Utah State Digest, Vol. 2013, No. 1 (January 1, 2013)

[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 December 1, 2012, 12:00 AM through December 14, 2012, 
11:59 PM


Volume 2013, No. 1
January 1, 2013


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.  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.  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 December 1, 2012, 12:00 a.m., and December 
14, 2012, 11:59 p.m. are summarized in this, the January 1, 2013, issue of 
the Utah State Digest.

The law requires that an agency accept public comment on Proposed Rules 
published in the January 1, 2013, issue of the Utah State Bulletin until at 
least January 31, 2013 (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 May 1, 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.


HUMAN SERVICES
SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
No. 37110 (Amendment): R539-1. Eligibility.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  References to "Region" and regional 
administration have been removed or substituted.  As these changes may 
reflect a change in authority the rule has been submitted as an amendment 
rather than a nonsubstantive change.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The amendment is a language change reflecting existing 
policy.  No cost or savings are anticipated for the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The amendment is a language change reflecting existing 
policy.  No cost or savings are anticipated for local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The amendment is a language change reflecting existing 
policy.  No cost or savings are anticipated for small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The amendment is a language change reflecting existing policy.  No 
cost or savings are anticipated for any other entity or organization.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The amendment is a language change 
reflecting existing policy.  No compliance costs are anticipated.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There will be no costs or savings associated with this rule.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Joseph Taylor by phone at 801-538-4154, by FAX at 801-538-4279, or by 
Internet E-mail at jjtaylor@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
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  02/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37110.htm

No. 37111 (Amendment): R539-2. Service Coordination.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  References to "Region" and regional 
administration have been removed or substituted.  As these changes may 
reflect a change in authority the rule has been submitted as an amendment 
rather than a nonsubstantive change.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The amendment is a language change reflecting existing 
policy.  No cost or savings are anticipated for the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The amendment is a language change reflecting existing 
policy.  No cost or savings are anticipated for local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The amendment is a language change reflecting existing 
policy.  No cost or savings are anticipated for small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The amendment is a language change reflecting existing policy.  No 
cost or savings are anticipated for any other entity or organization.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The amendment is a language change 
reflecting existing policy.  No compliance costs are anticipated.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There will be no costs or savings associated with this rule.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
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
- Nathan Wolfley by phone at 801-538-4154, by FAX at 801-538-4279, or by 
Internet E-mail at nwolfley@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/2013/20130101/37111.htm



NATURAL RESOURCES
WILDLIFE RESOURCES
No. 37097 (Amendment): R657-37. Cooperative Wildlife Management Units for Big 
Game or Turkey.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendment to this rule will 
establish the guideline for when September 1 falls on a Sunday to have the 
hunt start date default to the Saturday before.  As established in Subsection 
23-14-18(3) "The Wildlife Board may allow a season on protected wildlife to 
commence on any day of the week except Sunday".
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The amendments to this rule are for the purpose of 
clarification for both the CWMU operators and the Division of Wildlife 
Resources (DWR) as to which day a season will begin on when September 1 falls 
on a Sunday.  DWR determines that these amendments do not create a cost or 
savings impact to the state budget or DWR's budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  None--This filing does not create any direct cost or 
savings impact to local governments because they are not directly affected by 
the rule.  Nor are local governments indirectly impacted because the rule 
does not create a situation requiring services from local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The amendments to this rule are for the purpose of 
clarification for both the CWMU operators and  DWR as to when a hunt season 
will start when September 1 falls on a Sunday.  DWR determines that these 
amendments do not create a cost or savings impact to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The amendments to this rule are for the purpose of clarification 
for both the CWMU operators and the DWR as to when a hunt season will start 
when September 1 falls on a Sunday.  The DWR determines that these amendments 
do not create a cost or savings impact to other persons.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The amendments to this rule are for 
the purpose of determining when a hunt season will start when September 1 
falls on a Sunday.  DWR determines that there are no additional compliance 
costs associated with these amendments.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The amendments to this rule are for the purpose of clarification 
for both the CWMU operators and DWR.  DWR determines that there is no 
compliance costs associated with this amendment.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Staci Coons by phone at 801-538-4718, by FAX at 801-538-4709, or by 
Internet E-mail at stacicoons@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/2013/20130101/37097.htm



REGENTS (BOARD OF)
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, COMMUTER SERVICES
No. 37096 (Amendment): R810-1-8. University Vehicle Parking.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Change in the definitions of university 
maintenance vehicles, and the areas where they are authorized to park.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  No effect foreseen as parking facilities for university 
vehicles other than vans, trucks, and SUV's are available elsewhere on 
campus.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No effect foreseen as the scope of the rule amendments 
is limited to university-owned vehicles.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No effect foreseen as the scope of the rule amendments 
is limited to university-owned vehicles.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No effect foreseen as the scope of the rule amendments is limited 
to university-owned vehicles.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  No effect foreseen as the scope of 
the rule amendments is limited to university-owned vehicles.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  No effect foreseen.  Any fiscal impact on business will be 
linked to the ability to complete maintenance in a timely manner because the 
trucks, vans, and SUV's can access the locations faster.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Solomon Brumbaugh by phone at 801-587-9394, by FAX at 801-587-9667, or by 
Internet E-mail at solomon.brumbaugh@utah.edu
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  02/14/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37096.htm

No. 37098 (Amendment): R810-1-14. Living In A Motor Vehicle On Campus.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Removes informational text and allows for 
authorized parking of RV's on campus by permit only.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  No effect foreseen--The location for RV parking is 
already in place, and the permits are in use. Potential revenue if RV's or 
other vehicles are parked in the location without a permit.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No effect foreseen--The location for RV parking is 
already in place, and the permits are in use. Potential revenue if RV's or 
other vehicles are parked in the location without a permit.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No effect foreseen--The location for RV parking is 
already in place, and the permits are in use. Potential revenue if RV's or 
other vehicles are parked in the location without a permit.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No effect foreseen--The location for RV parking is already in 
place, and the permits are in use. Potential revenue if RV's or other 
vehicles are parked in the location without a permit.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  No effect foreseen--The location for 
RV parking is already in place, and the permits are in use. Potential revenue 
if RV's or other vehicles are parked in the location without a permit.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  No effect foreseen, as the RV locations have been available for 
more than 20 years, and the permits have been adopted by the user group.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Solomon Brumbaugh by phone at 801-587-9394, by FAX at 801-587-9667, or by 
Internet E-mail at solomon.brumbaugh@utah.edu
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  02/14/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37098.htm

