Utah State Digest, Vol. 2012, No. 23 (December 1, 2012)

[NOTE:  The Utah State Digest (Digest) is created from the eRules filing 
database used to create the Utah State Bulletin (Bulletin).  While a 
discrepancy between the Digest and the Bulletin is highly unlikely, any 
discrepancies will be resolved in favor of the Bulletin.  Please refer to the 
State Disclaimer ( http://www.utah.gov/disclaimer.html ) for more 
information.]

------------------------------------------------------------

UTAH STATE DIGEST
Summary of the Contents of the Utah State Bulletin


For information filed November 2, 2012, 12:00 AM through November 15, 2012, 
11:59 PM


Volume 2012, No. 23
December 1, 2012


Prepared by
Division of Administrative Rules
Department of Administrative Services


The Utah State Digest (Digest) is an official electronic publication of the 
State of Utah, Department of Administrative Services, Division of 
Administrative Rules.  It is a summary of the information found in the Utah 
State Bulletin (Bulletin) of the same volume and issue number.  Inquiries 
concerning the substance or applicability of an administrative rule that 
appear in the Digest should be addressed to the contact person for the rule.  
Questions about the Digest or the rulemaking process may be addressed to:  
Division of Administrative Rules, 5110 State Office Building, Salt Lake City, 
Utah 84114-1201, telephone 801-538-3218, FAX 801-359-0759.  Additional 
rulemaking information, and electronic versions of all administrative rule 
publications are available at:  http://www.rules.utah.gov/ .  The Digest is 
available free of charge online at 
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/digest.htm and by E-mail Listserv.  




************************************************
Division of Administrative Rules, Salt Lake City  84114

Unless otherwise noted, all information presented in this publication is in 
the public domain and may be reproduced, reprinted, and redistributed as 
desired.  Materials incorporated by reference retain the copyright asserted 
by their respective authors.  Citation to the source is requested.



Utah state digest.
  Semimonthly.
  1.  Delegated legislation--Utah--Digests. I.  Utah. Office 
of Administrative Rules.

KFU38.U8
348.792'025--DDC            86-658042
***********************************************




1.  SPECIAL NOTICES

Special Notice for the Primary Care Network
- Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by 
Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/sn153540.htm




2.  EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS

As part of his or her constitutional duties, the Governor periodically issues 
Executive Documents comprised of Executive Orders, Proclamations, and 
Declarations.  "Executive Orders" set policy for the Executive Branch; create 
boards and commissions; provide for the transfer of authority; or otherwise 
interpret, implement, or give administrative effect to a provision of the 
Constitution, state law or executive policy.  "Proclamations" call special or 
extraordinary legislative sessions; designate classes of cities; publish 
states-of-emergency; promulgate other official formal public announcements or 
functions; or publicly avow or cause certain matters of state government to 
be made generally known.  "Declarations" designate special days, weeks or 
other time periods;  call attention to or recognize people, groups, 
organizations, functions, or similar actions having a public purpose; or 
invoke specific legislative purposes (such as the declaration of an 
agricultural disaster).  

The Governor's Office staff files Executive Documents that have legal effect 
with the Division of Administrative Rules for publication and distribution.  
All orders issued by the Governor not in conflict with existing laws have the 
full force and effect of law during a state of emergency when a copy of the 
order is filed with the Division of Administrative Rules. (See Section 63K-4-
401).

Governor's Proclamation 2012/09/E:  Calling Fifty-Ninth Legislature Into the 
Ninth Extraordinary Session
- Nancy Lancaster by phone at 801-538-3218, by FAX at 801-537-9240, or by 
Internet E-mail at nllancaster@utah.gov
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/execdocs/2012/ExecDoc153542.htm




3.  NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULES

A state agency may file a Proposed Rule when it determines the need for a new 
rule, a substantive change to an existing rule, or a repeal of an existing 
rule.  Filings received between November 2, 2012, 12:00 a.m., and November 
15, 2012, 11:59 p.m. are summarized in this, the December 1, 2012, issue of 
the Utah State Digest.

The law requires that an agency accept public comment on Proposed Rules 
published in the December 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin until at 
least December 31, 2012 (the Bulletin is the parent publication of the 
Digest).  The agency may accept comment beyond this date and will indicate 
the last day the agency will accept comment in the rule information published 
below.  The agency may also hold public hearings.  Additionally, citizens or 
organizations may request the agency hold a hearing on a specific Proposed 
Rule.  Section 63G-3-302 requires that a hearing request be received by the 
agency proposing the rule "in writing not more than 15 days after the 
publication date of the proposed rule."

From the end of the public comment period through March 31, 2013, the agency 
may notify the Division of Administrative Rules that it wants to make the 
Proposed Rule effective.  The agency sets the effective date.  The date may 
be no fewer than seven calendar days after the close of the public comment 
period nor more than 120 days after the publication date in the Utah State 
Bulletin.  Alternatively, the agency may file a Change in Proposed Rule in 
response to comments received.  If the Division of Administrative Rules does 
not receive a Notice of Effective Date or a Change in Proposed Rule, the 
Proposed Rule lapses and the agency must start the process over.

The public, interest groups, and governmental agencies are invited to review 
and comment on the Proposed Rules listed below.  Comment may be directed to 
the contact person identified with each rule. 

Proposed Rules are governed by Section 63G-3-301; Rule R15-2; and Sections 
R15-4-3, R15-4-4, R15-4-5, R15-4-9, and R15-4-10.


AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
REGULATORY SERVICES
No. 37027 (Amendment): R70-310. Grade A Pasteurized Milk.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Every two years the Utah Department of 
Agriculture and Food (UDAF) amends this rule to adopt the new FDA Pasteurized 
Milk Ordinance.  This rule amendment adopts the 2011 Pasteurized Milk 
Ordinance.  See the following Executive Summary.  Note: The numbers at the 
beginning of each change correspond to the number assigned to each proposal.  
101:  Allow for the illumination of milk, milk products or whey with 
ultraviolet light (UV) as an adjunct to thermal pasteurization in order to 
increase the shelf life of the product.  103:  Section 7. Standards for Grade 
"A" Milk and Milk Products of the 2009 PMO.  It specifically addresses 
changes to the standards for Grade "A" Nonfat Dry Milk (NFDM) by proposing to 
eliminate the quality testing standards, lowering the bacterial limit from 
30,000 per gram to 10,000 per gram to be consistent with USDA's bacterial 
limit for Extra Grade NFDM, and adds "Dry Milk and Milk Products" to this 
header.  106:  Hauling Allows for additional alternatives for the direct 
loading of milk on a dairy farm by utilizing stubbed piping outside of the 
milkhouse wall, as well as a transfer hose through the milkhouse hose port.  
113:  This Proposal updates the requirements within Item 15p(B)-Protection 
from Contamination of the PMO for single-bodied double seat valves, used to 
separate cleaning solutions from product circuits, to be consistent with the 
3-A Standard for Double Seat Mixproof Valves (85-01).  It also provides a 
useful clarification and a simplification of the low pressure gravity drain 
application requirements cited within Item 15p(B).  114:  Provides more 
detailed pasteurized product protection and operational criteria for a milk 
or milk product-to water-to-milk or milk product regenerator when used for 
heat exchange purposes.  115:  This proposal would allow the circulating loop 
of a cross-flow membrane microfiltration system to be maintained at an 
elevated temperature during production as an alternative to the current 
cooling requirements of ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES #3 of Item 16p.  116:  To 
require that the reading of the airspace thermometer be recorded on batch 
pasteurizer charts only at the start of the holding period if the airspace 
thermometer is a digital combination type with a continuous recording of the 
airspace temperature.  117:  demonstrated that the use of potassium sorbate 
or specific microbial inhibitors combined with filling cottage cheese at 55 
degrees F or less and cooling to 45 degrees F or less within 72 hours after 
filling provide equal or better food safety protection that the current PMO 
requirement to fill cottage cheese at 45 degrees F.  118:  To amend the 
current requirement found in 16p (E) (1) (c) to quarterly mark the time 
accuracy of the recording thermometer on flow rate recording charts for use 
in continuous flow or aseptic processing equipment with magnetic flow meter 
based timing systems.  119 :  This proposal adds the slurry temperature 
requirements currently found in Appendix H into the Item 17p. Cooling of Milk 
and Milk Products section of the PMO.  120:  This Proposal makes corrections 
to the errors cited in Section 8-Animal Health of the PMO in relationship to 
what animal species are covered and not covered under the USDA Tuberculosis 
(TB) Eradication Program.  It also reflects changes to the USDA Brucellosis 
Eradication Program under the Interim Rule to 9 CFR Part 78 and updates the 
references to obtain copies of the USDA TB and Brucellosis Eradication 
Programs cited in Appendix A. Animal Health Control of the PMO.  121:  
Editorial clarification that Ultraviolet(UV) light disinfection of water as 
specified in Appendix D Section IV is equivalent to chemical disinfection for 
water reuse purposes.  123:  In Appendix H, the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 
(PMO) describes how minor ingredients can be added to a High Temperature 
Short Time (HTST) pasteurization system.  The currently listed method states 
that the slurry pump must be de-energized.  De-energizing the pump has the 
effect of stopping all product flow within a loop, and does not allow a 
single pressurized loop to be used for multiple operations. This proposal is 
to allow an alternate mechanical method-use of Double-Block and Bleed valves 
that release to a drain-to prevent continued flow to the injection point.  
124:  This Proposal provides a technical update, clarification and 
consolidation of the criteria for the use of magnetic flow meter based timing 
systems within HTST and HHST continuous flow pasteurization systems  126:  
This Proposal addresses a change to Appendix H-Pasteurization Equipment and 
Procedures and Other Equipment, V-Criteria for the Evaluation of Electronic 
Data Collection, Storage and Reporting of the PMO to clarify a potential 
misinterpretations that additional operator's signatures are required for raw 
and heat-treated milk and milk product storage tank's temperature records 
when using electronic records compared to the operator's signatures required 
for manual records as addressed in the PMO.  127:  This Proposal addresses a 
change to Appendix H-Pasteurization Equipment and Procedures and Other 
Equipment, VI, Criteria for the Evaluation of Computerized Systems for Grade 
"A" Public Health Controls to include new frequency drive technology in the 
sealing process of a pasteurization system; thereby, timing pump speed cannot 
be controlled through a network or web interface.  128:  This Proposal 
addresses a change to Appendix H-Pasteurization Equipment and Procedures and 
Other Equipment, VI, Criteria for the Evaluation of Computerized Systems for 
Grade "A" Public Health Controls to eliminate a second memory chip that was 
preferable in older pasteurization system's computer/programmable logic 
controller technology; however, now has detrimental potential with newer 
technology.  129:  To correct a typographical error on the Milk and Milk 
Product Continuous-Flow (HTST and HHST) Pasteurization - CCP Model HACCP Plan 
Summary.  205:  To eliminate the sampling and testing requirement for bulk 
shipped heat treated milk products.  208:  Add allowances in the PMO for use 
of an approved alternative farm bulk tank sampling system for the purpose of 
obtaining the farm bulk tank universal sample as required in Section 6-The 
Examination of Milk and Milk Products and as referenced in Appendix B-Milk 
Sampling, Hauling and Transportation of the Grade "A" PMO.  FDA/LPET has been 
provided 200 of the 300 data points required and found the data to be 
acceptable at the time of submission of this proposal.  The other data points 
well be submitted to FDA/LPET around the end of February for review.  209:  
This Proposal updates criterion for the Commissioner of FDA to utilize for 
determination that a potential problem exists with animal drug residues or 
other contaminants in the milk supply that would result in additional 
analysis for the contaminant by a method(s) determined by FDA to be effective 
in determining compliance with actionable levels or established tolerances.  
210:  To allow for the location of tanker stickers on the front bulkhead of 
milk tank truck.  212:  To establish an acceptable criteria for the onsite 
production and sanitization use of hypochlorous acid.  214:  This Proposal 
provides an update to Appendix F.  Sanitization of the PMO in relationship to 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citation referenced under I.  Methods 
of Sanitization, Chemical from 21 CFR 178.1010 to 40 CFR 180.940; 
corresponding correction to the citation in Item 11r-Utensil and Equipment - 
Sanitization; and also adds the updated CFR reference to Appendix L.  
Applicable Regulations, Standards of Identity for Milk and Milk Products and 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of the PMO.  This Proposal is only 
an editorial correction.  215:  This proposal is written to update language 
in Appendix G. Chemical and Bacteriological Tests Section I. Private Water 
supplies and Recirculated Water - Bacteriological of the 2009 PMO.  216:  
This Proposal provides a clarification and reorganization of 
requirements/criteria cited in Appendix A.  Guidelines for Computing 
Enforcement Ratings, Part I. Dairy Farms, Item 10.  Permit Issuance, 
Suspension, Revocation, Reinstatement, Hearings, and/or Court Action Taken as 
Required and Part II. Milk Plants, Item 9. Permit Issuance, Suspension, 
Revocation, Reinstatement, Hearings, and/or Court Action Taken as Required 
within the 2009 MMSR.  217:  This Proposal proposes corrections and additions 
to Section 11-HACCP SYSTEM TRAINING within FORM FDA 2359m, MILK PLANT, 
RECEIVING STATION OR TRANSFER STATION NCIMS HACCP SYSTEM AUDIT REPORT 
(10/10).  These corrections and additions are warranted to bring Section 11 
within FORM FDA 22359m in conformance with the language cited in Appendix K-
HACCP PROGRAM of the PMO.  218:  This proposal offers a modification to item 
#2 of the NCIMS HACCP SYSTEM REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEW REPORT (Form FDA 2359n) 
to provide a location on this form to acknowledge the PMO Appendix K.  HACCP 
Program requirement that State regulators auditing NCIMS HACCP listed milk 
plants have received training (at least once) in the auditing of milk plants 
under the NCIMS HACCP program.  219:  Accept a flunixin and beta-lactam test 
for screening under Appendix N.  Approve a 2400 form and add the method to 
the list of allowable tank/tanker screening tests in M-a-85.  222:  Request 
the NCIMS to direct the NCIMS Laboratory Committee to form a review/study 
group to review SMEDP (Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy 
Products) as it is referenced and referred to in the PMO and related 
documents.  This review/study group will; report its work back to the 2013 
NCIMS Conference.  224:  Revise the 2400 form for Appendix N Bulk Milk Tanker 
Screening for Neogen BetaStar US to reflect the replacement of this method 
with the BetaStar Plus BetaLactam Test.  Upon approval the BetaStar US kit 
will be removed from commerce.  225:  Add Easygel Aerobic Plate Count Media, 
Pectin Gel Method, to the Milk Laboratory Evaluation Form.  Amend 2400 form 
accordingly.  226:  To update the Idexx SNAP 2400 series form to eliminate 
the visual read language and include the instructions for how to determine if 
a test is invalid.  227:  Direct the NCIMS Laboratory Committee to review and 
clarify on all appropriate 2400 forms the intent and meaning of the phrase 
"Previously negative tested raw milk" currently used in the App N 2400 forms.  
The clarification should be stated on all appropriate 2400 forms.  228:  The 
current requirement for Appendix N reference and test thermometers is that 
the graduation interval be not greater than 1.0C (NCIMS Certified 
Laboratories and Certified Industry Supervisor, 0.5C).  It was felt at the 
time that non certified labs need not meet the tighter requirements of those 
for certified labs.  229:  Allow manufacturers to ship antibiotic test kits 
unrefrigerated when it is demonstrated that the kits perform as labeled after 
heat stress and real-time storage to end of labeled shelf life.  Modify Charm 
3 SL3 Beta-lactam Test shipping requirements in the 2400 form to allow non-
refrigerated shipment.  230:  To provide clarification to requirements at 
Items #3 Thermometers and #9 Sample Requirements on FDA Appendix N General 
Requirements form 2400n.  231:  To provide clarification and consistency for 
FDA Form: 2400j Phosphatase Test - Fluorophos ALP Test System.  232:  
Addition of wording the to the DMSCC 2400 Series form for how long samples 
may be run after initial collection.  233:  To allow for beta lactam drug 
residue testing of sheep milk by the Charm SLBL method after a quantity of 
such milk has been frozen for up to 60 days and properly thawed.  
Subsequently the samples shall be held at 0-4.4 degrees C and analyzed within 
24 hours as per the instructions for frozen controls of the Charm SLBL test 
method as described in the Charm SL / SL6 / SL3 2400 form.  234:  With the 
number of laboratories no longer running their autoclaves on a continual 
basis, there is no need to require the performance check be done weekly if 
the unit is not in use. This wording will allow laboratories to perform the 
check during weeks when testing under the NCIMS Laboratory Program requires 
the use of and documentation of autoclave cycles.  At a minimum, quarterly 
performance checks will be required.  235:  To add to the 2009 EML the option 
for Laboratory Evaluation Officer to send the narrative report to the 
laboratories electronically without the 2400 series forms.  236:  This 
Proposal seeks to add the requirement for a summary template to be submitted 
along with the laboratory narrative report submitted to the Laboratory 
Proficiency and Evaluation Team to the 2009 EML.  237:  To update the example 
narratives in the EML and to provide a definition of the usage of 'NOTE".  
238:  To allow State LEO the same time frame as the Federal LEO for the 
supplemental surveys.  241:  To remove references to SMEDP in the EML where 
they are not applicable.  242:  Update the 2009 EML with the addition of the 
Federal LEOs to reflect the cooperative program.  243:  Addition to the EML 
to specify that the NCIMS Laboratory Committee shall issue a draft version of 
the 2400 series forms 90 days after NCIMS Executive Board approval if the FDA 
has been unable to issue the form by the 90 day time frame.  246:  Include 
the prerequisite for FD373 State Milk Laboratory Evaluation Officers Workshop 
(LEO) that was listed in the FDA Course catalogue  247:  To remove the 
website listed in the references as a source of the 2400 series forms.  
Instead directing the reader to contact the federal or state LEO.  248:  
Change the ranges for the standards for calibrating/ validating the 
instruments used to measure somatic cells in milk to the following: 100-200, 
250-350, 400-550 and 650-800.  These changes would apply to standards used on 
all approved electronic cell counters.  301:  This Proposal contains 
modifications to the PMO, Methods, and Procedures documents that address the 
regulation and rating of aseptic milk plants producing Grade "A" low acid 
aseptic milk and milk products.  It will incorporate the Aseptic Pilot 
Program Implementation Committee's findings and determination for aseptic 
milk plants that produce Grade "A" low acid aseptic milk and milk products 
into the NCIMS documents and make this Pilot a permanent part of the Grade 
"A" Milk Safety Program  303:  Update items in the Procedures document to the 
same as the EML.  308:  Aseptic FDA requests the Chair to assign this 
Proposal to the NCIMS Aseptic Pilot Program Implementation Committee (APPIC) 
as approved by the NCIMS Executive Board.  309:  This Proposal contains the 
provisions for extending the voluntary International Certification Pilot 
Program (ICPP) for the regulatory oversight, rating and IMS listing of milk 
shippers and milk laboratories located outside the geographic boundaries of 
the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) member states.  
311:  ICPP Expand the ICPP to allow each TPC to Certify up to 6 plants.  313:  
To request the NCIMS Executive Board establish an Ad HOC committee to align 
the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance with the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  Changes to Section 205 could save UDAF up to $100/year.  
Sections 209, 219, and 224, could cost UDAF up to $100/year each.  Section 
246 could cost UDAF $1,000 for a lab technican to take the required course.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  Local governments have no responsibilities in Rule R70-
310.  There will be no budgetary impact to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Changes to Section 106 reduce the need to purchase a 
bulk holding tank in some dairy operations.  Bulk holding tanks range from 
$50,000 to $100,000.  Specific dairies have not been identified.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: All stakeholder groups were involved in the development of the 2012 
Pasteurized Milk Ordinance.  Manufacturers of antibiotic test kits could save 
up to $50/year by changes in Section 229.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The department has not identified 
increased costs for affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The proposed amendments, which adopt the 2011 FDA Pasteurized 
Milk Ordinance, are essential.  They are required in order for Utah diary 
producers to be able to export to their states and internationally.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Don McClellan by phone at 801-538-7145, by FAX at 801-538-7126, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmcclellan@utah.gov
- Kathleen Mathews by phone at 801-538-7103, by FAX at 801-538-7126, or by 
Internet E-mail at kmathews@utah.gov
- Kyle Stephens by phone at 801-538-7102, by FAX at 801-538-7126, or by 
Internet E-mail at kylestephens@utah.gov
- Richard Clark by phone at 801-538-7150, by FAX at 801-538-7126, or by 
Internet E-mail at richardwclark@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37027.htm



