Tag Archives: Cost Information

Legislative Fiscal Analyst Uses Rule Analysis in Fiscal Note Follow-up

Posted by on November 2, 2011 Comments Off

When an agency files a Notice of Proposed Rule, it includes, as part of the rule analysis, information about:

the anticipated cost or savings to:  (i)  the state budget; (ii)  local governments; (iii)  small businesses; and (iv)  persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities; (e)  the compliance cost for affected persons; … and (l)  comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses. (Subsection 63G-3-301(8))

This information is published, along with the rest of the rule analysis and the rule text, in the Utah State Bulletin, and its summary publication the Utah State Digest.  Both publications are freely available online.  The Digest is also freely available by e-mail subscription.

Legislative Fiscal Analyst LogoThis fall, the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst (LFA) began using the cost/savings information filed with administrative rules to aid in their evaluation of fiscal notes.  For some time, the LFA has followed-up and reported to the Legislature on selected fiscal notes attached to bills.  Staff from the LFA reviews documentation and contacts the relevant parties to see if costs of a program established by the Legislature are in line with what was anticipated as part of the fiscal note.  Now, the LFA is also correlating this information with the cost/savings information submitted with administrative rules.

This effort is important because it allows the state to connect the dots, and close the loops associated with the implementation of new programs or polices and their associated costs.  It also provides additional scrutiny to help the state improve the quality of the information it provides to the public as part of the policy development and implementation processes.

Quick help for eRules version 2

Posted by on September 4, 2009 Comments Off

Nancy has put together a document called “Quick help for eRules version 2″. I have copied it below so that you can easily access it here. You may certainly also send an email message to Nancy and request a copy.

Quick Help for eRules Version 2

Form:

DAR tried to keep the forms as close as possible to the old ones
but there are a few minor changes:

  • The amendment, repeal, repeal and reenact, and new forms are under “Proposed Rule Types” on the left-hand side. Open the form and in Box 3 there is a drop-down menu and select which form you want.
  • The first box is for the rule number or section number. First go to top of Box 1 and select your agency. This will populate your agency title. The first box after the hyphen is for the rule number and the second box is for a “letter” if you use them. The section number goes in the first box after the second hyphen and the next box again is for a “letter” only.
  • Next you go down to the bottom of Box 1 and select a contact. You must click on “Add Contact” for the information to appear. You made add as many as you need.
  • Box 2: If you are changing the entire rule or multiple sections put in the “rule” title. If it is just one section, put in the “section” title. Do not put the rule number in this box. You also do not need to include the period at the end of the title.
  • Box 4: Still the purpose box, why are you doing the filing?
  • Box 5: Is this because of ARRC, mark yes or no (defaults to NO).
  • Box 6: Still the summary box, what are the changes. Please do a summary and do not put the actual language changes in this box.
  • Box 7: New item is the radio buttons at the top of each box. Mark yes or no on each.
  • Boxes 7A and 7B are the same. If no costs, must explain why (how did you determine there were no costs).
  • Box 7C has been split into 7C and 7D. 7C is the answer for effects on small businesses and 7D is the effect on persons other than small businesses. These are aggregate costs. If none, explain why.
  • Box 8: Compliance costs for affected persons. This is individual costs. If none, explain why.
  • Box 9: Comments from Department Head. This has been split into 9A and 9B. 9A is the comments and 9B is the department head’s name and title.
  • Box 10 is still for citations, however, each citation should be in its own box. Put the first citation in the box and if you have more than one, click on “Add Citation” and fill it in. You can put as many as you need.
  • Box 11 is for material being incorporated. The required fields are title, publisher, and either “Date issued” or “Issue, or version” (you can use both), and then use the drop-down for selecting whether it “adds, updates, or removes”.
  • Box 12 is the same. 12A is for the end of comment date, use mm/dd/yyyy format. 12B is for public hearing information.
  • Box 13 is the same. Put the “may become effective” date, use mm/dd/yyyy format and remember it must be at least seven days after comment ends but not more than 120 days after publication.
  • Box 14 is the keywords and works like Box 10. Each keyword or term should be in its own box. Fill in the first box and then click on “Add Additional Keyword” to bring up another box. You can only add three because you are limited to four total.
  • Box 15 works a little different. For filing, click on “Browse” find your file and open it and it puts it there. Still must be in RTF (rich text format). If you are sending corrected text, it works the same way (Browse = Add/Edit from the old system).
  • Agency Authorization is the same except you will now only see those who can authorize for your agency. Fill in the date and make sure it is not a date that is after when you file it or you should not be filing it because it is not authorized.
  • Remember use the “Save as Draft” button often.
  • Submit the filing. It will lock after you file it so if you have to make changes, you must contact us.
  • You should receive a confirmation e-mail telling you it is filed. If not after about five minutes, let us know.
  • We have added the feature that you should receive an e-mail after
    you file a correction.