No. 37092 (Amendment): R810-2-1. Parking Meters.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Change in the language to reflect that 
university vehicles are not allowed to park in "load zone" meters.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  No effect foreseen--University vehicles have alternative 
parking locations available.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No effect foreseen--The scope of the rule amendment is 
limited to university-owned vehicles.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No effect foreseen--The scope of the rule amendment is 
limited to university-owned vehicles.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No effect foreseen--The scope of the rule amendment is limited to 
university-owned vehicles.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  None--The scope of the rule amendment 
is limited to university-owned vehicles.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  No major fiscal impacts foreseen by the department head.  
University vehicles have ample alternative locations to park that do not 
inhibit loading and unloading areas.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Solomon Brumbaugh by phone at 801-587-9394, by FAX at 801-587-9667, or by 
Internet E-mail at solomon.brumbaugh@utah.edu
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  02/14/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37092.htm



TAX COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37104 (Amendment): R861-1A-26. Procedures for Formal Adjudicative 
Proceedings Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Sections 59-1-501 and 63G-4-204 
through 63G-4-209.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendment deletes language 
stating that a request for documents by email constitutes a waiver of 
confidentiality.  This language was incorrect and has never been enforced.  
Deleting the language continues the current practice.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  None--The amendment deletes language that has never been 
enforced.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  None--The amendment deletes language that has never 
been enforced.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  None--The amendment deletes language that has never been 
enforced.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: None--The amendment deletes language that has never been enforced.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  None--The proposed amendment 
continues the current practice and is consistent with statute.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This deletion creates no fiscal impact.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Christa Johnson by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at 801-297-3907, or by 
Internet E-mail at cj@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/2013/20130101/37104.htm

No. 37106 (Amendment): R861-1A-37. Provisions Relating to Disclosure of 
Commercial Information Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-1-404.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendment clarifies potentially 
misleading language in the current rule.  The amendment provides that 
property tax commercial information disclosed in one proceeding may be used 
in a different proceeding subject to statutory constraints.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  None--Property tax revenues are local revenues.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  None--The proposed amendment clarifies the current 
practice and is consistent with statute.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  None--The proposed amendment clarifies the current 
practice and is consistent with statute.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: None--The proposed amendment clarifies the current practice and is 
consistent with statute.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  None--The proposed amendment 
clarifies the current practice and is consistent with statute.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This clarification creates no fiscal impact.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Christa Johnson by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at 801-297-3907, or by 
Internet E-mail at cj@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/2013/20130101/37106.htm

No. 37107 (Amendment): R861-1A-46. Procedures for Purchaser Refund Requests 
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Sections 59-1-1410 and 59-12-110.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This proposed rule replaces an earlier 
version of the rule that was submitted to the Division of Administrative 
Rules.  That earlier version of the rule was not adopted.  This current 
version of the proposed rule has been revised to incorporate changes 
suggested in comments received during the public comment period and 
subsequent meetings with impacted individuals.  The proposed rule defines a 
purchaser refund request as a request for a refund of sales taxes submitted 
by a person other than the seller that originally collected and remitted the 
sales tax to the Tax Commission; indicates the information that must be 
provided to the Tax Commission when submitting a purchaser refund request; 
provides that an applicant may request to have the purchaser refund request 
reviewed by a sampling method, rather than a 100 percent review of the 
transactions included in the refund request; provides that a purchaser refund 
request will be decreased by the amount of those transactions for which 
required information is not provided to the Tax Commission within the 
specified time period, and will be treated as dismissals that may be appealed 
only on the issue of whether information adequate to determine the validity 
of the purchaser refund request was received by the Tax Commission within the 
specified time period.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  None--The proposed rule indicates how to apply for 
certain sales tax refunds.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  None--The proposed rule indicates how to apply for 
certain sales tax refunds.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  None--The proposed rule indicates how to apply for 
certain sales tax refunds.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: None--The proposed rule indicates how to apply for certain sales 
tax refunds.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  None--The proposed rule indicates how 
a person shall apply for a sales tax refund when that person is not the 
seller that originally collected and remitted the sales tax to the Tax 
Commission.  While in most cases, the application process mirrors the long-
standing practice of the agency, if an applicant and the Tax Commission agree 
to a sampling method of review, the applicant will provide less information 
to the Tax Commission than currently.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This procedural amendment creates no fiscal impact.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Christa Johnson by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at 801-297-3907, or by 
Internet E-mail at cj@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/2013/20130101/37107.htm


AUDITING
No. 37108 (Amendment): R865-9I-13. Pass-Through Entity Withholding Pursuant 
to Utah Code Ann. Sections 59-10-116, 59-10-117, 59-10-118, 59-10-1403.2, and 
59-10-1405.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendment deletes language that 
is no longer necessary since these provisions are now addressed in statute by 
S.B. 143 (2012 General Session); and makes technical amendments.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  None--Any fiscal impact was considered in S.B. 143 
(2012).
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  None--Any fiscal impact was considered in S.B. 143 
(2012).
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  None--Any fiscal impact was considered in S.B. 143 
(2012).
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: None--Any fiscal impact was considered in S.B. 143 (2012).
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  None--The proposed amendment deletes 
language that is now adequately addressed in statute.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  These deletions create no fiscal impact.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Christa Johnson by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at 801-297-3907, or by 
Internet E-mail at cj@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/2013/20130101/37108.htm


PROPERTY TAX
No. 37109 (Amendment): R884-24P-67. Information Required for Valuation of 
Low-Income Housing Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Sections 59-2-102 and 59-2-
301.3.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendment deletes language that 
is no longer necessary since these provisions are now adequately addressed in 
statute by H.B. 75 (2012 General Session).
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  None--Any fiscal impact was considered in H.B. 75 
(2012).
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  None--Any fiscal impact was considered in H.B. 75 
(2012).
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  None--Any fiscal impact was considered in H.B. 75 
(2012).
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: None--Any fiscal impact was considered in H.B. 75 (2012).
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  None--The proposed amendment deletes 
language that is no longer necessary.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This deletion of language that now appears in statute creates no 
fiscal impact.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Christa Johnson by phone at 801-297-3901, by FAX at 801-297-3907, or by 
Internet E-mail at cj@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/2013/20130101/37109.htm



TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37094 (Repeal and Reenact): R907-64. Longitudinal and Wireless Access to 
Interstate Highway Rights-of-Way for Installation of Telecommunications 
Facilities.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule change will eliminate the 
requirement to advertise the opening of longitudinal access in the interstate 
right-of-way and related language and makes access always open to allow 
telecommunication companies faster access to complete their projects on time 
and to eliminate barriers to conducting business.  The new rule adds a 
definition of the Telecommunication Advisory Council and adds a section on 
public involvement in the process of granting permits for longitudinal access 
through public meetings of the Telecommunications Advisory Council.  The rule 
change will also correct references to other department rules that have been 
changed since the original enactment of this rule and eliminate unnecessary 
or repetitive language.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  Eliminating the requirement to advertise the opening of 
longitudinal access in the interstate right-of-way will provide a more 
consistent process for placement of telecommunication facilities, and will 
create a cost saving to the state budget by eliminating an administrative 
step.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local government because 
they are not involved in longitudinal access in the interstate right-or-way.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Small telecommunications companies will have the same 
ability to access the interstate right-of-way for telecommunication 
facilities as larger companies.  By providing non-exclusive access to all 
telecommunications companies, the cost saving can be substantial but vary 
significantly depending on the circumstances.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no anticipated costs or savings to persons other than 
small businesses, businesses, or local government entities because the rule 
only applies to longitudinal access to interstate right-of-way for 
telecommunications companies.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no anticipated compliance 
costs because the changes to the rule only streamline the process to request 
longitudinal access to interstate right-of-way for telecommunications 
companies.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Any fiscal impact to businesses resulting from this rule changes 
will be positive because the changes keep longitudial access availability 
open to all telecommunication companies and eliminate the requirement to 
advertise longitudinal access, making the process more efficient for the 
department and for telecommunications companies.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Christine Newman by phone at 801-965-4026, by FAX at 801-965-4338, or by 
Internet E-mail at cwnewman@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/2013/20130101/37094.htm




2.  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 January 31, 
2013.

From the end of the 30-day waiting period through May 1, 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
ADMINISTRATION
No. 36554 (Change in Proposed Rule): R305-6. Administrative Procedures.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  No change has been proposed; the rule is 
still being proposed to be completely repealed.  A new rule, R305-7 (DAR No. 
36553) is being proposed to take its place.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in 
proposed rule has been filed to keep the proposed repeal that was published 
in the August 15, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 28, active 
until the new Rule R305-7 can be made effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There will be no change to the state budget as a result 
of this proposal.  When the repeal was originally proposed, the following 
information was included:   No changes as a result of the repeal. The changes 
resulting from the enactment of Rule R305-7 (DAR No. 36553) are described in 
that rulemaking.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There will be no change to the impact on local 
government as a result of this proposed change.  When the repeal was 
originally proposed, the following information was included:  No changes as a 
result of the repeal. The changes resulting from the enactment of Rule R305-7 
(DAR No. 36553) are described in that rulemaking.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There will be no change to the impact on small business 
as a result of this proposed change.  When the repeal was originally 
proposed, the following information was included:   No changes as a result of 
the repeal. The changes resulting from the enactment of Rule R305-7 (DAR No. 
36553) are described in that rulemaking.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There will be no change to the impact on persons other than small 
businesses, businesses or local governmental entities as a result of this 
proposed change.  When the repeal was originally proposed, the following 
information was included:   No changes as a result of the repeal. The changes 
resulting from the enactment of Rule R305-7 (DAR No. 36553) are described in 
that rulemaking.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no change to compliance 
costs for affected persons as a result of this proposed change.  When the 
repeal was originally proposed, the following information was included:   No 
changes as a result of the repeal.  The changes resulting from the enactment 
of Rule R305-7 (DAR No. 36553) are described in that rulemaking.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There will be no change to the impact on the fiscal impact the 
rule may have on businesses as a result of this proposed change.  When the 
repeal was originally proposed, the following information was included:   
There will be no compliance costs because the rule is being proposed for 
repeal.
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:
- Debbie Oberndorfer by phone at 801-536-4402, by FAX at 801-536-0061, or by 
Internet E-mail at doberndorfer@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/31/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36554.htm

No. 36553 (Change in Proposed Rule): R305-7. Administrative Procedures.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Two changes were made in response to 
comments:  Subsection R305-7-101(1) was clarified, and Subsections R305-7-
213(4) and R305-7-316(1) were made to expand the page and time limits for 
comment on the administrative law judge's recommended order.  Other changes 
were made to clarify the provisions in the rule (see, e.g., Subsection R305-
7-211(1)); to make the text more consistent with statutory requirements (see, 
e.g., Subsection R305-7-206(5)); to correct errors in the text (see, e.g., 
Subsection R305-7-206(5)); and to make different parts of the rule consistent 
(see, e.g., Subsection R305-2-211(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 45.  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 are clarifications and minor 
corrections or changes, and do not change the original analysis:  Although it 
is anticipated that the new permit review adjudicative procedures will be 
more streamlined than UAPA procedures, any savings will be offset in part by 
increased workload resulting from an increasing number of permit challenges.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to the rule are clarifications and minor 
corrections or changes, and do not change the original analysis:    Local 
governments will not normally be affected. They could be affected to the 
extent they are parties or a  prospective intervenor to a proceeding.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The changes to the rule are clarifications and minor 
corrections or changes, and do not change the original analysis:  Although 
some businesses can expect savings as a result of these streamlined rules, 
permits and licenses to small business are rarely challenged so the proposed 
changes would not have a substantial impact.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The changes to the rule are clarifications and minor corrections or 
changes, and do not change the original analysis:  Individuals and 
organizations that challenge permits, e.g., environmental organizations, will 
be affected by the rule. Generally, it is anticipated that the streamlined 
procedure will make that process less expensive both for the challenger and 
for the permittee.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The changes to the rule are 
clarifications and minor corrections or changes, and do not change the 
original analysis:  This rule does not impose any compliance requirements. It 
does provide new procedures for challenging permits.  To the extent that the 
responsibility for defending against a permit challenge falls to a regulated 
entity, the streamlined process should be less expensive than the previous 
trial-type procedures.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The changes to the rule are clarifications and minor corrections 
or changes, and do not change the original analysis: The trial-type 
procedures previously required for adjudicating permit challenges could be 
extremely expensive; discovery, for example, can be extremely time-consuming 
and therefore costly.  The streamlined procedures in this rule (authorized by 
S.B. 11 (2012 General Session)) will be simpler and less costly.  A specific 
estimate of savings is not feasible, however, given the wide variability in 
complexity of proceedings.
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:
- Debbie Oberndorfer by phone at 801-536-4402, by FAX at 801-536-0061, or by 
Internet E-mail at doberndorfer@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/31/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36553.htm


