Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 5
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8052 (2026)

Rulemaking

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Notice; public hearing.  Prior to the adoption of any rule, the agency shall give notice as provided in section 8053 and may hold a public hearing, except that a public hearing must be held if otherwise required by statute or requested by any 5 interested persons or if the rule is a major substantive rule as defined in section 8071, subsection 2, paragraph B.  
A public meeting or other public forum held by an agency for any purpose that includes receiving public comments on a proposed agency rule is a public hearing and is subject to all the provisions of this subchapter regarding public hearings.  
[PL 2007, c. 581, §2 (AMD).]
2.  Requirements.  A public hearing must comply with any requirements imposed by statute, but is not subject to subchapter 4. Any public hearing must be held and conducted as follows.  
A. In the case of a rule authorized to be adopted by a board or commission consisting of 3 or more members, at least 1/3 of the board or commission members must be present during any hearing on the rule.   [PL 2025, c. 384, §1 (AMD).]
B. In the case of a rule authorized to be adopted by a single agency member, either the agency member, a person in a major policy-influencing position, as listed in chapter 71, or a designee who has responsibility over the subject matter to be discussed at the hearing shall hold and conduct the hearing.   [PL 1993, c. 362, §2 (AMD).]
[PL 2025, c. 384, §1 (AMD).]
3.  Statements and arguments filed.  When a public hearing is held, written statements and arguments concerning the proposed rule may be filed with the agency within 10 days after the close of the public hearing, or within such longer time as the agency may direct.  
[PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW).]
4.  Relevant information considered.  The agency shall consider all relevant information available to it, including, but not limited to, economic, environmental, fiscal and social impact analyses and statements and arguments filed, before adopting any rule.  
[PL 1991, c. 632, §1 (AMD).]
5.  Written statement adopted. 
[PL 2025, c. 384, §2 (RP).]
5-A.  Impact on small business.  In adopting rules, the agencies shall seek to reduce any economic burdens through flexible or simplified reporting requirements and may seek to reduce burdens through flexible or simplified timetables that take into account the resources available to the affected small businesses. The agency may consider clarification, consolidation or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements. For the purposes of this subsection, "small business" means businesses that have 20 or fewer employees.  
Prior to the adoption of any proposed rule that may have an adverse impact on small businesses, the agency shall prepare an economic impact statement that includes the following:  
A. An identification of the types and an estimate of the number of the small businesses subject to the proposed rule;   [PL 2007, c. 181, §1 (NEW).]
B. The projected reporting, record-keeping and other administrative costs required for compliance with the proposed rule, including the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record;   [PL 2007, c. 181, §1 (NEW).]
C. A brief statement of the probable impact on affected small businesses; and   [PL 2007, c. 181, §1 (NEW).]
D. A description of any less intrusive or less costly, reasonable alternative methods of achieving the purposes of the proposed rule.   [PL 2007, c. 181, §1 (NEW).]
[PL 2007, c. 181, §1 (AMD).]
5-B.  Basis statement; summary of comments and testimony.  At the time of adoption of any rule, an agency shall:  
A. Compose a basis statement that briefly explains the factual and policy foundation for the rule. If the adoption under this subsection is final adoption of a major substantive rule under subchapter 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; and   [PL 2025, c. 384, §3 (NEW).]
B. List the names of persons whose comments were received, including through testimony at hearings, the organizations the persons represent and summaries of their comments as follows.  
(1) 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.  
(2) If the same or similar comments or concerns about a specific issue were expressed by different persons or organizations, the agency 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 by the agency, listing the names of the persons who commented and the organizations they represent.   [PL 2025, c. 384, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 2025, c. 384, §3 (NEW).]
5-C.  Consistency of adopted rule with proposed rule.  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 are made supporting changes to the proposed rule. If an agency determines that a rule that the agency intends to adopt is substantively 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 comments are requested pursuant to this subsection. Notice of the request for comments must be published by the Secretary of State in the same manner as notice for proposed rules.  
[PL 2025, c. 384, §4 (NEW).]
5-D.  Agency rule files.  In addition to other documents required by this Act, an agency shall maintain a file for each rule adopted by the agency that includes the following information:  
A. Testimony submitted during any public hearing held on the rule;   [PL 2025, c. 384, §5 (NEW).]
B. Written comments submitted on the rule;   [PL 2025, c. 384, §5 (NEW).]
C. The names of persons who commented on the rule and the organizations those persons represent; and   [PL 2025, c. 384, §5 (NEW).]
D. Any other information relevant to the rule and considered by the agency in connection with the formulation, proposal or adoption of the rule.   [PL 2025, c. 384, §5 (NEW).]
[PL 2025, c. 384, §5 (NEW).]
6.  Effective date.  No rule, except emergency rules adopted under section 8054, becomes effective until at least 5 days after filing with the Secretary of State under section 8056, subsection 1, paragraph B.  
When the effective date of a rule is contingent upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event, notification of the occurrence or nonoccurrence must be filed with the Secretary of State when known.  
[PL 1993, c. 362, §3 (AMD).]
7.  Adoption of rule.  A rule may not take effect unless:  
A. The agency adopts it within 120 days of the final date by which data, views or arguments may be submitted to the agency for consideration in adopting the rule; and   [PL 1985, c. 39, §1 (NEW).]
B. This adopted rule is approved by the Attorney General as to form and legality, as required by section 8056, within 150 days of the final date by which those comments may be submitted.   [PL 1985, c. 39, §1 (NEW).]
The final date for comments may be extended if notice of doing so is published within 14 days after the most recently published comment deadline, in the consolidated notice referred to in section 8053.  
[PL 1995, c. 373, §3 (AMD).]
