An Act To Amend the Laws Governing the Deference Afforded to Agency Decisions
Maine Legislature, Session 125, LD 1546
Committee: Judiciary
Sponsors: PLOWMAN, FITTS, COURTNEY, THIBODEAU, CROCKETT
Amends: 5 MRSA §8058, 5 MRSA §9061, 5 MRSA §11007

Legislative Document 
No. 1546 
S.P. 493 
In Senate, May 5, 2011 
An Act To Amend the Laws Governing the Deference Afforded to 
Agency Decisions 
Reference to the Committee on Judiciary suggested and ordered printed. 
JOSEPH G. CARLETON, JR. 
Secretary of the Senate 
Presented by Senator PLOWMAN of Penobscot. 
Cosponsored by Representative FITTS of Pittsfield and 
Senators: COURTNEY of York, THIBODEAU of Waldo, Representative: CROCKETT of 
Bethel. 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. 1.  5 MRSA §8058, sub-§1, as amended by PL 1985, c. 680, §6, is further 
amended to read: 
1.  Judicial review.  Judicial review of an agency rule, or of an agency's refusal or 
failure to adopt a rule where when the adoption of a rule is required by law, may be had 
by any person who is aggrieved in an action for declaratory judgment in the Superior 
Court conducted pursuant to Title 14, section 5951, et seq. chapter 707, which the 
provisions shall of which apply to such actions wherever whenever not inconsistent with 
this section.  The court, in conducting its review of a rule, shall review de novo the 
agency's interpretation of the statutes applicable to the rulemaking.  Insofar as the court 
finds that a rule exceeds the rule-making authority of the agency, or is void under section 
8057, subsection 1 or 2, it shall declare the rule invalid.  In reviewing any other 
procedural error alleged, the court may invalidate the rule only if it finds the error to be 
substantial and related to matters of such central relevance to the rule that there is a 
substantial likelihood that the rule would have been significantly changed if the error had 
not occurred.  If the court finds that the rule is not procedurally invalid and not in excess 
of the agency's rule-making authority, its the court's substantive review of that rule shall 
be is to determine whether the rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or 
otherwise not in accordance with law.  The phrase "otherwise not in accordance with law" 
shall apply applies only to the review authorized in the preceding sentence and shall may 
not be construed so as to limit or replace in any way section 8003.  In the event that the 
court finds that an agency has failed to adopt a rule as required by law, the court may 
issue such those orders as are necessary and appropriate to remedy such failure. 
Sec. 2.  5 MRSA §9061, first ¶, as enacted by PL 1977, c. 551, §3, is amended to 
read: 
Every agency decision made at the conclusion of an adjudicatory proceeding shall 
must be in writing or stated in the record, and shall must include findings of fact 
sufficient to apprise the parties and any interested member of the public of the basis for 
the decision.  A copy of the decision shall must be delivered or promptly mailed to each 
party to the proceeding or his each party's representative of record. Written notice of the 
party's rights to review or appeal of the decision within the agency or review of the 
decision by the courts, as the case may be, and of the action required and the time within 
which such action must be taken in order to exercise the right of review or appeal, shall 
must be given to each party with the decision.  In any review or appeal of a decision to a 
court of this State, the court, while considering the underlying decision appealed, shall 
review de novo the agency's interpretation of statutes or rules.  The court shall defer to 
the agency's findings of fact unless the court finds, based on the entire record, that an 
agency's findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence. 
Sec. 3.  5 MRSA §11007, sub-§3, as enacted by PL 1977, c. 551, §3, is amended 
to read: 
3.  Judgment. The court shall may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency 
on questions of fact.  On questions of law, the court shall review de novo an agency's 
interpretation of statutes or rules. 
SUMMARY 
This bill requires a court, in an appeal of an agency’s interpretation of the statutes in 
making or administering rules under the Maine Administrative Procedure Act, to conduct 
a de novo review.  The bill also clarifies that, on questions of fact, the court is required to 
defer to the agency unless the court finds that the agency’s findings of fact are 
unsupported by substantial evidence.