Overall on the form:

  • No special characters are allowed (like section symbols, etc.)
  • No hard returns. All text should be in one big block.
  • No typographical quotes (these are the curly ones) or M or
    N-dashes (use hyphens).

The rest of the forms work the same way. You can always call us if you have questions.

Text:

Text formatting has not changed, however here are some reminders
because DAR has noticed some issues.

  • No special characters are allowed.
  • No line or section breaks are allowed.
  • No typographical quotes (these are the curly ones).
  • No page numbering.
  • No headers or footers are allowed.
  • No colored text.
  • No indenting. Every paragraph (subsection) begins with a tab and only one tab is ever used.
  • A blank line is only between sections.
  • No line numbering.
  • Do not use track changes to mark text. This is removed and your changes will be lost. New text is underlined and text to be removed is struck-through and surrounded by brackets.
  • If filing one section, you must include the title line (agency name) and the rule number and catchline (title), and the citation block at the bottom of the rule text. Please include the entire section of text, not pieces.
  • Make sure it is the final version of the text, no “Draft” watermarks or the word “Draft” at the top of the text.
  • You can file any size text you want. There is not an issue in the
    new system with texts over 60kb.

eRules v. 2 is Live!

Posted by on July 16, 2009 Comments Off

eRules is the application that state agencies in Utah use to file administrative rules with the Division of Administrative Rules.  The new version of eRules went live on July 16, 2009, replacing the original application that has been in operation since September 2001.  Rule filers may access the new system by going to http://erules.rules.utah.gov/.

eRules v. 2 functions much like the old version.  The Division’s primary reasons for upgrading the system were to replace outdated hardware and software, address bugs that had developed in the old system, and improve security.

The rule forms contain some new fields.  The “Aggregate anticipated cost or savings to small business” is now reported in a separate field.  Radio boxes associated with each of the “Aggregate anticipated cost or savings” boxes permit the agency to indicate if there is an affect on any of the specifically identified groups.  The department head’s comments regarding the impact the rule may have on business is now followed with a box for the department head’s name.

Changes have also been made to the e-mail notifications that the system generates.  Specifically, once an agency responds to a request for correction, an e-mail will confirm receipt of the correction.

Documentation and guides for eRules v. 2 are still under development.  If you have questions about the application, please call Mike Broschinsky at 801-538-3003, or Nancy Lancaster at 801-538-3218.

The Division welcomes agency feedback about the new system.  While great effort has been made to test the new system and identify problems before its release, it is possible that agency filers may experience some problems.  If problems occurs, please contact the Division as soon as possible.

The Division gratefully acknowledges the efforts of individuals at the Department of Technology Services who worked very hard to make this application a success.

The release of eRules does not diminish access to regulatory information.  The public still has free access to all proposed, emergency, and effective rules through the Division’s regular web site — http://www.rules.utah.gov/ .

Implementing H.B. 64

Posted by on June 15, 2007 Comments Off

H.B. 64 changes the rule analysis questions to which agencies respond regarding costs. As part of the eRules reprogramming effort, the new questions will be fully integrated into the system. However, the new version is not yet ready for prime time (or day time, or any time just yet).

To implement H.B. 64′s intent by the bill’s effective date, the current version of eRules will be slightly modified. For rules filed after 06/15/2007, the forms will be changed. Question 7C on the form that currently asks for anticipated costs or savings to “other persons” will ask for anticipated costs or savings to “Small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) AND persons other than businesses”. When the new version of eRules becomes available, this one question will be split into two separate questions. The Division will continue to review responses to all of the costs boxes and apply the standards set by Section R15-4-10, which will be updated to reflect the changes made by H.B. 64.