8.  Appropriate reference to underlying federal and state laws and regulations.  At the time of adoption of any rule, the agency shall refer with particularity to any underlying federal or state law or regulation which serves as the basis of the rule.  
[PL 1985, c. 77, §1 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1977, c. 551, §3 (NEW). PL 1977, c. 694, §34-A (AMD). PL 1979, c. 425, §4 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 524, §§1-6 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 39, §1 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 77, §1 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 506, §§A2,3 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 680, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 737, §A18 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 574, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 632, §1 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 362, §§2,3 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 446, §A19 (AMD). RR 1995, c. 2, §8 (COR). PL 1995, c. 373, §3 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 463, §1 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 110, §2 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 196, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 181, §1 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 581, §2 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 380, Pt. NNN, §1 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 384, §§1-5 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Professionals Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Professionals Licensure, 2006 ME 48 (Me. 2006). · cites it 4× “5 M.R.S. § 8052 (2005). She further argues that her rights under the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Maine Constitutions were violated because 32 M.”
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). · cites it 3× “§ 685-A(7-A)(B); see also 5 M.R.S. § 8052 (2011); Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Prof 'ls Licensure, 2006 ME 48, ¶ 13 , 896 A.”
Ms. S. v. Reg'l Sch. Unit 72, 829 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “See Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, §§ 8052 , 8053.”
John Doe v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 2018 ME 164 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “See 5 M.R.S. §§ 8052, 8053, 8056. There are also APA requirements for emergency rulemaking.”
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). · cites it 2× “The Department gave notice that it was to make changes in the rules, see 5 M.R.S.A. § 8052(2); considered comments of outfitters before adopting criteria, see section 8052(4); and in its memorandum of December 14, 1987, explained the criteria being used, see section 8052(3).”
Cent. Maine Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2014 ME 56 (Me. 2014). “that is or is intended to be judicially enforceable and implements, interprets or makes specific the law administered by the agency, or describes the procedures or practices of the agency.”
Lewis v. State Dep't of Human Servs., 433 A.2d 743 (Me. 1981). “See also 5 M.R.S.A. § 8052. Any person may petition the Department under 5 M.”
Lingley v. Maine Workers' Comp. Bd., 2003 ME 32 (Me. 2003). “The Board followed the procedural requirements for rulemak-ing detailed in the APA, 5 M.R.S.A. § 8052 (2002), including the provision of notice and the preparation of a basis statement, and it held a public hearing on January 31, 2001, at which various people presented comments.”
Maine Ass'n of Interdependent Neighborhoods v. Petit, 647 F. Supp. 1312 (D. Me. 1986). “Defendant Petit also argues that whatever the flaws in the adoption of the federal SSI rule, the state Medicaid rule was valid when promulgated because it was adopted in compliance with the notice and comment provisions of Maine’s Administrative Procedure Act, Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.…”
Lowe v. Gagne-Holmes, 126 F.4th 747 (1st Cir. 2025). “In Bayley's Campground, the challenged COVID-19 restriction had not been rescinded entirely, as here, but merely replaced with a less strict version, and indeed, without the check of a rulemaking process like that required of MDHHS under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 8052 , the…”
Conservation Law Found. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 192 A.3d 596 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 8052(1), (5)(B) (2017) ; *599 • that the Commission's rulemaking was procedurally flawed because the Commission failed to include either a small business impact statement, see 5 M.R.S. § 8052(5-A) (2017), or a fiscal impact statement, see 5 M.”
Conservation Law Found. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2018 ME 120 (Me. 2018). · cites it 2× “See 5 M.R.S. § 8052(1)-(3) (2017). 3 [¶4] Pertinent to this appeal, the Rule implemented three changes, all applicable to the calculation of the NEB incentive with respect to the transmission and distribution (T&D) portion of the NEB customers’ bills, and all to be implemented…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8052(1) — 3 cases
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). “§ 685-A(7-A)(B); see also 5 M.R.S. § 8052 (2011); Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Prof 'ls Licensure, 2006 ME 48, ¶ 13 , 896 A.”
Conservation Law Found. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 2018 ME 120 (Me. 2018). “See 5 M.R.S. § 8052(1)-(3) (2017). 3 [¶4] Pertinent to this appeal, the Rule implemented three changes, all applicable to the calculation of the NEB incentive with respect to the transmission and distribution (T&D) portion of the NEB customers’ bills, and all to be implemented…”
Conservation Law Found. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 192 A.3d 596 (Me. 2018). “§ 8052(1), (5)(B) (2017) ; *599 • that the Commission's rulemaking was procedurally flawed because the Commission failed to include either a small business impact statement, see 5 M.R.S. § 8052(5-A) (2017), or a fiscal impact statement, see 5 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8052(2) — 1 case
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “The Department gave notice that it was to make changes in the rules, see 5 M.R.S.A. § 8052(2); considered comments of outfitters before adopting criteria, see section 8052(4); and in its memorandum of December 14, 1987, explained the criteria being used, see section 8052(3).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8052(4) — 1 case
Forest Ecology Network v. Land Use Reg. Comm'n, 2012 ME 36 (Me. 2012). “§ 685-A(7-A)(B); see also 5 M.R.S. § 8052 (2011); Cobb v. Bd. of Counseling Prof 'ls Licensure, 2006 ME 48, ¶ 13 , 896 A.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8052(5) — 1 case
Town of Thomaston v. Bureau of Taxation, 490 A.2d 1180 (Me. 1985).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5, § 8052(7)(A) — 1 case
New England Whitewater Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, 550 A.2d 56 (Me. 1988). “The Department gave notice that it was to make changes in the rules, see 5 M.R.S.A. § 8052(2); considered comments of outfitters before adopting criteria, see section 8052(4); and in its memorandum of December 14, 1987, explained the criteria being used, see section 8052(3).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.