CAPITOL PRESERVATION BOARD (STATE)
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37064 (Amendment): R131-2. Capitol Hill Complex Facility Use.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The purpose of this rule is to define 
conditions for public access and use of the Capitol Hill Complex and to 
establish procedures for receiving and deciding complaints regarding the 
access or use of the Capitol Hill Complex.  The reasons for the amendments 
are to define "Authorized Caterer" and "Cafe Operator," as well as defining 
their roles and requirements.  These amendments also allow multiple 
Authorized Caterers to be approved by the Executive Director, which opens 
Capitol Hill up for more catering possibilities.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The amendments to this rule will not affect the state 
budget because the changes are simply clarifying the requirements for the 
Authorized Caterer and the Cafe Operator and there are no additional costs in 
meeting those requirements.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The amendments to this rule will not affect the local 
government's budget because the changes are simply clarifying the 
requirements for the Authorized Caterer and the Cafe Operator and there are 
no additional costs in meeting those requirements.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The amendments to this rule will not affect small 
businesses budget negatively because the changes are simply clarifying the 
requirements for the Authorized Caterer and the Cafe Operator and there are 
no additional costs in meeting those requirements.  These amendments could 
potentially help small businesses because it welcomes the participation of 
more caterers on Capitol Hill.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The amendments to this rule will not affect any other persons 
budget because the changes are simply clarifying the requirements for the 
Authorized Caterer and the Cafe Operator and there are no additional costs in 
meeting those requirements.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The amendments to this rule do not 
have any associated compliance costs because the changes are simply 
clarifying the requirements for the Authorized Caterer and the Cafe Operator 
and there are no additional costs in meeting those requirements.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Impacts are described as above.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Allyson Gamble by phone at 801-537-9156, by FAX at 801-538-3221, or by 
Internet E-mail at agamble@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37064.htm



COMMERCE
OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING
No. 37040 (Amendment): R156-37. Utah Controlled Substances Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Sections R156-37-609, R156-37-609a, R156-37-
609b, and R156-37-610 are deleted in their entirety.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur minimal costs of approximately 
$80 to print and distribute the rule once the proposed amendments are made 
effective.  Any costs incurred will be absorbed in the Division's current 
budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The impact of the recodification of the sections being 
deleted in this rule is detailed in a companion rule filing which creates a 
new rule, Rule R156-37f.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The impact of the recodification of the sections being 
deleted in this rule is detailed in a companion rule filing which creates a 
new rule, Rule R156-37f.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The impact of the recodification of the sections being deleted in 
this rule is detailed in a companion rule filing which creates a new rule, 
Rule R156-37f.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The impact of the recodification of 
the sections being deleted in this rule is detailed in a companion rule 
filing which creates a new rule, Rule R156-37f.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  As stated in the rule analysis, the amendment of this rule is 
proposed so as to allow the substantive provisions to be recodified into a 
new rule, Rule R156-37f.  These provisions are currently in effect; no fiscal 
impact to businesses will result from the recodification.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Debra Hobbins by phone at 801-530-6789, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at dhobbins@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 12/17/2012 09:00 AM, Heber Wells Bldg, 160 E 300 S, Conference Room 475, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37040.htm

No. 37039 (New Rule): R156-37f. Controlled Substance Database Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R156-37f-101: This section titles the 
rule as the "Controlled Substance Database Act Rule".  Section R156-37f-102: 
This section provides new definitions for "ASAP," "DEA," "NABP," "NCPDP," 
"NDC," and "RX".  Section R156-37f-103: This section cites the authority for 
and explains the purpose of Rule R156-37f.  Section R156-37f-104: This 
section explains the organization of Rule R156-37f and its relationship to 
Rule R156-1, the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL) 
Act Rule or "umbrella act rule" as it is often referred to.  Subsection R156-
37f-203(1) defines the procedure for and format of data submitted to the 
Database.  It incorporates by reference the ASAP Telecommunications Format 
for Controlled Substances published by the American Society for Automation in 
Pharmacy, revised May 1995 (ASAP Format) as the format standard for the 
submission to the Database.  This standard is then further classified to 
describe mandatory, preferred, and optional data fields.  Subsection R156-
37f-203(2) allows other alternate consistent formats if approved by DOPL.  
Subsection R156-37f-203(3) specifies the electronic methods of submission of 
properly formatted data to the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-203(4) allows 
for paper submission of properly formatted data to the Database under 
specified conditions.  Subsection R156-37f-203(5) specifies the current 
seven-day reporting cycle of data to the Database by reporting pharmacies.  
It further specifies the sorting requirement of data submissions for both 
individual pharmacies and pharmacy groups.  It requires Class A, B, or D 
pharmacies that do not dispense any controlled substances during a reporting 
cycle to submit a null report.  This is a new requirement not in the prior 
rule.  It further allows a Class A, B, or D pharmacy that does not anticipate 
dispensing any controlled substances in the immediate future to submit a 
certification of such in a form approved by DOPL in lieu of weekly null 
reporting and provides that such a certification terminates immediately upon 
the dispensing of any controlled substance, or otherwise at the end of each 
calendar year.  Subsection R156-37f-203(6) imposes a data transmission form 
requirement and specifies its content.  Subsection R156-37f-301(1) requires 
the DOPL Director to designate in writing the individuals within DOPL that 
have access to the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(2) allows a requester 
registered to use the Database to request information by electronic 
submission, orally, or in writing.  Subsection R156-37f-301(3) specifies the 
Database information that may be disseminated to a verified requestor 
authorized to access the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(4) requires 
federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities and prosecutors 
requesting information from the Database to provide a valid case number of 
their case or prosecution.  Subsection R156-37f-301(5) specifies that 
individuals who may request their own information from the Database may not 
request an accounting of persons or entities that have requested or received 
information from the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(6) specifies the 
conditions for a requester to request and obtain their own information 
submitted to the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(7) specifies the 
conditions for a requester holding a power of attorney from an individual who 
could request his or her own data to request and obtain information from the 
Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(8) specifies the conditions under which a 
requester who is the legal guardian of a minor or incapacitated individual 
may request and obtain information about the minor or incapacitated person 
from the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(9) specifies the conditions under 
which a requestor who has a release-of-records from an individual who could 
obtain his or her  own records, may obtain information about the individual 
from the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(10) specifies the conditions 
under which a designated employee of a prescribing practitioner may have 
access to information from the Database on behalf of the prescribing 
practitioner.  Subsection R156-37f-301(11) implements H.B. 257 (2012) and 
specifies the conditions under which an employee of the same business that 
employs a prescribing practitioner may obtain information from the Database 
on behalf of the prescribing practitioner.  Subsection R156-37f-301(12) 
implements H.B. 257 (2012) and specifies the conditions under which an 
employee of an emergency room that employs a prescribing practitioner may 
obtain information from the Database on behalf of the prescribing 
practitioner.  Subsection R156-37f-301(13) specifies the conditions under 
which scientific investigators employed by the Utah Department of Health may 
access information from the Database.  Subsection R156-37f-301(14) specifies 
the methods by which the Database staff may disseminate information from the 
Database.  It adds email as a method of dissemination under the current rule.  
This is one of the most efficient methods and is at least as secure as 
facsimile which is already permitted.  It will better streamline DOPL 
operations.  Subsection R156-37f-801a(1) designates the pilot area for the 
Pilot Program for Real-Time Reporting (Pilot Program).  Subsection R156-37f-
801a(2) defines reporting requirements to the Database for pharmacies 
participating in the Pilot Program to be in conjunction with controlled 
substance point of sale, submitted from the participating pharmacy's database 
to the Database through real-time interface and reporting software developed 
by DOPL's contract provider.  Section R156-37f-801b:  This section specifies 
that access to information in the Database submitted via the Pilot Program 
shall be the same as set forth in Section 58-37f-301 as implemented by 
Section R156-37f-301.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  These changes will have minimal impact on the state 
budget.  The majority of the provisions are simply recodified from Rule R156-
37 and will have no impact on the state budget.  Rule R156-37f will have to 
be printed at an approximate cost of $60. The proposed rule adds a new null 
reporting requirement for pharmacies that do not dispense within a reporting 
period, but it provides an annual "opt-out" option that eliminates the 
requirement if a pharmacy doesn't dispense controlled substances.  The new 
report will cause some minimal additional cost to the DOPL, but the costs are 
anticipated to be nominal and reasonably absorbed within DOPL's existing 
budget.  This change will enhance DOPL's ability to ensure complete reporting 
to the Database, increase the integrity of the information in the Database, 
and thus enhance the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.  The 
proposed rule adds e-mail to the ways in which Database information may be 
disseminated.  This is one of the most efficient methods of dissemination and 
may result in some cost savings to DOPL and health care providers, but the 
savings cannot be estimated.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The proposed changes should have little or no impact on 
local government.  Local government does not report to the Database, but law 
enforcement and prosecutors working for local government obtain information 
from the Database.  The latter provisions are recodified, but unchanged in 
content.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The proposed changes will have minimal impact on the 
small business.  The majority of the provisions are simply recodified from 
Rule R156-37 and will have no impact on small business.  Some small business 
pharmacies will be required to report weekly if they have dispensed no 
controlled substances, but the rule also provides an "opt-out" if a pharmacy 
doesn't dispense at all during the year.  It is anticipated to be a nominal 
change without significant cost associated with it.  Any minimal costs cannot 
be estimated by the Division.  The proposed change adding e-mail to the ways 
in which Database information may be disseminated could result in a cost 
savings to some small businesses, but these savings cannot be estimated.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The proposed changes will have minimal impact on other persons.  
The majority of the provisions are simply recodified from Rule R156-37 and 
will have no impact on other persons.  Some small business pharmacies will be 
required to report weekly if they have dispensed no controlled substances, 
but the rule also provides an "opt-out" if a pharmacy doesn't dispense at all 
during the year.  It is anticipated to be a nominal change without 
significant cost associated with it.  The costs cannot be estimated.  
Prescribing practitioners who work as an employee of a clinic or as an 
employee of an emergency room will be able to enhance their efficiency 
through granting access to employees of the same clinic or emergency room to 
access the Database on their behalf.  Potential cost savings in this regard 
cannot be estimated.  Better clarification through this recodification should 
improve the level of understanding of the Database requirements and thereby 
compliance with the requirements and use of the Database.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  These changes will have minimal 
impact on individuals.  The majority of the provisions are simply recodified 
from Rule R156-37 and will have no impact on individuals.  Some small 
business pharmacies will be required to report weekly if they have dispensed 
no controlled substances, but the rule also provides an "opt-out" if a 
pharmacy doesn't dispense at all during the year.  It is anticipated to be a 
nominal change without significant cost associated with it.  The costs cannot 
be estimated.  Prescribing practitioners who work as an employee of a clinic 
or as an employee of an emergency room will be able to enhance their 
efficiency through granting access to employees of the same clinic or 
emergency room to access the Database on their behalf.  Potential cost 
savings in this regard cannot be estimated.  Better clarification through 
this recodification should improve the level of understanding of the Database 
requirements and thereby compliance with the requirements and use of the 
Database.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  As stated in the rule analysis, the proposed rule is primarily a 
recodification of provisions currently found in Sections R156-37-609, R156-
37-609a, and R156-37-609b.  These provisions are currently in effect; no 
fiscal impact to businesses will result from the recodification.  The 
proposed rule also includes a new provision to require a pharmacy business 
that does not dispense controlled substances to submit either a weekly report 
or a yearly certification.  Some pharmacies might need to implement 
technology and internal procedures in order to comply with this requirement.  
It is anticipated that the costs will be minimal, particularly as to a yearly 
certification, which may be accomplished through a paper submission.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Debra Hobbins by phone at 801-530-6789, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at dhobbins@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 12/17/2012 09:00 AM, Heber Wells Bldg, 160 E 300 S, Conference Room 475, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37039.htm