AIR QUALITY
No. 36723 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-101-2. Definitions.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  New definitions are added for "Primary PM2.5" 
and "Secondary PM2.5."  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been 
filed to make additional changes to a proposed amendment that was published 
in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 29.  
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 are no new requirements to the state; therefore, 
there are no anticipated costs or savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no new requirements to local government; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to local government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The changes to the rule are additions of two new 
definitions.  These changes do not add any additional 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 are additions of two new definitions.  
These changes do not add any additional requirements to small businesses; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to persons other than 
small businesses, businesses, or local government entities.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The changes to the rule are additions 
of two new definitions.  These changes do not add any additional requirements 
to affected persons; therefore, there are no compliance costs for affected 
persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The changes to the rule are additions of two new definitions.  
These changes do not add any additional requirements to business; therefore, 
the changes to this rule should have no fiscal impact on business.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36723.htm

No. 36741 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-307. Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah 
Counties:  Road Salting and Sanding.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-307-1 is changed by clarifying 
that the version of 40 CFR 81.345 incorporated into the rule is the 
07/01/2011 version.  The definition for "arterial roadway" is moved from 
Section R307-307-5 to Section R307-307-2.  The rule is changed throughout to 
add that applied salts shall be at least 92% by weight sodium chloride, 
magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, or potassium chloride.  In the interest 
of public safety, several roads were added to Section R307-307-6 as being 
exempt from the requirements of Subsection R307-307-4(1).  (DAR NOTE:  This 
change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a 
proposed amendment that was published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the 
Utah State Bulletin, on page 42.  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 Utah Department of Transportation already 
applies salts that meet the purity requirements of the proposed rule and 
because there are no other new requirements to the state, there are no 
anticipated costs or savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The majority of local governments that apply salt to 
roads are already using salt with a sodium chloride (NaCl),  magnesium 
chloride (MgCl2), calcium chloride (CaCl2), or potassium chloride (KCl) 
content of 92% or greater. Also, prices of salt with a NaCl, MgCl2, CaCl2,  
and KCl content of 92% or greater are competitive with salts with a lower 
content. Therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to local 
government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the salts that can be applied to roads are 
expanded by adding MgCl2, CaCl2, and KCl, there should be anticipated savings 
to small businesses; however, since it is difficult to predict the demand of 
these salts each year, the savings amounts are unknown.
- 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.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Most people applying salts to roads 
are already using salt with a NaCl, MgCl, CaCl2, and KCl content of 92% or 
greater.  Also, prices of these salts are competitive with salts with lesser 
purities.  Any cost associated with the record-keeping requirements of the 
rule are expected to be minimal.  Therefore, there are no anticipated 
compliance costs for affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Most people applying salts to roads are already using salt with 
a NaCl, MgCl, CaCl2, and KCl content of 92% or greater.  Also, prices of 
these salts are competitive with salts with lesser purities.  Any cost 
associated with the record-keeping requirements of the rule are expected to 
be minimal.  Therefore, there are no anticipated compliance costs for 
affected persons.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36741.htm

No. 36740 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-312. Aggregate Processing 
Operations for PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-312-2 is changed by 
incorporating the PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance area as defined in 40 
CFR 81.345 and by adding a geographical description of the area.  A 
definition for "Aggregate" is added to Section R307-3121-3.  Language is 
added to the opacity observation requirement of Subsection R307-312-4(2) that 
states the Method 9 observations shall be 30 minutes (five six-minute 
averages).  The compliance shall be based on the average of the five six-
minute averages, but the duration of the Method 9 may be reduced to 6 minutes 
(one six-minute average) if the first six-minute average is below the limit 
specified in Table 1 of Section R307-312-4.  Section R307-312-5 is changed by 
adding language that states compliance with the requirements of Subsection 
R307-312-5(2) shall be determined by production records and fuel records.  
(DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional 
changes to a proposed new rule that was published in the October 1, 2012, 
issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 45.  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 Subsection R307-312-4(2) may result in a 
cost or a savings to the Division of Air Quality; however, it is difficult to 
estimate what those costs or savings would be.  Any additional cost or saving 
would be minimal; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings to the 
state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no new requirements to local government; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There are no new requirements to small businesses; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no 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 only new requirement for affected 
persons is the requirement for hot mix asphalt plants to demonstrate 
compliance with Section R307-312-5 through production records and fuel 
records.  This requirement should not result in any additional costs for 
affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The only new requirement for businesses is the requirement for 
hot mix asphalt plants to demonstrate compliance with Section R307-312-5 
through production records and fuel records.  This requirement should not 
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
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36740.htm

No. 36725 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-340. Ozone Nonattainment and 
Maintenance Areas:  Surface Coating Processes.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  There are no changes being made to the body 
of the rule.  The Utah Air Quality Board has requested that the repeal of the 
rule be made effective 02/01/2013, which is after the rule filing lapse date.  
Therefore, this Change in Proposed Rule is being filed.   (DAR NOTE:  This 
change in proposed rule has been filed to keep the proposed repeal that was 
published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
49, active until it can be made effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There are no new requirements to the state; therefore, 
there are no 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.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because there are no new requirements for small 
businesses, there are no anticipated costs or savings.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  This Change in Proposed Rule is being 
filed so that the rule repeal can have an effective date of 02/01/2013; 
therefore, there are no compliance costs for affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This Change in Proposed Rule is being filed so that the rule 
repeal can have an effective date of 02/01/2013; therefore, there is 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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36725.htm