As regulators respond to the question about anticipated cost or savings to small business, they may find it helpful to review the Small Business Administration’s profile of Utah small businesses available at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/profiles/06ut.pdf. Agencies may also contact the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy (http://www.sba.gov/advo/), the entity that promoted H.B. 64, for additional information. The Region VIII advocate is Jim Henderson. He can be reached at: 721 19th Street, Suite 400, Denver, CO 80201; phone 303-844-0503; fax 303-844-0506; and e-mail james.hendersonn “at” sba.gov.

If you have questions our concerns about the Division’s anticipated implementation of H.B. 64, please contact Ken Hansen (801-538-3777).

H.B. 64 Passed

Posted by on February 7, 2007 Comments Off

H.B. 64, Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses, has passed. Pending the Governor’s signature, the bill goes into effect on July 1, 2007. The bill changes anticipated cost or savings information an agency is asked to provide on the Rule Analysis when it files a proposed rule, change in proposed rule, or emergency rule.

Specifically, beginning July 1, agencies will need to provide anticipated costs or savings to “small businesses”. In addition, agencies will assess anticipated costs or savings to “persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities” instead of “other persons.” This change was made to prevent agencies from having to provide the same information in multiple places on on the Rule Analysis. Agencies will still assess overall business impacts under the “comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses”.

More information about H.B. 64 is available on the Legislature’s web site at http://le.utah.gov/~2007/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0064.htm.

Legislation Affecting Administrative Rulemaking

Posted by on January 23, 2007 Comments Off

As of January 19, 2007, the following bills have been filed that affect administrative rules generally.

H.B. 64. Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses. Rep. S. Clark.

Rep. S. Clark is sponsoring “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses.” As introduced, this bill is identical to S.B. 157 (2006) and H.B. 209 (2005) as amended. The bill defines small business (employing fewer than 50 persons) and requires that agencies report anticipated cost or savings to small businesses and business in general as part of the rule analysis.

At the Division of Administrative Rules’ request, Rep. Clark moved an amendment with two changes on the House floor. The first, affecting line 122, replaced “other persons” in existing language with “persons other than small businesses, businesses, and local governments”. This is intended to clarify that agencies do not have to address these areas twice on the rule analysis form.

The second change added an effective date to the bill of July 1, 2007. This is intended to give the Division some additional time in implementing the provisions of the bill.

Additionally, Rep. R. Becker made a floor amendment to change line 121 removing “business in general” from the items on which agencies needed to comment separately. The amendment passed.

The bill passed the House and is now in the Senate for consideration. More information about H.B. 64 is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0064.htm.

S.B. 32. Filings of Administrative Rules, Orders, and Regulations. Sen. H. Stephenson.

This bill, an Administrative Rules Review Committee bill, amends Section 63-5a-7 changing the location at which an order, rule, or regulation must be filed for those documents to have effect during an emergency. The current law requires that these documents be filed with the Division of Archives. The bill changes the filing venue to the Division of Administrative Rules. This bill makes Section 63-5a-7 consistent with changes made to the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act in 1987. The Division of Administrative Rules requested this bill after consultation with the Department of Public Safety. More information about S.B. 32 is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0032.htm.

S.B. 122. Administrative Rules Reauthorization. Sen. H. Stephenson.

S.B. 122 is the Administrative Rules Review Committee’s annual bill required by Section 63-46a-11.5. The bill, as introduced, reauthorizes all administrative rules. More information about S.B. 122 is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0122.htm.

S.B. 138. Administrative Rule Criminal Penalty Amendments. Sen. H. Stephenson.

The “Administrative Rule Criminal Penalty Amendments” bill is substantially similar to Substitute H.B. 317 (2006). The bill amends sections throughout the Utah Code that currently prescribe a criminal penalty for the violation of a rule. The bill affects the following sections: Sections 4-38-7, 9-4-612, 32A-12-104, 40-6-12, 40-8-9, 41-3-210, 41-3-701, 41-3-702, 41-6a-1115, 51-7-22.4, 53-7-226, 59-14-212, 63C-9-301, 65A-3-1, 76-10-1233, and 76-10-1234. More information about S.B. 138 is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2007/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0138.htm.