SECURITIES
No. 37042 (Amendment): R164-31-1. Guidelines for the Assessment of 
Administrative Fines.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The amendment adds the following specific 
factors for consideration by the Utah Securities Commission when imposing 
fines against respondents in administrative actions: the amount of investor 
losses; financial benefits, enrichment, commissions, fees or other 
consideration received by the respondent in connection with violations of the 
Utah Uniform Securities Act; remedial actions taken by the respondent such as 
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains; and the costs of the Division incurred in 
investigating and prosecuting the action.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  No additional costs or savings to the state budget are 
anticipated, because the proposal simply adds specific criteria to be 
considered by the Commission in imposing administrative fines.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No additional costs or savings to local government are 
anticipated, because the proposal simply adds specific criteria to be 
considered by the Commission in imposing administrative fines.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No additional costs or savings to small businesses are 
anticipated, because the proposal simply adds specific criteria to be 
considered by the Commission in imposing administrative fines.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No additional costs or savings to such persons are anticipated, 
because the proposal simply adds specific criteria to be considered by the 
Commission in imposing administrative fines.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no compliance costs for 
affected persons because the proposal simply identifies specific criteria to 
be considered by the Commission in imposing administrative fines.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This proposal should have no fiscal impact to businesses because 
it does not add any new requirements or compliance costs, but rather more 
specifically describes factors to be considered by the Utah Securities 
Commission when imposing fines in administrative actions.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Charles Lyons by phone at 801-530-6940, by FAX at 801-530-6980, or by 
Internet E-mail at clyons@utah.gov
- Keith Woodwell by phone at 801-530-6606, by FAX at 801-530-6980, or by 
Internet E-mail at kwoodwell@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37042.htm



CRIME VICTIM REPARATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37061 (Amendment): R270-1. Award and Reparation Standards.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  In Subsection R270-1-4(7), adds cost savings 
to the agency.  In previous years, the agency spent nearly $20,000 
contracting with outside service providers for help in determining the crime-
relatedness of in-patient psychiatric services.  Agency personnel make the 
determination of crime-relatedness on all other benefit types covered.  The 
agency has now established sufficient expertise in this specific area that 
the agency and CVRA Board of Directors have determined that contracting for 
the service is no longer effective or efficient and that such determinations 
are to be made within the agency processes that provide evaluation for all 
other covered benefits.  This rule change saves the agency money and saves 
the agency, service providers and victims significant amounts time in the 
receipt of payment process.  In Subsection R270-1-9(B), increases equity in 
benefit distribution.  The agency and CVRA Board of Directors have determined 
that the current rule permits a punitive interpretation to victims who have 
earned and saved paid leave through an employer.  No other benefit offered 
through the agency requires a benefit recipient to utilize personal savings 
prior to accessing CVR Trust monies.  This rule change allows a victim to 
keep their accrued, employer paid leave for their personal use and allows the 
agency to pay partial and limited amounts of crime-related wage loss.  The 
rule change also provides greater clarity to the CVRA Board regarding for 
what purpose they would review "extenuating circumstances".  In Subsection 
R270-1-22(A)(10), removes obscure language.  The language of the current rule 
condones and provides payment for an extensively invasive sexual assault exam 
to be performed on an individual incapable of providing consent to such.  The 
agency and CVRA Board of Directors find this concept to be in contradiction 
of the agency's mission.  The inclusion of the language provides no useful 
purpose and should be stricken.  Removes Section R270-1-24 which is no longer 
authorized by the CVRA Board.  In 2009, the CVRA Board permanently eliminated 
this benefit.  The section has not yet been stricken.  In Section R270-1-25, 
allows Reparation Officers to extend assistance to those persons that have a 
significant family "type" relationship to the injured victim when those 
persons may be critical to the injured person's recovery but may not have the 
status or title the current rule describes.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  In Subsection R270-1-4(7), adds cost savings to the 
agency.  Potential savings of $20,000 per year.  In Subsection R270-1-9(B), 
increases equity in benefit distribution and provides greater direction to 
the CVRA Board.  This rule change has the potential to increase the dollars 
paid to victims.  However, the amounts paid from the Crime Victim Trust Fund 
for this benefit consistently decreased from in excess of $405,000 in FY 2007 
to $292,000 in FY 2011.  While the payments for this benefit increased from 
$292,000 in FY 2011 to $354,000 in FY 2012, it is not projected that this 
rule change will affect an increase outside its long term average.  
Additionally, funds utilized for Crime Victim Reparations are not general 
fund or "taxpayer" dollars.  They are funds collected from persons convicted 
of violating state and federal law for the purpose of paying the un-met needs 
of innocent victims of criminal violence.  This rule change poses no threat 
of increased expense to Utah Taxpayers.  In Subsection R270-1-22(A)(10), 
removes obscure language.  No effect.  Removes Section R270-1-24 which is 
obsolete and no longer authorized by the CVRA Board of Directors.  No effect.  
In Section R270-1-25, provides an administrative savings to the office by 
allowing Reparation Officers to make decisions previously made by the CVRA 
Board, based upon the Reparation Officer's recommendation.  This rule change 
is unlikely to increase costs to the program.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  Local governments are not involved in or are effected 
by the process.  The process involves the state agency, individual persons 
victimized by violent crime and the types, limits and manner which benefits 
are provided to care for those individuals.  While the agency does rely upon 
local law enforcement agencies to share investigative information with the 
agency, that information is for the purpose of determining initial 
eligibility of the applicant.  None of those processes are impacted by these 
rule changes.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  These changes will have no effect on small businesses.  
In Subsection R270-1-4(7), the contract services previously provided were 
provided by the state's largest mental health service agency.  The division 
of that agency responsible for providing the service was eliminated prior to 
the change in this rule.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: These changes create a positive effect for victims of violent 
crimes by permitting a more equitable and considerate application of the 
Victim Reparation program.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Compliance costs for affected persons 
are unaffected, other than the savings to the state.  Compliance with these 
rule changes will be monitored in the same processes in which compliance with 
all rules are monitored.  The rule changes do not impose additional steps or 
processes upon individuals or entities, they change only the manner in which 
the agency applies its policies and procedures.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The Agency Director and the CVRA Board of Directors evaluated 
each of the submitted changes on its own merits, including the impact on all 
parties.  The Agency Director and CVRA Board determined that potential for 
any negative impact was minimal and further determined that any negative 
impact that could be realized would also be minimal in perspective to the 
positive attributes of these rule changes.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Gary Scheller by phone at 801-238-2362, by FAX at 801-533-4127, or by 
Internet E-mail at garys@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37061.htm

No. 37063 (Amendment): R270-2. Crime Victim Reparations Adjudicative 
Proceedings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  In Section R270-2-2, individuals applying to 
the program for assistance are permitted three years from the date of receipt 
of application to use approved benefits.  The rule allows that same three-
year time period for individuals whose initial claim or benefit request was 
denied to file for an appeal of that denial.  Currently, the rule is on 
silent regarding timelines for contested claims.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  Any impact to the state budget would be negligible.  
Prior to 2007, applicants had 30 days from the date they received 
notification of denial to file an appeal.  This required the office to send 
those notifications via certified mail.  The majority of those mailings were 
returned without delivery.  The agency and the CVRA Board at that time 
determined that savings could be realized by not sending those notifications 
via certified mail and that the 30-day time limit to file an appeal would be 
waived.  Currently, there is not a "deadline" within which a person must or 
may appeal the denial of an application, which could potentially leave the 
state exposed to some liability indefinitely in those cases.  This rule 
change narrows the time limit for filing an appeal from indefinite to three 
years from the date the application was received.  If the rule change impacts 
the state budget, it will be in the form of savings however, that amount will 
be negligible because the vast majority of appeals, of which there are very 
few, are filed immediately following the denial of the requested benefit.  
This rule change merely places a reasonable time limit on an otherwise open 
ended process.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  If the agency surmises hypothetical scenarios in which 
this rule change might affect local governments, the agency supposes one 
could suggest that local governments would see a decrease in GRAMA requests 
for incident information occurring more than three years in the past.  Beyond 
that, it is relatively inconceivable that this rule change would impact local 
government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Small businesses nor large businesses are eligible to 
apply for benefits from the agency.  However, if a business provided services 
to an individual in anticipation of that individual receiving a benefit from 
the agency, that business would have three years to encourage the individual 
to file an appeal with the agency rather than wait indefinitely for the 
applicant to initiate an appeal.  Beyond that scenario, it is relatively 
inconceivable that this rule change would impact small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Potential benefit recipients will have the same timelines as actual 
recipients.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Compliance costs for affected persons 
under this rule change will not be any different than for those currently.  
The appeal process itself does not change.  Under the rule change, the 
applicant will have three years from the date they submitted their 
application to file an appeal rather than an indefinite time period.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This rule is not likely to have a fiscal impact on businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Gary Scheller by phone at 801-238-2362, by FAX at 801-533-4127, or by 
Internet E-mail at garys@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37063.htm



