When directed by a committee of jurisdiction to undertake a retrospective review of a rule under this chapter, an agency shall evaluate the continued relevance, clarity and reasonableness of the rule by examining: [PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. L, §1 (NEW).] 1. Relevance. The extent to which the rule may have over time become redundant, inconsistent or in conflict with the original goals and objectives for which the rule was first proposed, with other rules or with any underlying federal or state law or regulation that initially served as the basis for the rule; [PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. L, §1 (NEW).] 2. Clarity. Whether the language of the rule has retained its clarity and use of plain and clear English as required by Title 5, section 8061, continues to comply with the uniform drafting standards set forth in the drafting manual developed by the Secretary of State under Title 5, section 8056-A or whether the rule could be made less complex or more understandable to the general public; [PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. L, §1 (NEW).] 3. Reasonableness. Whether the rule has been reasonably and consistently applied with respect to the public or particular persons and whether less costly or more limited regulatory methods of achieving the original purposes of the rule have become available; and [PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. L, §1 (NEW).] 4. Appropriate categorization. Whether the rule should be categorized as a major substantive rule or a routine technical rule, as those terms are defined in Title 5, chapter 375. [PL 2011, c. 304, Pt. L, §1 (NEW).]
‹ Prev All Maine sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.