Utah Administrative Code Current through September 1, 2014

The Utah Administrative Code, the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the Division of Administrative Rules, is current through 09/01/2014. The Division posted this update on its website on 09/19/2014. The Division’s goal is to codify and post administrative rule filings made effective through the first of the month by the tenth of the month.

The Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm. An archive of updates to the Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/codeudt.htm.

Utah Administrative Code Current through August 1, 2014

The Utah Administrative Code, the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the Division of Administrative Rules, is current through 08/01/2014. The Division posted this update on its website on 08/18/2014. The Division’s goal is to codify and post administrative rule filings made effective through the first of the month by the tenth of the month.

The Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm. An archive of updates to the Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/codeudt.htm.

Utah Administrative Code Current through July 1, 2014

The Utah Administrative Code, the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the Division of Administrative Rules, is current through 07/01/2014.  The Division posted this update on its website on 07/18/2014.  The Division’s goal is to codify and post administrative rule filings made effective through the first of the month by the tenth of the month.

The Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm.  An archive of updates to the Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/codeudt.htm.

Utah Administrative Code Current through June 1, 2014

The Utah Administrative Code, the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the Division of Administrative Rules, is current through 06/01/2014.  The Division posted this update on its website on 06/07/2014.  The Division’s goal is to codify and post administrative rule filings made effective through the first of the month by the tenth of the month.

The Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm.  An archive of updates to the Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/codeudt.htm.

2014 Index of Changes Now Available

On May 28, 2014, the Division of Administrative Rules published the 23rd edition of the Utah Administrative Rules Index of Changes.  The publication indexes administrative rulemaking actions — by agency, by subject, and by citation — made effective from 01/02/2013 through 01/01/2014.  The Index of Changes also includes a correlation table that shows changes to the organization of the Utah Administrative Code, a Summary of Rules Made Effective, and an Index of Editor’s Notes the Division uses to notify the public of corrections to rules published in the Utah State Bulletin and the Utah Administrative Code.

The Index of Changes is published in compliance with Subsection 63G-3-402(1)(g).  This subsection requires the Division to “publish at least annually an index of all changes to the administrative code and the effective date of each change”.

The 2014 Index of Changes is available in PDF format on the Division’s web site at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/rulesindex.htm.

Utah Administrative Code Current through May 1, 2014

The Utah Administrative Code, the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the Division of Administrative Rules, is current through 05/01/2014.  The Division posted this update on its website on 05/20/2014.  The Division’s goal is to codify and post administrative rule filings made effective through the first of the month by the tenth of the month.

The Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm.  An archive of updates to the Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/codeudt.htm.

Considering Nonsubstantive Changes

After a decision has been made to change a rule, one of the first questions a rulewriter should ask is, “Is this change substantive or nonsubstantive?”

A nonsubstantive change differs from a substantive change in the following ways:

  1. a nonsubstantive change is not published in the Utah State Bulletin;
  2. a nonsubstantive change is not subject to a comment period; and
  3. a nonsubstantive change does not make changes that affect the application or results of agency action.

Statute defines “substantive change” as a “change in a rule that affects the application or results of agency action” (see Subsection 63G-3-102(19)).  A nonsubstantive change is usually something like a grammatical change, typographical correction, removal of redundant language, or similar changes.

For example:

  1. Removing redundant language (i.e., language that already exists elsewhere in the agency’s rules or statute) is a nonsubstantive change.
  2. Correcting a subject-verb accord (singular subject but plural verb, for example) is a nonsubstantive change.
  3. Changing rule references, statutory references, or other legal references because of other changes in rules or statutes is a nonsubstantive change.
  4. Changing agency names can be a nonsubstantive change, especially if the change is simply making the rule consistent with a statutory change the Legislature has made.

Other changes that might *seem* nonsubstantive are not.  Adding commas to what appears to be an itemized list would not necessarily be a nonsubstantive change.  Here is a classic example:

The panda eats shoots and leaves.