No. 36738 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-343. Ozone Nonattainment and 
Maintenance Areas:  Emissions Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Rule applicability in Section R307-343-2 is 
changed from 5 to 2.7 tons per year or more per year of VOCs.  Several 
definitions are removed from Section R307-343-3.  Language is added to 
Section R307-343-4 to clarify that exempt solvents are not included in the 
VOC content limits for the coating used.  New VOC emissions rates are also 
added; these rates will become effective beginning 01/01/2015.  Section R307-
343-6 is changed to clarify that the owner or operator must provide 
documentation that the emission control system will meet the requirements of 
Section R307-343-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been filed 
to make additional changes to a proposed amendment that was published in the 
October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 56.  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:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply more sources  
resulting in a cost of up to $2,260 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability is 
changed from sources with the potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC to 
sources with the the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC, the rule will 
apply more sources  resulting in a cost of up to $2,260 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability is changed from sources with 
the potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential 
to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply more sources  resulting in 
a cost of up to $2,260 per ton of VOC removed.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
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:  03/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36738.htm

No. 36726 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-344. Paper, Film, and Foil 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-344-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, the rule applies to existing sources as of 
02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC 
and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah and 
Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  Language is added to Section R307-344-4 to clarify that exempt 
solvents are not included in the VOC content limits for the coating used.  
Section R307-344-5 is changed to require owners and operators to maintain 
records demonstrating compliance with the rule on an annual basis and to 
require them to make those records available to the director upon request.  
Subsection R307-344-5(3) is amended by adding application requirements.  
Section R307-344-6 is changed to clarify that the owner or operator must 
provide documentation that the emission control system will attain the 
requirements of Section R307-344-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule 
has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new rule that was 
published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
65.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $1,440 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $1,440 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $1,440 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36726.htm

No. 36727 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-345. Fabric and Vinyl Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-345-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, as of 02/01/2013, the rule applies to existing 
sources as of 02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or 
more of VOC and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 
tons per year or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt 
Lake, Utah, and Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 
tons per year or more VOC.  Language is added to Section R307-345-4 to 
clarify that exempt solvents are not included in the VOC content limits for 
the coating used.  It is also changed by adding lower VOC emission rates that 
become effective 01/01/2015.  Section R307-345-5 is changed to require owners 
and operators to maintain records demonstrating compliance with the rule on 
an annual basis and to require them to make those records available to the 
director upon request.  Subsection R307-345-5(4) is amended by adding 
application requirements.  Section R307-345-6 is changed to clarify that the 
owner or operator must provide documentation that the emission control system 
will attain the requirements of Section R307-345-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change 
in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new 
rule that was published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 67.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $3,500 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $3,500 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $3,500 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36727.htm

No. 36728 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-346. Metal Furniture Surface 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-346-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, as of 02/01/2013, the rule applies to existing 
sources as of 02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or 
more of VOC and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 
tons per year or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt 
Lake, Utah, and Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 
tons per year or more VOC.  Language is added to Section R307-346-5 to 
clarify that exempt solvents are not included in the VOC content limits for 
the coating used.  Section R307-346-6 is changed to require owners and 
operators to maintain records demonstrating compliance with the rule on an 
annual basis and to require them to make those records available to the 
director upon request.  Subsection R307-346-6(3) is amended by adding 
application requirements.  Section R307-346-7 is changed to clarify that the 
owner or operator must provide documentation that the emission control system 
will attain the requirements of Section R307-346-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change 
in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new 
rule that was published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 69.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $2,220 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $2,220 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $2,220 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36728.htm

No. 36729 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-347. Large Appliance Surface 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-347-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, the rule applies to existing sources as of 
02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC 
and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and 
Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  Language is added to Section R307-347-5 to clarify that exempt 
solvents are not included in the VOC content limits for the coating used.  
Section R307-347-6 is changed to require owners and operators to maintain 
records demonstrating compliance with the rule on an annual basis and to 
require them to make those records available to the director upon request.   
Subsection R307-347-5(3) is amended by adding application requirements.  
Section R307-347-7 is changed to clarify that the owner or operator must 
provide documentation that the emission control system will attain the 
requirements of Section R307-347-7.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule 
has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new rule that was 
published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
71.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $2,020 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $2,020 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $2,020 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36729.htm

No. 36730 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-348. Magnet Wire Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The applicability of the rule is changed to 
only apply to existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties as of 
02/01/2013 that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC and 
to apply to new sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties as of 02/01/2013 
that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year or more VOC.  The rule 
still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber counties to sources 
that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year or more VOC.  Language is 
added to Subsection R307-348-4(1) to clarify that exempt solvents are not 
included in the VOC coating content limits.  Language is added to Subsection 
R307-348-5(2) to require that sources make records available to the director 
upon request.  Subsection R307-348-6(2) is changed to clarify that the owner 
or operator of a magnet wire coatings operation shall provide documentation 
that the emission control system will attain the requirements of Section 
R307-348-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been filed to make 
additional changes to a proposed new rule that was published in the October 
1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 73.  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 to the state; 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 to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $8,528 per year per small source.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no new requirements; therefore, there are no anticipated 
costs or savings to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $8,528 per year per small 
source.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the potential to emit 5 tons per year 
VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting in a 
savings of up to $8,528 per year per small source.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36730.htm

No. 36731 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-349. Flat Wood Panel Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-349-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, the rule applies to existing sources as of 
02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC 
and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and 
Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  A definition for "Strippable booth coating" is added to Section 
R307-349-3.  Language is added to Section R307-349-4 to clarify that exempt 
solvents are not included in the VOC content limits for the coating used.  
Subsection R307-349-5(2) is amended by adding application requirements.  
Subsection R307-349-5(4) is changed to require owners and operators to 
maintain records demonstrating compliance with the rule on an annual basis 
and to require them to make those records available to the director upon 
request.  Section R307-349-6 is changed to clarify that the owner or operator 
must provide documentation that the emission control system will attain the 
requirements of Section R307-349-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule 
has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new rule that was 
published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
74.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $2,110 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $2,110 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $2,110 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36731.htm