EDUCATION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37058 (Amendment): R277-502. Educator Licensing and Data Retention.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The changes outline procedures and 
requirements for the approval of new educator preparation programs and 
currently approved programs seeking to offer educator licensure in new areas.  
The changes detail annual reporting requirements for approved programs and 
the process by which a program may lose Board approval.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There may be costs at the state level for Utah State 
Office of Education staff to conduct more thorough reviews, but any 
additional costs will be absorbed within existing budgets and by existing 
staff.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
government.  Any costs that may be associated with the amendments to this 
rule will be at the state level.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to small 
businesses.  The rule and the amendments apply to public education and higher 
education programs and do not affect businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is no anticipated cost or savings to persons other than small 
businesses, businesses, or local government entities.  Costs may be affected 
at the state level but do not affect individuals.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs for 
affected persons.  Although educator preparation programs that fail to meet 
requirements could be placed on probation status, there is no cost associated 
with that action.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  I have reviewed this rule and I see no fiscal impact on 
businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Carol Lear by phone at 801-538-7835, by FAX at 801-538-7768, or by Internet 
E-mail at carol.lear@schools.utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37058.htm

No. 37059 (Amendment): R277-509. Licensure of Student Teachers and Interns.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Required background check information is 
added to the rule so it is clear that student teachers and interns must have 
necessary criminal background checks and must be cleared by the Utah 
Professional Practices Advisory Commission (UPPAC) before they can work with 
students in the public schools.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state 
budget.  The changes to the rule clarify background check requirement 
language for student teachers and interns.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
government.  This changes to this rule apply to student teachers and interns.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to small 
businesses.  This rule and the amendments apply to public education and do 
not affect businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Interns and student teachers have had background checks prior to 
working in public schools.  The amendments make the requirements clear.  
There may be background check fees for student teachers and interns who have 
not had these checks.  Costs are both nominal and speculative; it is unclear 
how many current and prospective interns and student teachers will be 
responsible for unexpected fees.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There may be background check fees 
for student teachers and interns who have not had background checks before 
they can be cleared by UPPAC and are able to work with students in the public 
schools.  Costs are both nominal and speculative.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  I have reviewed this rule and I see no fiscal impact on 
businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Carol Lear by phone at 801-538-7835, by FAX at 801-538-7768, or by Internet 
E-mail at carol.lear@schools.utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37059.htm



ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
No. 37037 (Amendment): R307-401-15. Air Strippers and Soil Venting Projects.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed rule change will update the rule 
to refer to the most recent test methods, and will allow sources to use 
future updated federally approved methods, if approved by the director.  DAQ 
is also making available for public comment a document titled, Air Quality 
Impact of Changes Made to Section R307-401-15 Air Strippers and Soil Venting 
Projects in 1999 and the new Section R307-401-16 De minimis Emissions from 
Soil Aeration Projects that was Adopted in 1999.  This document fulfills the 
requirements of Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act and justifies the changes 
made to Section R307-401-16 in 1999.  The document will be made available at 
http://www.airquality.utah.gov/Public-Interest/Public-Commen-
Hearings/Pubrule.htm for public review and comment from 12/01/2012 to 
12/31/2012.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  This rule does not create any new requirements on the 
state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to the state 
budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  This rule does not create any new requirements on local 
government; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to local 
government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the changes to this rule only update the rule to 
refer to the most recent test methods and allows sources to use future 
updated federally approved methods there are no anticipated savings or costs 
to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because the changes to this rule only update the rule to refer to 
the most recent test methods and allows sources to use future updated 
federally approved methods there are no anticipated savings or costs to 
persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local government 
entities.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Because the changes to this rule only 
update the rule to refer to the most recent test methods and allows sources 
to use future updated federally approved methods there are no anticipated 
compliance costs for affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the changes to this rule only update the rule to refer 
to the most recent test methods and allows sources to use future updated 
federally approved methods there is no anticipated fiscal impact on 
businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  02/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37037.htm



HEALTH
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION
No. 37028 (New Rule): R384-201. School-Based Vision Screening for Students in 
Public Schools.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This rule establishes guidelines for student 
vision screening, including screening requirements, documenting proof of 
screening, training of screeners, screening documentation, and requirements 
for referrals.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Utah Division of the Blind is financially 
responsible for developing and maintaining a vision screening database, 
maintaining staff positions for vision screening training, screening 
documentation, photo screening and referral follow-up.  Staff time is 
required to process school vision screening reports and to create and 
maintain a registry of results.  The State Department of Health will act as 
consultant in the development of the database, documentation, training and 
visual screening requirements in the school setting.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The proposed rule does not add costs to existing local 
budgets.  Existing budgets cover the costs of vision screening in school 
which have long been established, requiring staff time of school personnel 
and existing school nurses to participate in training, conduct required 
screenings, and prepare and submit required reports.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There are no costs for small businesses.  The proposed 
rule only impacts local schools and state government entities.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no costs for small businesses.  The proposed rule only 
impacts local schools and state government entities.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs for 
affected persons.  Vision screenings are provided free of charge to students.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Vision screening is important to success in school.  No fiscal 
impact on business is predicted.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Heather Borski by phone at 801-538-9998, by FAX at 801-538-9495, or by 
Internet E-mail at hborski@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37028.htm


HEALTH CARE FINANCING
No. 37045 (Amendment): R410-14. Administrative Hearing Procedures.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This change clarifies certain terms within 
the rule text and clarifies hearing procedures for DMHF, DHS, DWS, and for 
managed care providers.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Department does not anticipate any impact to the 
state budget because this change only clarifies certain terms and procedures 
within the rule text.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no impact to local governments because they 
neither fund Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) nor 
participate in the administrative hearing process.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The Department does not anticipate any impact to small 
businesses because this change only clarifies certain terms and procedures 
within the rule text.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The Department does not anticipate any impact to providers and 
recipients of Medicaid and CHIP because this change only clarifies certain 
terms and procedures within the rule text.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The Department does not anticipate 
any cost to a single provider or recipient of Medicaid and CHIP because this 
change only clarifies certain terms and procedures within the rule text.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Clarifying the fair hearing process protects the public and 
fosters prompt and appropriate resolution of disputes.  No costs to providers 
expected.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by 
Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37045.htm



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37041 (Amendment): R746-320. Uniform Rules Governing Natural Gas Service.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Once a crossed meter condition is identified, 
Rule R746-320 currently limits the period covered by a backbill for which 
charges were not previously billed for service to 6 months and the period 
covered by an overbill for which a refund is due to 24 months.  The proposed 
rule provides for 24 months of backbilling and 24 months of overbilling for 
crossed meter conditions that are not caused by the natural gas utility.  The 
proposed change is to alleviate billing complications.  The changes ensure 
that for crossed meters which are not caused by the natural gas utility, the 
amount the utility recovers from underbilled customers is in parity with what 
is refunded to overbilled customers.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  No impact on the state budget has been identified.  
However if the state were to be affected by a natural gas crossed meter 
condition, it would be subject to the 24-month limitation for the backbilled 
or overbilled situation, whichever applies, as opposed to the current 6-month 
limitation for a backbilled situation and 24-month limitation for an 
overbilled situation.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No impact on the local government budgets has been 
identified.  However if the local government were to be affected by a natural 
gas crossed meter condition, it would be subject to the 24-month limitation 
for the backbilled or overbilled situation, whichever applies, as opposed to 
the current 6-month limitation for an underbilled situation and 24-month 
limitation for an overbilled situation.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No impact on small business budgets has been identified.  
However if a small business were to be affected by a natural gas crossed 
meter condition, it would be subject to the 24-month limitation for the 
overbilled or underbilled situation, as opposed to the current 6-month 
limitation for an underbilled situation and 24-month limitation for an 
overbilled situation.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: If a person were to be affected by a natural gas crossed meter 
condition, it would be subject to the 24-month limitation for the overbilled 
or underbilled situation, as opposed to the current 6-month limitation for an 
underbilled situation and 24-month limitation for an overbilled situation.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  No compliance costs have been 
identified.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  While a crossed meter condition may exist for many years, this 
rule change limits the exposure of businesses to both overbilling and 
underbilling situations resulting from the identification of a crossed meter 
condition that is not caused by the natural gas utility to 24 months.  In 
addition, the changes ensure that for crossed meters which are not caused by 
the natural gas utility, the amount the utility recovers from an underbilled 
customer is in parity with what is refunded to an overbilled customer.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- David Clark by phone at 801-530-6708, by FAX at 801-530-6796, or by 
Internet E-mail at drexclark@utah.gov
- Sheri Bintz by phone at 801-530-6714, by FAX at 801-530-6796, or by 
Internet E-mail at sbintz@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37041.htm



WORKFORCE SERVICES
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
No. 37067 (Amendment): R986-900-902. Options and Waivers.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The Department is in the process of changing 
to a new electronic benefit card (EBT), rather than change the rule each time 
we change financial institutions, the Department is changing the way the 
department refers to the card in the rule by merely saying EBT and not the 
name or type of card issued by our vendor.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  This applies to federally-funded programs so there are 
no costs or savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  This is a federally-funded program so there are no 
costs or savings to the local government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There will be no costs to small businesses to comply 
with these changes because this is a federally-funded program.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There will be no costs to persons other than small businesses, 
businesses or local government entities to comply with these changes because 
there are no costs or fees associated with these proposed changes.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs 
associated with these changes for any affected persons because this is a 
federally-funded program and there are no fees or costs associated with these 
proposed changes.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There are no compliance costs associated with this change.  
There are no fees associated with this change.  There will be no cost to 
anyone to comply with these changes.  There will be no fiscal impact on any 
business.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Suzan Pixton by phone at 801-526-9645, by FAX at 801-526-9211, or by 
Internet E-mail at spixton@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37067.htm


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
No. 37066 (Amendment): R994-305. Collection of Contributions.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The current rule states the Department may 
write off nonfault overpayments.  That should be changed to read that the 
Department may charge off nonfault overpayments.  The amendment also corrects 
a spelling error and changes "will" to "may" in Section R994-305-103.  This 
is not a change to procedure but to make the rule more clear about how these 
are done.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  This is a federally-funded program so there are no costs 
or savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  This is a federally funded program so there are no 
costs of savings to local government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There are no costs or savings to any small business.  
These changes reflect federal procedure for charging off and writing off 
overpayments and will have no impact on rates.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no costs or savings to any other persons, small 
businesses or local government entitles as there are no fees associated with 
this program and it is federally funded.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no costs or savings to any 
affected persons as there are no fees associated with this program and it is 
federally funded.  These changes will not impact any employer's contribution 
rate.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There are no compliance costs associated with this change.  
There are no fees associated with this change.  There will be no cost to 
anyone to comply with these changes.  There will be no fiscal impact on any 
business.  These changes will have no impact on any employer's contribution 
tax rate.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Suzan Pixton by phone at 801-526-9645, by FAX at 801-526-9211, or by 
Internet E-mail at spixton@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37066.htm




4.  NOTICES OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED RULES

After an agency has published a Proposed Rule in the Utah State Bulletin, it 
may receive public comment that requires the Proposed Rule to be altered 
before it goes into effect.  A Change in Proposed Rule allows an agency to 
respond to comments it receives. 