Additional Information

Questions about these bills may be directed to Ken Hansen (801-538-3777).

H.B. 64 Approved by House Committee; Amendments Requested

Posted by on January 18, 2007 Comments Off

H.B. 64, entitled “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses”, was approved by the House Business and Labor Standing Committee on January 18, 2007.

The Division of Administrative Rules has asked the sponsor for two clarifying amendments. The first, affecting line 122, would replace “other persons” with “persons other than small businesses, businesses, and local governments”. This is intended to make it clear that agencies do not have to address these areas twice on the rule analysis form.

The second amendment would add an effective date of July 1, 2007, to the bill. This is intended to give the Division some additional time in implementing the provisions of the bill.

Legislation Affecting Rulemaking Generally

Posted by on January 20, 2006 Comments Off

As of January 20, 2006, the following bills affecting administrative rules have been numbered or approved for filing.

S.B. 26. “Administrative Rules Reauthorization” (Sen. H. Stephenson)

The Reauthorization bill is the Administrative Rules Review Committee’s annual bill required by Section 63-46a-11.5. S.B. 26, as introduced, proposes to reauthorize all rules. The Division will continue to monitor the bill and notify agencies if any rules are identified for sunset. More information about S.B. 26 is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0026.htm.

S.B. 157 “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses” (Sen. H. Stephenson)

S.B. 157, an Administrative Rules Review Committee bill, proposes to amend Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, in two ways. It defined “small businesses”. It also modifies Section 63-46a-4, requiring an agency to provide anticipated cost or savings to small businesses and business in general. S.B. 157 is identical to the amended H.B. 209 (2005) that failed. This bill will require changes to eRules, the web application agencies use to file rules. This bill is supported by the Small Business Administration. More information about S.B. 157 is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0157.htm.

Unnumbered “Administrative Rule Criminal Penalty Amendments” (Rep. D. Ure)

This bill, an Administrative Rules Review Committee bill, addresses the criminal penalties issues. These were discussed at the committee’s July 11, November 4, and 22, 2005, and January 13, 2006, meetings. Several agencies submitted alternative language that satisfied the committee’s concerns. This bill proposes to make those changes. As of January 20, the bill will affect the following statutory sections: 4-38-7, 9-4-612, 32A-12-104, 40-6-12, 40-8-9, 41-3-210, 41-3-701, 41-3-702, 41-6a-1115, 51-7-22.4, 53-7-226, 59-14-212, 65A-3-1, and 76-10-1233.

Unnumbered “Administrative Rules Procedure Amendments” (Rep. D. Ure)

This bill, an Administrative Rules Review Committee bill, makes changes to rulemaking procedure. It: (1) imposes an affirmative requirement on agencies to “review and evaluate all public comments submitted in writing or presented at public hearings conducted by the agency,” (2) requires a five business day consideration period following the public comment period before an agency may make a rule effective, (3) defines the phrase “initiate rulemaking proceedings” to mean filing a rule with the Division of Administrative Rules, (4) increases the number of days to consider a petition for rulemaking from 30 to 60 days for agencies, and from 30 to 80 days for boards with an extra requirement that a board place a petition on its agenda within 45 days, and (5) designates a petition to which an agency fails to respond or initiate rulemaking within the specified period as “denied” providing that “the petitioner may seek a writ of mandamus in state district court.”

This information will be updated throughout the session and available at http://www.rules.utah.gov/law/legis.htm.

H.B. 209, Administrative Rules – Impact on Small Businesses, Introduced

Posted by on January 19, 2005 Comments Off

H.B. 209, Administrative Rules – Impact on Small Businesses, has been introduced. The bill amends the Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act in two ways. It defines “small businesses”. It also modifies Section 63-46a-4, requiring an agency to provide anticipated cost or savings to small businesses and business in general.

Contrary to the description provided in the bill’s “Highlighted Provisions,” this second change will affect proposed rules (new, amended, repealed, and repealed and reenacted), changes in proposed rules, and emergency rules.

More information about H.B. 209 is available at http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0209.htm.