No. 36732 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-350. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-350-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, the rule applies to existing sources as of 
02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC 
and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and 
Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  The exemptions section of the rule was changed by adding 
surface coating of aerospace vehicles and components and military munitions 
manufactured by or for the Armed Forces of the United States as exempt from 
Rule R307-350.  A definition for "Aerospace vehicles and component" was added 
to Section R307-350-4.  Language is added to Section R307-350-5 to clarify 
that exempt solvents are not included in the VOC content limits for the 
coating used.  Section R307-350-6 is changed by adding electrodeposition as 
an acceptable application method.  A VOC content for cleaning material is 
added to Section R307-350-7.  Section R307-350-7 is also changed to require 
owners and operators to maintain records demonstrating compliance with the 
rule on an annual basis and to require them to make those records available 
to the director upon request.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has 
been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new rule that was 
published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
76.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings from  $238 up to $2,020 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings from  $238 up to $2,020 per ton of 
VOC removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings from  $238 up to $2,020 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36732.htm

No. 36733 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-351. Graphic Arts.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Language is added throughout the rule to 
require owners and operators of emission control devices to provide 
documentation that their emission control devices will meet the requirements 
of the rule.  Owners and operators of emission control devices are now 
required to maintain for a minimum of two years records to demonstrate that 
the equipment is being operated and maintained in accordance with 
manufacturer recommendations, and these records must be made available to the 
director upon request.  Clarifying language is added to the definition of 
"Blanket", a definition for "composite partial vapor pressure" is added, and 
the definition for "Gravure" is removed from Section R307-351-3.  (DAR NOTE:  
This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a 
proposed new rule that was published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the 
Utah State Bulletin, on page 80.  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 the state; therefore, 
there are no anticipated costs or savings.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no new requirements for local governments; 
therefore, there are no anticipated costs or savings.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The added record-keeping requirements will likely result 
in increased costs to small businesses; however, those costs should be 
minimal.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no 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 added record-keeping requirements 
will likely result in increased compliance costs; however, those costs should 
be minimal.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The added record-keeping requirements will likely result in 
increased compliance costs to businesses; 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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36733.htm

No. 36734 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-352. Metal Container, Closure, and 
Coil Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-352-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, the rule applies to existing sources as of 
02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC 
and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and 
Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more of VOC.  The definition of "Coil Coating" in Section R307-352-3 is 
replaced with a definition for "Coating."  Language is added to Section R307-
352-4 to clarify that exempt solvents are not included in the VOC content 
limits for the coating used.  Section R307-352-5 is changed to require owners 
and operators to maintain records demonstrating compliance with the rule on 
an annual basis and to require them to make those records available to the 
director upon request.  The section is also amended by adding application 
requirements.  Section R307-352-6 is changed to clarify that the owner or 
operator must provide documentation that the emission control system will 
meet the requirements of Section R307-352-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in 
proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new 
rule that was published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 84.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $3,221 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $3,221 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $3,221 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36734.htm

No. 36735 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-353. Plastic Parts Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-353-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, the rule applies to existing sources as of 
02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC 
and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and 
Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  Section R307-353-4 is amended by adding definitions for 
"metallic coating," "military specification coating," "mirror backing," 
"mold-seal coating," "multi-colored coating," "multi-component coating," 
"one-component coating," and "optical coating."  Language is added to Section 
R307-353-5 to clarify that exempt solvents are not included in the VOC 
content limits for the coating used.  Table 3, which lists new plastic 
product coating categories and their VOC emission limits, is also added to 
Section R307-353-5.  A new Section R307-353-6 is added for coating 
application methods.  Section R307-353-7 is changed by adding a VOC content 
limit for cleaning materials and by requiring owners and operators to 
maintain records demonstrating compliance with the rule on an annual basis 
and to require them to make those records available to the director upon 
request.  Section R307-353-8 is changed to clarify that the owner or operator 
must provide documentation that the emission control system will attain the 
requirements of Section R307-353-8.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule 
has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed new rule that was 
published in the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
86.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $2,020 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $2,020 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $2,020 per ton of VOC removed.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 01/31/2013
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:  03/07/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36735.htm

No. 36736 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-354. Automotive Refinishing 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Section R307-354-2 is changed stating that in 
Tooele and Box Elder counties, the rule applies to existing sources as of 
02/01/2013, that have the potential to emit 5 tons per year or more of VOC 
and applies to new sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more of VOC.  The rule still applies in Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and 
Weber counties to sources that have the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year 
or more VOC.  Section R307-354-3 is changed by removing the definitions "cut-
in, or jambing, clearcoat," "elastomeric coating," "finishing material," 
"finishing operation," "low gloss coating," and "specialty coatings."  
Language is added to Section R307-354-4 to clarify that exempt solvents are 
not included in the VOC content limits for the coating used.  Section R307-
354-5 is changed to require owners and operators to maintain records 
demonstrating compliance with the rule on an annual basis and to require them 
to make those records available to the director upon request.  Section R307-
354-6 is changed to clarify that the owner or operator must provide 
documentation that the emission control system will attain the requirements 
of Section R307-354-6.  (DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been 
filed to make additional changes to a proposed new rule that was published in 
the October 1, 2012, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 88.  
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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in 
Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to 
emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons 
per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, 
resulting in a savings of up to $2,500 per ton of VOC removed.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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:  Because the rule's applicability to 
existing sources in Box Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources 
with the potential to emit 2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the 
potential to emit 5 tons per year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources 
in those counties, resulting in a savings of up to $2,500 per ton of VOC 
removed.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability to existing sources in Box 
Elder and Tooele counties is changed from sources with the potential to emit 
2.7 tons per year VOC to sources with the the potential to emit 5 tons per 
year VOC, the rule will apply to fewer sources in those counties, resulting 
in a savings of up to $2,500 per ton of VOC removed.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36736.htm