While the law does not designate a comment period for a Change in Proposed 
Rule, it does provide for a 30-day waiting period.  An agency may accept 
additional comments during this period, and, at its option, may designate a 
comment period or may hold a public hearing.  The 30-day waiting period for 
Changes in Proposed Rules published in Utah State Bulletin ends December 31, 
2012.

From the end of the 30-day waiting period through March 31, 2013, an agency 
may notify the Division of Administrative Rules that it wants to make the 
Change in Proposed Rule effective.  When an agency submits a Notice of 
Effective Date for a Change in Proposed Rule, the Proposed Rule as amended by 
the Change in Proposed Rule becomes the effective rule.  The agency sets the 
effective date.  The date may be no fewer than 30 days nor more than 120 days 
after the publication of the Change in Proposed Rule.  If the agency 
designates a public comment period, the effective date may be no fewer than 
seven calendar days after the close of the public comment period nor more 
than 120 days after the publication date.  Alternatively, the agency may file 
another Change in Proposed Rule in response to additional comments received.  
If the Division of Administrative Rules does not receive a Notice of 
Effective Date or another Change in Proposed Rule by the end of the 120-day 
period after publication, the Change in Proposed Rule filings, along with its 
associated Proposed Rule, lapses and the agency must start the process over. 

Changes in Proposed Rules are governed by Section 63G-3-303; Rule R15-2; and 
Sections R15-4-3, R15-4-5, R15-4-7, and R15-4-9.


ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
No. 36481 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-208. Outdoor Wood Boiler 
Prohibition.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule was changed by removing the 
statewide ban on outdoor wood boilers and by adding a list of prohibited 
fuels; adding requirements for setbacks from schools, hospitals and day care 
facilities; establishing stack height requirements; adding new boiler 
labeling requirements; and in nonattainment areas, requiring those who wish 
to replace an existing unit in the future to register their existing unit 
with DAQ, and when they replace their existing unit, requiring them to 
replace it with a wood pellet outdoor boiler.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in 
proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new 
rule that was published in the August 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 12.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the change in 
proposed rule and the proposed new rule together to understand all of the 
changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There may be adding costs to DAQ to administer this 
rule; however, costs should be minimal, so there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no new requirements for local governments; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings associated with this 
change in proposed rule.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  These changes will now allow small businesses to sell 
certain types of outdoor wood boilers in Utah.   However, since Utah is not a 
large market base for these units, the impact should be limited.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: As this change in proposed rule now allows all persons to sell, 
purchase, install, or transfer an EPA Phase 2 outdoor wood boiler in certain 
parts of the state, there may be some costs or savings to persons other than 
small businesses, businesses, or local government entities; however, it is 
difficult to estimate what those would be.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Minimal compliance costs will be 
incurred from the registration requirement.  There will be costs for those 
wishing to replace existing outdoor wood boilers with new outdoor wood 
boilers, as they would have to be replaced with either an EPA Phase 2 
qualified or a wood pellet outdoor boiler.  These units are competitively 
priced, and the costs should be minimal.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Businesses will now be able to sell and install certain types of 
outdoor wood boilers in Utah; however, because Utah is not a large market 
base for outdoor wood boilers, the fiscal impact should be minimal.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  02/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/36481.htm

No. 36611 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-302. Solid Fuel Burning Devices in 
Box Elder, Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, and Weber Counties.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-302-2 is amended by adding 
language to clarify that the rule applies in PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and 
maintenance areas as defined in 40 CFR 81.345.  Subsection R307-302-3(1) is 
amended by removing the language that stated no new registrations for sole 
sources of residential heating would be accepted after 06/01/2013.  
Subsection R307-302-6(1) is amended by exempting fireplaces that are EPA 
qualified from the prohibition that no person shall sell, offer for sale, 
supply, install, or transfer a fireplace beginning 09/01/2013.  The rule is 
changed throughout by only exempting residents from the mandatory no-burn 
periods requirements whose solid fuel burning devices are registered as sole 
source of heat; the solid fuel burning devices that have no visible emissions 
are no longer exempt.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been 
filed to make additional changes to a proposed amendment that was published 
in the August 15, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 61.  
Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since the 
publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text 
that has been deleted.  You must view the change in proposed rule and the 
proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  Any additional administrative costs to administer this 
rule are minimal; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to the 
state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no new requirements to local governments; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because small businesses will no longer be able to sell, 
offer for sale, supply, install, or transfer a fireplace that is not EPA 
qualified, they may incur some additional costs.  Because small businesses 
will have until 09/01/2013 to sell off current inventory and because most 
fireplaces on the market are already EPA qualified and competitively priced, 
the costs should be minimal.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because this rule does not add any new requirements to persons 
other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities, there 
are no anticipated costs or savings.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Because all persons in the PM10 and 
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas will no longer be able to sell, 
offer for sale, supply, install, or transfer a fireplace that is not EPA 
qualified, they may incur some additional costs to comply with the rule.  
However, because they will have until 09/01/2013 to sell off current 
inventories and because most fireplaces on the market are already EPA 
qualified and competitively priced, the costs should be minimal.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because businesses will no longer be able to sell, offer for 
sale, supply, install, or transfer a fireplace that is not EPA qualified, 
they may incur some additional costs to comply with the rule.  However, 
because they will have until 09/01/2013 to sell off current inventories and 
because most fireplaces on the market are already EPA qualified and 
competitively priced, the costs should be minimal.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/36611.htm

No. 36480 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-303. Commercial Cooking.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-303-3 is amended by adding a 
definition for "catalytic oxidizer."  Section R307-303-4 is amended by 
clarifying that no later than 09/01/2013, owners or operators of all chain-
driven charbroilers in food service establishments shall install, maintain 
and operate a catalytic oxidizer that reduces uncontrolled PM2.5 and VOC by 
at least 75%.  A new subsection, R307-303-4(4), is added to specify that 
opacity of exhaust stream shall not exceed 20% opacity using EPA Method 9.  
(DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional 
changes to a proposed new rule that was published in the August 1, 2012, 
issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 13.  Underlining in the rule below 
indicates text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule 
mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must 
view the change in proposed rule and the proposed new rule together to 
understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make 
this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The changes to the rule do not result in any new 
requirements for the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to the rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local government; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The changes to the rule do not add any new requirements 
to small businesses; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to 
small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The changes to the rule do not add any new requirements to persons 
other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The changes to the rule do not add 
any new compliance requirements that affect the costs of complying with the 
rule.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The changes to the rule do not add any new requirements that 
would affect the fiscal impact the rule has on businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  02/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/36480.htm

No. 36483 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-309. Nonattainment and Maintenance 
Areas for PM10 and PM2.5:  Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule applicability was changed to be only 
those areas within PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas.  The 
rule was changed to state that dust control plans submitted before 12/03/2012 
will have met the filing requirement.  The compliance schedule for newly 
regulated areas was extended to 90 days for Sections R307-309-10 and R307-
309-11; all other sections retain the 30-day compliance schedule.  Subsection 
R307-309-6(2) was changed to clarify what the approval process is for 
fugitive dust control plans.  The rule was amended to allow the director to 
approve an alternate measure for pre-event contingencies for high wind 
events.  A record keeping requirement was added to the rule.  The rule is 
changed to clarify that a new fugitive dust plan is required when sources 
make modifications.  These changes also add clarification that a plan must be 
accepted and not merely submitted.  The exemption in Section R307-309-3 was 
revised to exempt all agricultural activities to be consistent with the 
exemption in the 1992 EPA-approved version of the rule.  (DAR NOTE:  This 
change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a 
proposed amendment that was published in the August 1, 2012, issue of the 
Utah State Bulletin, on page 14.  Underlining in the rule below indicates 
text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned 
above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the 
change in proposed rule and the proposed amendment together to understand all 
of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule 
effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  Because the added requirements do not affect 
administrative procedures, there are no anticpated costs or savings to the 
state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There will be costs associated with the new record 
keeping requirement of the rule, but those costs should be minimal.  By 
limiting the applicability of the rule to only PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment 
and maintenance areas, fewer local governments will be required to implement 
dust control plans.  This results in a savings of approximately $2,140 per 
disturbed acre for those to which the rule no longer is applicable.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  By limiting the applicability of the rule to only PM2.5 
and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas, fewer small businesses will be 
required to implement dust control plans.  This results in a savings of 
approximately $2,140 per disturbed acre for those small businesses to which 
the rule no longer is applicable.  For those to whom the rule still applies 
there will be added costs for the new rulemaking requirement; however, those 
costs should be minimal.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: By limiting the applicability of the rule to only PM2.5 and PM10 
nonattainment and maintenance areas, fewer persons other than small 
businesses, businesses, or local government entities will be required to 
implement dust control plans.  This results in a savings of approximately 
$2,140 per disturbed acre for those to which the rule no longer is 
applicable.  For those to whom the rule still applies there will be added 
costs for the new rulemaking requirement; however, those costs should be 
minimal.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The new record keeping requirement 
will result in added compliance costs for affected persons; however, those 
costs should be minimal.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  By limiting the applicability of the rule to only PM2.5 and PM10 
nonattainment and maintenance areas, fewer businesses will be required to 
implement dust control plans.  This results in a savings of approximately 
$2,140 per disturbed acre for those small businesses to which the rule no 
longer is applicable.  For those to whom the rule still applies there will be 
added costs for the new rulemaking requirement; however, those costs should 
be minimal.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/36483.htm