This is a description of a large mammal’s rather monotonous diet.  Watch what happens to the meaning — the substance — of the sentence by the unfortunate introduction of commas where they shouldn’t be:

The panda eats, shoots, and leaves.

Now the large mammal satisfies his hunger, engages in assault with a deadly weapon, and departs the scene of the crime.  The key to determining whether a change is nonsubstantive is always to look at what you want to do, and then ask the question, “Does this affect the application or result of agency action?”  It’s not a question of how much text you add or remove; it’s a question of what happens to the text’s substantive meaning.

Remember:  a change that reduces an obligation is substantive.  Just because you’re making it easier to comply, or reducing the time required to comply, does not change the fact that you are altering a substantive requirement.  Notice and comment rulemaking is required for this type of change.

If you have a question as to whether a change is substantive or nonsubstantive, consult counsel and make certain counsel is aware of the statutory definition of “substantive change” (Subsection 63G-3-102(19)).

Utah Administrative Code Current through April 1, 2014

The Utah Administrative Code, the body of all effective administrative rules as compiled and organized by the Division of Administrative Rules, is current through 04/01/2014.  The Division posted this update on its website on 04/22/2014.  The Division’s goal is to codify and post administrative rule filings made effective through the first of the month by the tenth of the month.

The Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm.  An archive of updates to the Utah Administrative Code is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/codeudt.htm.

2014 Rulemaking Training Scheduled

The Division of Administrative Rules has scheduled its Rulemaking Process Seminars for 2014.  The dates are:

  • Wednesday, May 14 from 9 AM to Noon, in the Copper Room, which is in the Senate Building on Capitol Hill;
  • Tuesday, July 8 from 1 PM to 4 PM, 4112 State Office Building, Capitol Hill, and
  • Tuesday October 7 from 8 AM to Noon, State Office Building, Capitol Hill.

To reserve a seat at any of these training sessions, please send an e-mail to smanousa@utah.gov and provide the name and e-mail address for each individual who will attend, and the name of the agency for which they work or the title (R) number under which they file rules.

If you require training, and the dates listed above do not work for your schedule, please contact Mike Broschinsky (801-538-3003) to schedule training at your agency.

Don’t Quote Statute in Rule

Rulewriters will occasionally quote statute in rule, either because they believe it will add weight to the rule text, or because they want to demonstrate conclusively the authority to write a particular rule.  But, quoting statute in rule carries risks.  Do not quote statute in rule.

  • It serves no legal purpose. There is no legal purpose served in repeating language that is already legally enforceable.  Repetition does not add weight to a legal requirement.
  • It creates the possibility of conflicting language. If statute is quoted in rule, the agency must exercise hyper-vigilance to ensure that it matches the language of the statute exactly.  Additionally, after every session, someone must review the language again to verify that no changes have been made. Mismatched quotations result in conflicting language that may result in a challenge. Quoting statute also means that any time the legislature makes a change to the text of the statute, the agency must amend the rule to synchronize the texts.
  • It is redundant. Quoting duplicates the same legal requirement in two codes when its appearance in one will suffice.  Doing so imposes a time burden on careful readers who compare the repeated statutory language in rule to the language of the statute itself.
  • It misses the point of what a rule is supposed to be. An administrative rule is an agency’s written statement that implements or interprets a state or federal legal mandate that has the effect of law (see Subsection 63G-3-102(16)(a)).  An administrative rule is not a users’ manual.
  • It may draw the agency into the regulatory oversight process.  In the past, the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee has expressed concerns over quoting statutes in rules and has advised agencies against the practice.
  • It unnecessarily increases the volume of rules.  This, in turn, creates political fodder for those otherwise unhappy with the function an agency performs.

This list serves to highlight the potential problems.  The same risks exist when quoting court opinions or executive orders.  These documents stand on their own.  Instead of quoting statute (or executive orders or court opinions) the agency should instead provide cross references.

Questions may be referred to Ken Hansen, 801-538-3777.