No. 36737 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-355. Control of Emissions from 
Aerospace Manufacture and Rework Facilities.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule applicability in Section R307-355-2 
has been changed from sources with the potential to emit 5 tons per year of 
VOCs to sources with the potential to emit 10 tons per year of VOCs. The rule 
has been changed in Section R307-355-3 by adding rule exemptions to 
manufacturing or rework operations involving space vehicles and to rework 
operations performed on antique aerospace vehicles or components.  
Definitions for "antique aerospace vehicle or component," "chemical milling 
maskants," exempt solvents," "general aviation rework facility," "low vapor 
pressure hydrocarbon-based cleaning solvent," "space vehicle," and "specialty 
coating" are added to Section R307-355-4.  New emission standards are added 
in Section R307-355-5 for coatings that are delivered to a coating applicator 
that applies Type I chemical milling maskant and Type II maskants.  Language 
is also added to Section R307-355-5 to clarify that exempt solvents are not 
included in the VOC content limits for the the coatings used.  New 
application methods are added to Section R307-355-6.  Section R307-355-7 is 
changed to require owners and operators to maintain records demonstrating 
compliance with the rule on an annual basis and to require them to make those 
records available to the director upon request.  Several solvent cleaning 
exemptions are added to Section R307-355-8.  Section R307-355-9 is changed to 
clarify that the owner or operator must provide documentation that the 
emission control system will meet the requirements of Section R307-355-9.  
(DAR NOTE:  This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional 
changes to a proposed new rule that was published in the October 1, 2012, 
issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 91.  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 this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to the state; therefore, there are no anticipated costs or 
savings to the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The changes to this rule do not result in any new 
requirements to local governments; therefore, there are no anticipated costs 
or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Because the rule's applicability was changed from 5 tons 
per year to 10 tons per year, the rule no longer applies to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Because there are no 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 compliance costs for affected 
persons will be reduced as there were several exemptions added to the 
proposed rule.  However, these savings are difficult to determine as the 
exemptions do not apply to all sources.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The compliance costs for affected persons will be reduced as 
there were several exemptions added to the proposed rule.  However, these 
savings are difficult to determine as the exemptions do not apply to all 
sources.
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:  02/01/2013
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/36737.htm




3.  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
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37089 (5-year Review): R13-3. Americans with Disabilities Act Grievance 
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 to provide for the prompt and equitable resolution of 
complaints alleging any action prohibited by the ADA and related federal 
regulations. Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Richard Amon by phone at 801-538-3091, by FAX at 801-538-3844, or by 
Internet E-mail at ramon@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/04/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37089.htm



ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
RADIATION CONTROL
No. 37086 (5-year Review): R313-15. Standards for Protection Against 
Radiation.
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 establishes the standards for protection 
against ionizing radiation.  The requirements are necessary to control the 
receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal of sources of radiation by a 
licensee or registrant so that the total dose to an individual, including the 
doses resulting from all sources of radiation other than background 
radiation, do not exceed established safety standards.  The rule is also 
needed to meet the Utah's commitment, as an Agreement State with the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to maintain regulatory compatibility 
with the NRC.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Craig Jones by phone at 801-536-4264, by FAX at 801-533-4097, or by 
Internet E-mail at cwjones@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/03/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37086.htm



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
CREDIT UNIONS
No. 37105 (5-year Review): R337-4. Establishment of "Credit Union Service 
Organizations".
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The rule clarifies that the department has jurisdiction over credit union 
service organizations and the activities of credit union service 
organizations; and should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Paul Allred by phone at 801-538-8854, by FAX at 801-538-8894, or by 
Internet E-mail at pallred@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/14/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37105.htm



HEALTH
DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, EPIDEMIOLOGY
No. 37093 (5-year Review): R386-705. Epidemiology, Health Care Associated 
Infection.
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 supports continuation of Rule R386-705.  Healthcare-associated 
infections are a leading cause of morbidity nationwide, and this rule enables 
the Department to track Utah's CLABSI rates over time, facilitating 
monitoring and identification of trends in rates (increasing, indicating a 
growing problem, or decreasing, indicating improvements) in various 
healthcare facilities.  This rule also allows the Department to review 
healthcare worker influenza vaccination data which is provided to the public, 
facilitating transparency to Utah’s citizens as they choose which facilities 
to use for care.  It is important that this rule is maintained.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Melissa Stevens Dimond by phone at 801-538-6810, by FAX at 801-538-9923, or 
by Internet E-mail at melissastevens@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/07/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37093.htm


CENTER FOR HEALTH DATA, VITAL RECORDS AND STATISTICS
No. 37087 (5-year Review): R436-6. Delayed Registration of Birth or Death.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
With the requirements under the federal REAL-ID Act that individuals produce 
a birth certificate in order to renew their driver's license, the rule allows 
the Registrar to reject court orders for individuals not born nor currently 
residing in Utah.  It also allows us to reject court orders for death 
certificates when the place of death is not established to be in Utah.  
Without this discretion, Utah could potentially be a source of fraudulent 
birth and death certificates.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Janice Houston by phone at 801-538-6262, by FAX at 801-538-7012, or by 
Internet E-mail at jlhouston@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/03/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37087.htm



INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37099 (5-year Review): R590-124. Loss Information Rule.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  It 
is important that the law provide guidelines to insurers for the maintenance 
and dissemination of loss information to the insured and other insurers, 
otherwise, loss information would not be released by insurers.  Loss 
information is important to insureds to determine if their efforts to reduce 
losses has been successful and it is important to insurers who want to 
provide the insured with a competitive quote for their business.  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:  12/12/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37099.htm

No. 37100 (5-year Review): R590-155. Utah Life and Health Insurance Guaranty 
Association Summary Document.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Section 31A-28-119 was written to prohibit agents from telling prospective 
insureds that the policy they were buying was covered by the Guaranty 
Association, in the event the insurance company becomes insolvent.  This 
assurance has been used deceptively to sell policies where the insurer was 
financially insolvent and/or unsound.  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:  12/12/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37100.htm

No. 37101 (5-year Review): R590-215. Permissible Arbitration Provisions for 
Individual and Group Health Insurance.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Federal law requires states to establish rules setting guidelines for the use 
of arbitration in the claims process.  This rule provides those guidelines.  
Once an insured has exhausted the insurer's internal appeals process, then 
they have the right to arbitration.  This rule defines arbitration in its 
several forms, as well as the process itself.  By having this rule the 
arbitration process is the same in all states, which reduces confusion and 
misunderstanding.  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:  12/12/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37101.htm