No. 36482 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-335. Degreasing and Solvent 
Cleaning Operations.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The applicability section in Section R307-
335-2 was changed to make the rule applicable only in the PM10 and PM2.5 
nonattainment and maintenance plan areas.  New exemptions were added under 
the industrial solvent cleaning section, Section R307-335-7, for many 
industries already regulated under separate rules.  A recordkeeping 
requirement was added in Section R307-335-9 that requires owners and 
operators to maintain records, for a minimum of two years, of the solvent VOC 
content applied during operations.  The compliance schedule found in Section 
R307-335-10 was changed to require newly regulated sources in the 
nonattainment area to be in compliance with the rule by 09/01/2013.  (DAR 
NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes 
to a proposed amendment that was published in the August 1, 2012, issue of 
the Utah State Bulletin, on page 17.  Underlining in the rule below indicates 
text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned 
above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the 
change in proposed rule and the proposed amendment together to understand all 
of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule 
effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  Because the revisions to the rule do not affect the 
costs to administer the rule, no costs or savings are anticipated for the 
state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  Because this revision does not create new requirements 
for local governments, and because it is administered by the state, there are 
no anticipated costs or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  While this rule exempts many industries from the 
requirements of the rule, there are no anticipated costs or savings, as those 
industries are regulated under separate administrative rules.  There are 
anticipated costs for the new recordkeeping requirement; however, those costs 
should be minimal.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because the revision does not create new requirements for persons 
other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities, there 
are no anticipated costs or savings.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The new recordkeeping requirement 
will result in additional costs for affected persons; however, those costs 
should be minimal.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The new recordkeeping requirement will result in additional 
costs to businesses; however, those costs should be minimal.  The other 
changes to the proposed rule are administrative in nature and should have 
minimal to no fiscal impact on businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/36482.htm

No. 36604 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-356. Appliance Pilot Light.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Changes are made to Sections R307-356-3, 
R307-356-4, and R307-356-5 to clarify that the rule applies to appliances 
with continuous pilot and not intermittent pilot ignition.  A definition is 
also added for "fireplace" in Section R307-356-4.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in 
proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new 
rule that was published in the August 15, 2012, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 64.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the change in 
proposed rule and the proposed new rule together to understand all of the 
changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There are no new requirements for state government; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no new requirements for local government; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to local government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The changes to the rule clarify that the rule does not 
apply to appliances with intermittent pilot ignition.  These changes do not 
result in any costs or savings to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no new requirements for persons other than small 
businesses, businesses, or local government entities; therefore, there are no 
anticipated costs or savings to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  These changes do not result in any 
additional compliance costs for affected persons. The changes merely clarify 
that the rule does not apply to appliances with intermittent pilot ignition.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  These changes should have no fiscal impact on businesses. The 
changes merely clarify that the rule does not apply to appliances with 
intermittent pilot ignition.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/36604.htm


DRINKING WATER
No. 36562 (Change in Proposed Rule): R309-515-6. Ground Water - Wells.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Two words were changed in the description of 
pipe specifications and the method for connecting sewer lines to manholes was 
updated to current practice.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has 
been filed to make additional changes to a proposed amendment that was 
published in the August 15, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
66.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since 
the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates 
text that has been deleted.  You must view the change in proposed rule and 
the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There should be no significant cost or savings from this 
change in the proposed rule amendment to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There should be no significant cost or savings from 
this change in the proposed rule amendment to local government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There should be no significant cost or savings from this 
change in the proposed rule amendment to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There should be no significant cost or savings from this change in 
the proposed rule amendment to persons other than small businesses, 
businesses, or local government entities.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There should be no significant cost 
or savings to public drinking water systems with this change in the proposed 
rule amendment.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This change in the proposed rule amendment will not impact 
businesses.  It will make it easier for water systems to comply with the 
upgrading of sewer lines in drinking water source protection zones.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/31/2012
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Bob Hart by phone at 801-536-0054, by FAX at 801-536-4211, or by Internet 
E-mail at bhart@utah.gov
- Ying-Ying Macauley by phone at 801-536-4188, by FAX at 801-536-4211, or by 
Internet E-mail at ymacauley@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/36562.htm




5.  FIVE-YEAR NOTICES OF REVIEW AND STATEMENTS OF CONTINUATION

Within five years of an administrative rule's original enactment or last 
five-year review, the agency is required to review the rule.  This review is 
intended to remove obsolete rules from the Utah Administrative Code.  Upon 
reviewing a rule, an agency may:  repeal the rule by filing a Proposed Rule; 
continue the rule as it is by filing a Notice of Review and Statement of 
Continuation (Notice); or amend the rule by filing a Proposed Rule and by 
filing a Notice.  By filing a Notice, the agency indicates that the rule is 
still necessary. 

The rule text that is being continued may be found in the most recent edition 
of the Utah Administrative Code.  The rule text may also be inspected at the 
agency or the Division of Administrative Rules.  Notices are effective upon 
filing.  

Notices are governed by Section 63G-3-305.


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
No. 37049 (5-year Review): R23-4. Suspension/Debarment.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule needs to be continued in order to set forth the basis and 
guidelines for suspension or debarment from consideration for award of 
contracts by the Division.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37049.htm

No. 37050 (5-year Review): R23-5. Contingency Funds.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is necessary because it establishes policies and procedures 
regarding contingency funds held by the Division.  It also provides 
guidelines for the source, use and reporting of contingency funds as provided 
in Title 63A, Chapter 5.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37050.htm

No. 37051 (5-year Review): R23-6. Value Engineering and Life Cycle Costing of 
State Owned Facilities Rules and Regulations.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is continued because it ensures that State-owned facilities shall 
be life cycle cost effective.  To achieve this objective, Value Engineering 
and Life Cycle Cost Analysis is to be used in the facility design process by 
the Division of Facilities and Construction Management.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37051.htm

No. 37052 (5-year Review): R23-9. Cooperation with Local Government Planning.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is necessary for the Division because it provides for cooperation 
with local government planning efforts when siting, designing, and 
constructing facilities on state property.  Therefore, this rule should be 
continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37052.htm

No. 37053 (5-year Review): R23-10. Naming of State Buildings.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is continued because it defines which entities have the authority 
to name state buildings.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37053.htm

No. 37056 (5-year Review): R23-14. Management of Roofs on State Buildings.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is continued because it provides for the management of roofs on 
state buildings to prevent damage to the roof and to improve security of 
state buildings.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37056.htm

No. 37054 (5-year Review): R23-21. Division of Facilities Construction and 
Management Lease Procedures.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is necessary because it establishes procedures for the procurement 
of leasing of real property.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37054.htm

No. 37055 (5-year Review): R23-24. Capital Projects Utilizing Non-
appropriated Funds.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is necessary because it establishes the policy of the Utah State 
Building Board relative to projects which are funded partially or totally by 
non-appropriated funds; and establishes requirements for verification of 
funding and the timing of reimbursements to DFCM for expenditures made.  
Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Alan Bachman by phone at 801-538-3105, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at abachman@utah.gov
- Cecilia Niederhauser by phone at 801-538-3261, by FAX at 801-538-9694, or 
by Internet E-mail at cniederhauser@utah.gov
- Chiarina Gleed by phone at 801-538-3240, by FAX at 801-538-3313, or by 
Internet E-mail at cgleed@utah.gov
- Priscilla Anderson by phone at 801-538-9595, by FAX at 801-538-3378, or by 
Internet E-mail at phanderson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37055.htm



EDUCATION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37060 (5-year Review): R277-515. Utah Educator Standards.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is continued because it provides statewide professional standards 
for public school educators that continue to be necessary.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Carol Lear by phone at 801-538-7835, by FAX at 801-538-7768, or by Internet 
E-mail at carol.lear@schools.utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/15/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37060.htm



ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
No. 37036 (5-year Review): R307-214. National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Incorporating federal rules into the Utah rules allows enforcement by staff 
of the Utah Division of Air Quality rather than by the federal Environmental 
Protection Agency; therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mark Berger by phone at 801-536-4000, by FAX at 801-536-0085, or by 
Internet E-mail at mberger@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/08/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37036.htm



HEALTH
HEALTH CARE FINANCING, COVERAGE AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
No. 37057 (5-year Review): R414-4x. Policy Statement on Denial of Payment to 
Medicaid Provider When Client Fails to Keep Scheduled Appointment.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The Department will continue this rule to ensure the proper utilization of 
Medicaid services and to eliminate fraudulent billing practices by Medicaid 
providers.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by 
Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/15/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37057.htm

No. 37046 (5-year Review): R414-13. Psychology Services.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The Department will continue this rule because it sets forth program access 
requirements and service coverage for Medicaid recipients who qualify for 
psychology services under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and 
Treatment (EPSDT) program.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by 
Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37046.htm

No. 37047 (5-year Review): R414-32. Hospital Record-keeping Policy.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The Department will continue this rule because it establishes hospital 
record-keeping procedures that require hospitals to document services such as 
client diagnosis and the authorization of licensed physician services.  The 
continuation of this rule, therefore, will promote quality and cost effective 
care for Medicaid clients by ensuring proper medical treatment.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by 
Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37047.htm

No. 37048 (5-year Review): R414-504. Nursing Facility Payments.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The Department will continue this rule because it provides rate calculations 
to reimburse both nursing care facilities and intermediate care facilities 
for persons with intellectual disabilities, which provide services to 
Medicaid recipients.  The Department will also continue this rule because it 
directs these facilities to the section of the Medicaid State Plan that sets 
forth requirements for the quality improvement incentive.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by 
Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37048.htm


CENTER FOR HEALTH DATA, HEALTH CARE STATISTICS
No. 37043 (5-year Review): R428-11. Health Data Authority Ambulatory Surgical 
Data Reporting Rule.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule establishes the reporting standards for ambulatory surgery data by 
licensed hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities.  The data are needed 
to develop and maintain a statewide ambulatory surgical database.  Annual 
public reports on Utah hospital and freestanding ambulatory surgery center 
utilization and charge profile have been widely used to monitor outpatient 
surgery trends, costs, and quality of care for the people of Utah.  
Healthcare industry, researchers, and the Federal Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality have purchased the public use data files for their own 
uses.  The uses of the data and reports are justifications for continuation 
of the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mike Martin by phone at 801-538-9205, by FAX at 801-538-9916, or by 
Internet E-mail at mikemartin@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37043.htm

