Maine House Bill LD1372

Maine 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/28/25
• Refer: 3/28/25
• Failed: 6/3/25

Caption

An Act to Establish a Special Committee to Review Routine Technical Rules

Summary

LD 1372 would create a new Special Committee on Regulatory Review to examine “routine technical rules” proposed by state agencies under Maine’s rulemaking law. The committee would have 12 members total, split evenly between the House and Senate and between the two largest parties in each chamber, with membership and chairs set by legislative joint rule. The bill directs the committee to develop a formal process for reviewing these rules and to evaluate them for necessity, efficiency, and public benefit, with authority to approve a rule as proposed, approve it with changes, or reject it. The bill also requires the committee to begin reporting to the Legislature in 2028 on the routine technical rules it reviewed in the prior year and the actions taken on each rule. Those reports may include recommendations for legislation to change the rulemaking process and suggestions for improving coordination among the Legislature, executive branch, and judicial branch on adoption, enforcement, and adjudication of routine technical rules. By February 1, 2026, the committee must submit legislation to conform existing law to the new review process and incorporate that process into statute.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would alter Maine’s administrative rulemaking framework by adding legislative review of routine technical rules, which are currently governed under Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A and related provisions. It would create a new statutory role for the Special Committee on Regulatory Review, require agencies to submit routine technical rules for review, and potentially slow or change the adoption of those rules depending on committee action. The bill would also likely require conforming amendments to Maine’s Administrative Procedure Act and related statutes to align existing rulemaking authority with the new review process.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill faced significant opposition. The House adopted an “ought not to pass” majority report by a 75-64 vote, and the Senate later accepted that majority report by a 20-13 vote. That pattern indicates the proposal drew enough support to remain competitive, but not enough to overcome concerns about changing the existing rulemaking process. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record here reflects the votes more than detailed debate.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s shift of oversight power over routine technical rules from the executive branch’s rulemaking process to a legislative committee. Supporters likely viewed the proposal as a way to improve accountability, scrutiny, and public benefit in rulemaking, while opponents likely objected to adding another layer of review, potential delays, and a possible blurring of separation-of-powers lines. The requirement that the committee be evenly divided by party and empowered to approve, modify, or reject rules also suggests concern over how much discretion the Legislature should have in technical administrative matters.