Which of three Maine laws amending the same legislative-notice rule for agency rulemaking took effect?

Plain-English summary

In 1986, the Maine Attorney General concluded that all three laws enacted in the same legislative session to amend the agency-rulemaking notice statute had legal effect. Although each amended the same provision without referring to the others, their changes were compatible and substantially overlapping.

Chapter 528 addressed notice for emergency rules and updated the title of the legislative staff recipient. Chapter 680 incorporated those changes and also required agencies to send the Legislature the proposed rule when notice went to the Secretary of State. Chapter 737 again corrected the staff title.

The opinion applied the principle that courts seek to preserve and harmonize enactments rather than destroy them. With no irreconcilable conflict or evidence that lawmakers meant to withdraw approval from any amendment, each could operate within its terms.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did one amendment supersede the other two?

No. The opinion concluded that all three should be given effect because they were compatible and partly duplicative.

What did the emergency-rule amendment add?

It required legislative notice within 10 days after adoption of an emergency rule, while retaining advance notice for ordinary rules.

What additional change appeared in Chapter 680?

It required agencies to give the Legislature copies of proposed rules at the same time they gave rulemaking notice to the Secretary of State.

Why did the AG harmonize the enactments?

Maine cases described statutory construction as carrying out legislative intent and saving enactments where possible. The amendments contained no irreconcilable conflict.

Background and statutory framework

Secretary of State Rodney S. Quinn asked how agencies should apply three amendments to 5 M.R.S.A. section 8053-A enacted during the Second Regular Session of the 112th Legislature.

Each law referred to the original 1985 enactment rather than acknowledging the other amendments. The opinion compared their text and concluded that the Legislature's three-part intent could be honored as a whole.

Citations and references

• 5 M.R.S.A. § 8053-A
• P.L. 1985, c. 528
• P.L. 1985, c. 680
• P.L. 1985, c. 737
• Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478 (Me. 1983)
• State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58 (Me. 1981)
• State v. Davenport, 326 A.2d 1 (Me. 1974)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
• Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/1986/ag_19861217.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

JAMES E. TIERNEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
86-21

STATE OF MAINE

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE HOUSE STATION 6
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333

December 17, 1986

Rodney S. Quinn
Secretary of State
State House Station #29
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Mr, Quinn:
In order to provide guidance to agencies conducting rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, you have requested the Opinion of this Department concerning the legal effect of the three separate amendments of 5 M.R.S.A. § 8053-A enacted during the Second Regular Session of the 112th Legislature. That statutory provision, requiring notification of the Leg.islature of agency rulemaking activity~ was amended by P.L. 1985, c. 528, c~ 680, and c. 737. Each of these amendments was made without reference to, or apparent knowledge of, any of the others, as evidenced by the reference to § 8053-A "as enacted by P.L. 1985, c. 270" in the enacting clause of each.
In the Opinion of this Department, all three amendments would be given legal effect by the courts of this state since the amendments are in no way incompatible, and there is no evidence of any legislative intention to withhold or withdraw their approval from any of the amendments. To the contrary, the amendments are duplicative to a considerable degree.
The first of the three amendments, c. 528, is addressed solely to the first paragraph of S 8053-A. The underlying Legislative Document No. 1748 was entitled, "AN ACT to Allow Administrative Agencies to Continue to Adopt Emergency Rules when Necessary." It amends the provision's first paragraph as follows:
 -2-

At least 20 days prior to the adoption of any rule, or within 10 days following the· adopting of an emergency rule, the agency shall provide copies of the rule to the
~isia~ive-AEimiB¼StFat¼ve-Pi~eet9~-Q£-t~Q ~isia~~Fe Executive Director of the
Legislative Council. The ~esislative
AemiRi&~Fative-P¼FeeteF Executive Director of the Legislative Council, or his designee, shall refer the rule to the appropriate joint standing committee or committees of the ~egislature for review.
The pre-existing statute made no adequate provision for legislative notification of emergency rules, which often proceed from conception to adoption in less than 20 days. Even where legislative comment is impractical, the amendment seeks to clearly authorize emergency rules, while still requiring notification of the Legislature. The paragraph was also amended by c. 528 to update the title of the legislative staff member to whom rules were to be provided.
The second enactment was broader in scope. Chapter 680 enacted L.D. 2341, entitled, "AN ACT to Amend Rulemaking Provisions in the Maine Administrative Procedure Act." Section 3 of that bill amended 5 M.R.S.A. S 8053-A in three respects, including precisely the two amendments already made by Chapter 528 .l/ In addition, § 3 of Chapter ·680 made a · further substantive change to the statute, specifying that agencies were to provide the Legislature with copies of the proposed rule, and do so at the same time that notice of rulemaking was provided to the Secretary of· State. Since Chapter 680 incorporates the special provision for emergency rules made by Chapter 528, there is no inconsistency in the substantive changes made by these two amendments.
Finally, Chapter 737, Part B, S 13 amended S 8053-A only to correct the title of the Director of the legislative staff, and is thus substantially identical to those changes already made by c. 680. Although in one place Chapter 737 utilizes the shortened title "executive director" where Chapter 680 refers more fully to "Executive Director of the Legislative Council," the meaning of the two amendments is unambiguously the same.

· l l With respect to the change of the legislative staff member's title, Chapter 680 was actually broader than Chapter 528, making the title change throughout Section 8053-A, rather than in the first paragraph only. P.L. 1985, c. 690, SS 3 and 4. ·
,. -
-3-

Since "the fundamental objective in interpreting any statute is to determine the intent of th_e legislature in enacting it and to give effect to that intent," Penobscot Nation v. Stilphen, 461 A.2d 478, 481 (Me. 1983), and "the central purpose of statutory construction is 'to save, not to destroy,'" State v. Crocker, 435 A.2d 58, 63 (Me. 1981) quoting State v. Davenport, 326 A.2d 1, 5-6 (Me. 1974), it is apparent that the Maine courts would honor the three-faceted intent of the Legislature embodied in Chapter 680, and give effect to each amendment. This result is consistent with one commentator's observation that:
In the absence of an unreconcilable conflict between two acts of the same session [of a legislative body], each will be construed to operate within the limits of its own terms in a manner not to conflict with the other. lA Sutherland, Statutory Construction
§ 23.17, 4th ed. (1981).

I trust this will enable you to provide authoritative guidance to the state agencies.

; L~-
JAMts E. TIERNEY
At-iorney General
JET/ec