NATURAL RESOURCES
WILDLIFE RESOURCES
No. 37090 (5-year Review): R657-23. Utah Hunter Education Program.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Rule R657-23 provides the procedures and requirements for presenting and 
obtaining proof of having successfully completed an approved hunter education 
course.  The procedures adopted in this rule have provided an effective and 
efficient process.  Continuation of this rule is necessary for continued 
success of the hunter education program.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Staci Coons by phone at 801-538-4718, by FAX at 801-538-4709, or by 
Internet E-mail at stacicoons@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/05/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37090.htm

No. 37091 (5-year Review): R657-33. Taking Bear.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Rule R657-33 provides the procedures, standards, and requirements for taking 
and pursuing bear.  The provisions adopted in this rule are effective in 
providing the standards and requirements for taking and pursuing bear.  
Continuation of this rule is necessary for continued success of this program.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Staci Coons by phone at 801-538-4718, by FAX at 801-538-4709, or by 
Internet E-mail at stacicoons@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/05/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37091.htm



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37095 (5-year Review): R746-343. Rule for Deaf, Severely Hearing or 
Speech Impaired Person.
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 should be continued because it establishes eligibility requirements 
and sets forth the procedure for approval of an application and the 
distribution process for telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs).  
This rule provides instructions for training, replacement of TDDs, ownership 
and liability, and out-of-state use.  The rule also sets forth the liability 
of the telephone relay center and confidentiality and privacy requirements.  
Section R746-343-15 establishes the surcharge to be collected to cover the 
cost of the program as required by Subsection 54-8b-10(4).  This rule is also 
necessary to comply with provisions in the Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations.
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
EFFECTIVE:  12/10/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37095.htm

No. 37102 (5-year Review): R746-356. Intrastate (IntraLATA) Equal Access to 
Toll Calling Services by Telecommunications Carriers.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Section 54-8b-2.2 requirements continue to authorize this rule for the 
reasons stated in the "concise explanation of the particular statutory 
provisions."  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
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
EFFECTIVE:  12/13/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37102.htm



SCHOOL AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS
ADMINISTRATION
No. 37088 (5-year Review): R850-70. Sales of Forest Products From Trust Lands 
Administration Lands.
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 guidelines for the agency to follow in the 
management and sale of forest product resources located on trust lands.  It 
also provides the public with the requirements for the acquisition of these 
resources.  The sale of these products provides valuable revenue for the 
benefit of the respective beneficiaries of the land.  Therefore, this rule 
should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Kim Christy by phone at 801-538-5183, by FAX at 801-355-0922, or by 
Internet E-mail at kimchristy@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  12/04/2012
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2013/20130101/37088.htm




4.  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
CONSUMER PROTECTION
No. 36905  (AMD): R152-34.Postsecondary Proprietary School Act Rules
Published:  10/15/2012
Effective:  12/05/2012


OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING
No. 36930  (AMD): R156-38b.State Construction Registry Rule
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/10/2012



ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
No. 36742  (AMD): R307-110.General Requirements:  State Implementation Plan
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  12/06/2012

No. 36721  (AMD): R307-110-10.Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point 
Sources, Part A, Fine Particulate Matter
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  12/06/2012



HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
No. 36843  (NEW): R380-42.Open and Public Meetings Act Electronic Meetings
Published:  10/15/2012
Effective:  12/11/2012


DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION
No. 36937  (NEW): R384-202.Traumatic Spinal Cord and Brain Injury 
Rehabilitation Fund
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/18/2012


DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, EPIDEMIOLOGY
No. 36853  (AMD): R386-705.Epidemiology, Health Care Associated Infection
Published:  10/15/2012
Effective:  12/21/2012


FAMILY HEALTH AND PREPAREDNESS, CHILD CARE LICENSING
No. 36715  (AMD): R430-6.Background Screening
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  01/01/2013

No. 36716  (AMD): R430-50.Residential Certificate Child Care
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  01/01/2013

No. 36717  (AMD): R430-60.Hourly Child Care Centers
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  01/01/2013

No. 36718  (AMD): R430-70.Out of School Time Child Care Programs
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  01/01/2013

No. 36719  (AMD): R430-90.Licensed Family Child Care
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  01/01/2013

No. 36720  (AMD): R430-100.Child Care Centers
Published:  10/01/2012
Effective:  01/01/2013


FAMILY HEALTH AND PREPAREDNESS, LICENSING
No. 36879  (R&R): R432-35.Background Screening
Published:  10/15/2012
Effective:  12/12/2012



HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
No. 36911  (AMD): R495-890.Department of Human Services Related Parties 
Conflict Investigation Procedure for Non Contracted Private Sector 
Independent Child Protective Services
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/10/2012


CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
No. 36916  (NEW): R512-52.Drug Testing Copayment for Parents of Children in 
Child and Family Services Custody
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/11/2012



INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION
No. 36215  (AMD): R590-162.Actuarial Opinion and Memorandum Rule
Published:  06/01/2012
Effective:  12/05/2012

No. 36215  (CPR): R590-162.Actuarial Opinion and Memorandum Rule
Published:  10/15/2012
Effective:  12/05/2012



LABOR COMMISSION
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS
No. 36942  (AMD): R612-2-5.Regulation of Medical Practitioner Fees
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/10/2012



PUBLIC SAFETY
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION
No. 36912  (AMD): R722-300.Concealed Firearm Permit and Instructor Rule
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/10/2012



TAX COMMISSION
PROPERTY TAX
No. 36939  (AMD): R884-24P-53.2012 Valuation Guides for Valuation of Land 
Subject to the Farmland Assessment Act Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-
2-515
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/14/2012

No. 36940  (AMD): R884-24P-66.County Board of Equalization Procedures and 
Appeals Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 59-2-1004
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/14/2012

No. 36862  (AMD): R884-24P-73.Urban Farming Assessment Pursuant to Utah Code 
Ann. Section 59-2-1703
Published:  10/15/2012
Effective:  01/01/2013



TRANSPORTATION
OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
No. 36948  (R&R): R920-4.Special Road Use
Published:  11/01/2012
Effective:  12/10/2012



WORKFORCE SERVICES
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
No. 36868  (AMD): R986-200.Family Employment Program
Published:  10/15/2012
Effective:  12/05/2012




5.  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>>