No. 37044 (5-year Review): R428-13. Health Data Authority. Audit and 
Reporting of Health Plan Performance Measures.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule establishes a performance measurement data collection and reporting 
system for health plans licensed in the State of Utah and certain health 
plans.  The data are needed to promote informed consumer choice in health 
plan selection and measure the quality of care provided by Utah health plans.  
The broad uses of the data and reports are justifications for continuation of 
the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mike Martin by phone at 801-538-9205, by FAX at 801-538-9916, or by 
Internet E-mail at mikemartin@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37044.htm



HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37032 (5-year Review): R495-861. Requirements for Local Discretionary 
Social Services Block Grant Funds.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule needs to be continued so that the allocation of the funds can be 
specifically defined.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jodi Patterson by phone at 801-538-4143, by FAX at 801-538-4317, or by 
Internet E-mail at jpatters@utah.gov
- Julene Jones by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjones@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/06/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37032.htm


CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
No. 37062 (5-year Review): R512-204. Child Protective Services, New 
Caseworker Training.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Continuation of this rule is necessary in order for the Division of Child and 
Family Services to continue to provide core training and conflict training to 
new caseworkers.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Carol Miller by phone at 801-557-1772, by FAX at 801-538-3993, or by 
Internet E-mail at carolmiller@utah.gov
- Julene Jones by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjones@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/15/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37062.htm


SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
No. 37029 (5-year Review): R539-1. Eligibility.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Having received no comments in opposition and requiring a continuing, 
publicly available criteria for determining eligibility for DSPD services, 
continuation of the rule is justified on the grounds that it meets existing 
statues, serves the purpose of the DSPD and has not met any public 
opposition.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Julene Jones by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjones@utah.gov
- Paul Day by phone at 801-538-4118, by FAX at 801-538-4279, or by Internet 
E-mail at pday@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/05/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37029.htm

No. 37030 (5-year Review): R539-11. Family Preservation Pilot Program.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The Division of Services for People with Disabilities (DSPD) has received no 
comments in opposition to the rule.  While the Program has expired, it is 
possible that funding may come available in the next legislative session to 
reinstate it.  In such case having an existing rule would facilitate the 
program.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Julene Jones by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjones@utah.gov
- Paul Day by phone at 801-538-4118, by FAX at 801-538-4279, or by Internet 
E-mail at pday@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/05/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37030.htm



INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37034 (5-year Review): R590-152. Health Discount Programs and Value Added 
Benefit Rule.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule authorizes the department to license and regulate health discount 
programs and those who market and operate them.  It also allows the 
department to review the forms of these programs to make sure they comply 
with the law and avoid using words and terms that would give the purchaser 
the impression that the program is insurance.  This should reduce fraud and 
uncertainty in this market. The rule also requires managers of health 
discount programs to provide a website so members can view a current list of 
health discount plan providers.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jilene Whitby by phone at 801-538-3803, by FAX at 801-538-3829, or by 
Internet E-mail at jwhitby@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/07/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37034.htm

No. 37033 (5-year Review): R590-242. Military Sales Practices.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
This rule is necessary to set forth standards to protect active duty service 
members of the United States Armed Forces from dishonest and predatory 
insurance sales practices by declaring certain practices to be false, 
misleading, deceptive, or unfair.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jilene Whitby by phone at 801-538-3803, by FAX at 801-538-3829, or by 
Internet E-mail at jwhitby@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/07/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37033.htm



MONEY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37031 (5-year Review): R628-18. Conditions and Procedures for Use of 
Interest Rate Contracts.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The Money Management Act in Subsection 51-7-17(3) states that public entities 
may enter into investment rate contracts per Council rule.  The rule needs to 
be in place to allow public entities to utilize these contracts in a safe and 
consistent way.  Also, there are several public entities that are using 
investment rate contracts.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Ann Pedroza by phone at 801-538-1883, by FAX at 801-538-1465, or by 
Internet E-mail at apedroza@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/06/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37031.htm




6.  NOTICES OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEW EXTENSIONS

Rulewriting agencies are required by law to review each of their 
administrative rules within five years of the date of the rule's original 
enactment or the date of last review (Section 63G-3-305).  If the agency 
finds that it will not meet the deadline for review of the rule (the five-
year anniversary date), it may file an extension with the Division of 
Administrative Rules.  The extension permits the agency to file the review up 
to 120 days beyond the anniversary date.

Agencies have filed extensions for the rules listed below.  The "Extended Due 
Date" is 120 days after the anniversary date.  

The five-year review extension is governed by Subsections 63G-3-305(4) and 
(5).

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37038 (Five-Year Extension): R305-2. Electronic Meeting.
EXTENSION REASON:  All five of the DEQ boards must approve a five-year 
review, which takes time.  The five-year review is currently due on 
11/28/2012; with this extension, it will be due on 03/28/2013.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Laura Lockhart by phone at 801-366-0283, by FAX at 801-366-0292, or by 
Internet E-mail at llockhart@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/12/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37038.htm




7.  NOTICES OF FIVE-YEAR EXPIRATIONS

Rulewriting agencies are required by law to review each of their 
administrative rules within five years of the date of the rule's original 
enactment or the date of last review (Section 63G-3-305).  If the agency 
finds that it will not meet the deadline for review of the rule (the five-
year anniversary date), it may file an extension with the Division of 
Administrative Rules (Division).  However, if the agency fails to file either 
the review or the extension by the five-year anniversary date of the rule, 
the rule expires.

Upon expiration of the rule, the Division is required to remove the rule from 
the Utah Administrative Code.  The agency may no longer enforce the rule, and 
it must follow regular rulemaking procedures to replace the rule if 
necessary.

The rules listed below were not reviewed in accordance with Section 63G-3-
305.  These rules have expired and have been removed from the Utah 
Administrative Code.

The expiration of administrative rules for failure to comply with the five-
year review requirement is governed by Subsection 63G-3-305(8).


HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37068 (Expired): R380-300. Community Spay and Neuter Grants.
SUMMARY:  The agency did not file the five-year review for this rule by the 
deadline so the rule expired on 11/08/2012 and is removed from the 
Administrative Code.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Nancy Lancaster by phone at 801-538-3218, by FAX at 801-537-9240, or by 
Internet E-mail at nllancaster@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  11/08/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2012/20121201/37068.htm




8.  NOTICES OF RULE EFFECTIVE DATES

State law provides for agencies to make their rules effective and enforceable 
after publication in the Utah State Bulletin. In the case of Proposed Rules 
or Changes in Proposed Rules with a designated comment period, the law 
permits an agency to file a notice of effective date any time after the close 
of comment plus seven days. In the case of Changes in Proposed Rules with no 
designated comment period, the law permits an agency to file a notice of 
effective date on any date including or after the thirtieth day after the 
rule's publication date. If an agency fails to file a Notice of Effective 
Date within 120 days from the publication of a Proposed Rule or a related 
Change in Proposed Rule the rule lapses and the agency must start the 
rulemaking process over.

Notices of Effective Date are governed by Subsection 63G-3-301(12), 63G-3-
303, and Sections R15-4-5a and 5b. 


COMMERCE
OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING
No. 36759  (AMD): R156-24b.Physical Therapy Practice Act Rule
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/13/2012

No. 36757  (AMD): R156-60.Mental Health Professional Practice Act Rule
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/13/2012

No. 36758  (AMD): R156-60c.Professional Counselor Licensing Act Rule
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/13/2012



EDUCATION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 36769  (AMD): R277-112.Prohibiting Discrimination in the Public Schools
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36770  (AMD): R277-420-1.Definitions
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36771  (AMD): R277-423.Delivery of Flow Through Money
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36772  (AMD): R277-424-1.Definitions
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36773  (AMD): R277-454-1.Definitions
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36774  (AMD): R277-531.Public Educator Evaluation Requirements (PEER)
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012



ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
No. 36624  (AMD): R307-101.General Requirements
Published:  09/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36625  (AMD): R307-102.General Requirements:  Broadly Applicable 
Requirements
Published:  09/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36626  (AMD): R307-123.General Requirements:  Clean Fuels and Vehicle 
Technology Grant and Loan Program
Published:  09/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36627  (AMD): R307-135.Enforcement Response Policy for Asbestos Hazard 
Emergency Response Act
Published:  09/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36607  (AMD): R307-207.Residential Fireplaces and Solid Fuel Burning 
Devices
Published:  08/15/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012

No. 36628  (AMD): R307-307.Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties:  Road Salting 
and Sanding
Published:  09/01/2012
Effective:  11/08/2012


DRINKING WATER
No. 36561  (AMD): R309-600-13.New Ground-water Sources of Drinking Water
Published:  08/15/2012
Effective:  11/15/2012



HEALTH
HEALTH CARE FINANCING, COVERAGE AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
No. 36511  (AMD): R414-1-30.Governing Hierarchy
Published:  08/15/2012
Effective:  11/05/2012

No. 36710  (AMD): R414-22.Administrative Sanction Procedures and Regulations
Published:  09/15/2012
Effective:  11/14/2012



HERITAGE AND ARTS
HISTORY
No. 36762  (AMD): R455-4.Ancient Human Remains
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/09/2012



INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION
No. 36745  (NEW): R590-265.Hazardous Financial Condition Rule
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/09/2012



JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 36671  (AMD): R597-3.Judicial Performance Evaluations
Published:  09/15/2012
Effective:  11/16/2012



NATURAL RESOURCES
PARKS AND RECREATION
No. 36682  (AMD): R651-637.2012 Antelope Island State Park Special Mule Deer 
and Bighorn Sheep Hunt
Published:  09/15/2012
Effective:  11/07/2012



WORKFORCE SERVICES
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
No. 36761  (AMD): R986-200-247.Utah Back to Work Pilot Program (BWP)
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/09/2012


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
No. 36760  (AMD): R994-406-302.Repayment and Collection of Fault Overpayments
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  11/09/2012




9.  RULES INDEX

The Rules Index is a cumulative index that reflects all effective Utah 
administrative rules.  The Rules Index is not included Digest.  However, a 
copy of the current Rules Index is available 
http://www.rules.utah.gov/research.htm .


<<end of file>>

