Palmyra, GIFFORD of 
Lincoln, JOY of Crystal, McCABE of Skowhegan, PlOTT! of Unity. 
. 
r-
Printed on recycled pnp!:r 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. 1. 5 MRS A §80S2, sub.:.§5, as amended by PL 1997, c. 196, § 1, 'is further 
amended to read: 
5~Written statement adopted. At the time of adoption of any rule, the agency shall 
adopt a written statement explaining the factual and policy hasis for the rule. The agency 
shall list the names of persons whose comments were received, including through 
testimony at. hearings, the organizations the persons represent and summaries of their 
comments. The agency shall state the ratio of comments received in terms of the number 
of persons opposed and the number of persons in favo~. The agency shall address the 
specific comments and concerns expressed about any proposed rule and state its rationale 
for adopting any Changes from the proposed rule, failing to adopt the suggested changes. 
or drawing findings and recommendations that differ from those expressed about the 
proposed rule; 
A. 
If the· same or similar comments or concerns about a specific issue. were 
expressed by different persons or organizations, the agenci may synthesize these 
comments and concerns into a single comment that accurately reflects the meaning 
and intent of these comments and concerns to be addressed bi the agency, listing the 
names. of the persons who commented and the organizations they represent. 
. 32 
B. 
A rule may not be adopted unless the adopted rule is consistent. with the terms of 
the proposed rule, except to the extent that the agency determines that it is necessary 
to address concerns raised in comments about the proposed rule, or specific findings 
a~e ina de supporting changes to the proposed rule. The agency shall maintain a file 
for each rule adopted that must include, in addition to other documents required by 
this Act, te~timo~y,. comments, the names of persons who commented and the 
organizations they represent and information relevant to the rule and considered· by 
the agency in connection with the formulation, proposal or adoption of a rule. If an 
agency determines that a rule that the agency intends to adopt is substantially 
different from the proposed rule, the agency shall -request comments from the public 
concerning the changes from the proposed rule. The agency may not' adopt the rule 
for a period of 30 days from the date corriments are requested pursuant to this 
paragraph. Notice of the request for comments must be published by the Secretary of 
State in the same manner as notice for proposed or adopted rules . 
C. If the adoption under this subsection is final adoption of a major substantive rule 
under subchapter II-A 2-A, the agency must include in . its written statement citation 
of the legislative act authorizing final adoption of that rule; or, if authorization is the 
result of failure of the Legislature to act under section 8072, subsection 7, the agency 
must indicate that fact and identify the date the agency filed the rule for review under 
section 8072. 
. 
Sec.2. 5 MRS A §8072, suillb-§2, ~-1 is enacted to ,read: 
B-1. 
A . summary of the public comments received pursuant to section 8052, 
subsection 5, including a brief statement of the ratio of persons with favorable 
comments and persons with unfavorable comments relating to the rule. 
) 
) 
) 
, 
r 
() 
( 
\ 
.J 
\ 
~) 
3· 
Sec. 3 .. 5 MRSA §8072, sub-§4, ~G, as amended by PL 1995, .c. 537, §7, is 
further amended to read: 
G. 
Whether the provisionally adopted rule was proposed in compliance with the 
requirements of this chapter and with requirements imposed by any other provision of 
law; ami 
Sec. 4. 5 MRSA §8072, sub-§4, «ffH, as enacted by PL 1995, c: 537, §8, is 
amended.to read: . 
. 
H. 
For a rule that is reasonably expected to result in a significant reduction in 
property values, whether sufficient variance prpyisionsexist in law or in the rule to 
avoid an unconstitutional taking, and whether, as a matter of policy, the expected 
reduction is necessarj or appropriate for the protection of the public health, safety 
and welfare advanced by the rule~; and 
Sec. 5. 5 MRSA §8072, sub-§4, EfI1. is enacted tOTead: 
I. When 2/3 or more of the persons submit public comments that oppose or differ 
.15 
substantially from the substance of the proposed rule, whether the agency .has 
. 16 
addressed or offered a satisfactory explanation for why the rule needs to be adopted 
7as 
written. 
Sec. 6. 12 MRSA §684, as amended by PL 1999, c. 333, §4, is further amended by 
adding at the end a new paragraph to read: 
.When a public hearing is held prior to a decision by the commission and 2/3 or more 
of the persons slibmitting comments' are opposed to the final .. decis"ion made by the 
commission, the commission must report its explanation for that decision to the joint 
standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over conservation matters. 
SUMMARY 
TIns bill amends the Maine Administrative Procedure Act to require an agency to 
report the ratio of the persons submitting comments in support or" and persons in 
opposition t6 a proposed rule during the public comment period and also to require that 
the agency provide an explanation to the Legislative Council as to why the nile needs to 
be adopted as written if the proposed rule was opposed by 2/3 of the persons submitting 
public comments. It also requires the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission to provide 
an explanation for a permitting decision that was opposed by 2/3 of the persons 
submitting comments at a public hearing. 
.