Tag Archives: Small Business Impacts

Governor Issues Report and Executive Order

Posted by on December 21, 2011 Comments Off
2011 Utah Business Regulation Review

2011 Utah Business Regulation Review

On Tuesday, December 6, 2011, Governor Gary R. Herbert announced the results of a comprehensive review of all of Utah’s business regulations and the release of the report, Utah Business Regulation Review.  This report documents the efforts of state agencies’ to respond to the governor’s call to review existing business regulations.

In addition to summarizing agencies’ responses to the Governor’s request, the report also includes an analysis of rules conducted by the Governor’s Office, and feedback from over 100 business associations and over 300 survey responses from individual businesses.

The report is available from the Division of Administrative Rules’ web site at http://www.rules.utah.gov/reports/2011UtahBusinessRegulationReview.pdf .

As part of the announcement, Governor Herbert also signed Executive Order EO/013/2011 entitled “Establishing Effective Oversight Over State Agency Rulemaking”.  This order updates requirements found in orders issued in 1979, 1986, and 1988.  The order establishes additional procedures for agencies to follow when promulgating rules.

The order:

  1. establishes the Governor’s expectation that rules be clear and concise, and that they not impose unnecessary burdens on the economy, on individuals, on public or private organizations, or on local government;
  2. requires agencies to include non-fiscal and indirect costs or savings as part of the cost boxes in the rule analysis;
  3. requires department heads to designate a department rules coordinator and report that person’s name to the Division of Administrative Rules;
  4. requires the department rules coordinator to perform several functions including a review of legislation for rulemaking mandates AND sending a copy of the rule analysis for a notice of proposed rule to the Governor’s Office of Economic Development;
  5. reestablishes the role of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget to review rules;
  6. outlines the sources from which agencies may seek assistance;
  7. requires state administrators to cooperate with GOPB’s executive review of rules, and the Division of Administrative Rules implementation of filing, publication and hearing procedures.

The full language of the executive order is available online at http://www.rules.utah.gov/execdocs/2011/EO-013-2011.pdf.

ARRC Endorses “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses” Bill

Posted by on January 22, 2008 Comments Off

The Administrative Rules Review Committee (ARRC) gave its unanimous endorsement to a substitute version of Rep. S. Clark’s “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses” bill. The substitute bill reflects discussions held during prior meetings of the ARRC, as well as negotiations between state agencies and a representative from the Small Business Administration.

First Substitute H.B. 53 will require “a state agency to consider methods to minimize the impact of an agency’s proposed administrative rule if the agency reasonably expects the rule will have a measurable negative fiscal impact on small businesses.” The five methods identified in the bill are based on those developed and promoted by the Small Business Administration.

The bill was heard in the House Business and Labor standing committee and passed with a favorable recommendation. Information about First Substitute H.B. 53 is available at http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0053s01.htm.

Small Business Impact Bill

Posted by on December 14, 2007 Comments Off

On November 27, Rep. S. Clark presented his “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses” bill to the Administrative Rules Review Committee. The result of that discussion was to ask the Division of Administrative Rules to contact state agencies and get feedback on the draft bill, and then to work through any issues identified by state agencies with a representative from the Small Business Administration.

On December 12, the Administrative Rules Review Committee met again. Rep. S. Clark, and Jim Henderson from the Small Business Administration presented a series of changes to the bill. Ken Hansen from the Division of Administrative Rules was also present to respond to questions. Most of the changes were acceptable to the committee, but the committee had an extensive discussion about when an agency would have to conduct the five-point analysis required by the original bill.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Rep. Clark asked that Sen. Mark Madsen work with Ken Hansen, who in turn would work with Jim Henderson, to refine the draft. The committee approved a motion to bring the bill back in January to review the changes and refinements. If the committee concurs with these changes, the committee will likely approve the bill as a committee bill.

Administrative Rules and Small Business Impacts

Posted by on November 25, 2007 Comments Off

Rep. S. Clark is sponsoring another bill for the Small Business Administration. Last year, Clark sponsored H.B. 64. That bill required agencies to report small business impacts separately from other affected groups. (Prior to H.B. 64, small business impacts were reported as part of the impacts to “other persons”.)

The new bill requires agencies to do an extensive analysis when preparing a proposed rule. It also adds a new question to the Five-Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation.

The Administrative Rules Review Committee plans discuss the bill as part of its agenda for its Tuesday, November 27, 2007, meeting.

Legislation Which Affects Rulemaking

Posted by on June 15, 2007 Comments Off

During the 2007 General Session, the Legislature passed the following bills affecting administrative rules.

H.B. 64. “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses.” (Rep. S. Clark)

H.B. 64 changes anticipated cost or savings information an agency is required to provide on the rule analysis when it files a proposed rule, change in proposed rule, or emergency rule.

Specifically, agencies must provide anticipated costs or savings to “small businesses” (defined to mean a business employing fewer than 50 people). In addition, agencies must now assess anticipated costs or savings to “persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities” instead of “other persons.” Look for changes to the rule analysis forms on 06/16/2007. Agencies will still assess overall business impacts under the “comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses”.

The Governor signed H.B. 64 on 03/09/2007. H.B. 64 (Chapter 102, Laws of Utah 2007) goes into effect on 07/01/2007. More information about H.B. 64 is available on the Legislature’s web site at http://le.utah.gov/~2007/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0064.htm. Also see “Implementing H.B. 64” in this newsletter.

H.B. 327. “State Agency Timely Adoption of Administrative Rules.” (Rep. D. Clark)

H.B. 327 requires timely adoption of administrative rules. It amends Section 63-46a-4 and requires an agency to “initiate rulemaking proceedings no later than 180 days after the effective date of the statutory provision that requires the rulemaking.” If the agency is unable to file the rule by the deadline, it is required to “appear before the legislative Administrative Rules Review Committee and provide the reasons for the delay.”

The Governor signed H.B. 327 on 03/12/2007. H.B. 327 (Chapter 168, Laws of Utah 2007) went into effect on 04/30/2007. More information about H.B. 327 is available on the Legislature’s web site at http://le.utah.gov/~2007/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0327.htm. Also see “Implementing H.B. 327” in this newsletter.

S.B. 122. “Administrative Rules Reauthorization” (Sen. H. Stephenson)

This is the Administrative Rules Review Committee’s annual bill required by Section 63-46a-11.5. S.B. 122 reauthorized all rules, except a portion of an Education rule — Section R277-437-1. The Governor signed S.B. 122 on 03/13/2007. S.B. 122 (Chapter 225, Laws of Utah 2007) went into effect on 05/01/2007. More information about S.B. 122 is available on the Legislature’s web site at http://le.utah.gov/~2007/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0122.htm.

Other Legislation recommended by the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee.

The Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee recommended two other pieces of legislation that also passed. These bills affect more than one, but not all, rulemaking agencies.

S.B. 32, “Filing of Administrative Rules, Orders, and Regulations” corrected Section 63-5a-7 to make it consistent with the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act. In part, it provides that rules and orders of state government issued in accordance with Title 63, Chapter 5a, have the full force and effect of law during a state of emergency when a copy of the document is filed with the Division of Administrative Rules. The Governor signed S.B. 32 on 03/12/2007. S.B. 32 (Chapter 177, Laws of Utah 2007) went into effect on 04/30/2007. More information about S.B. 32 is available on the Legislature’s web site at http://le.utah.gov/~2007/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0032.htm.

1st Substitute S.B. 138, “Administrative Rule Criminal and Civil Penalty Amendments” amends sections throughout the Utah Code. In some cases, sections that provided criminal penalties for violating rules were amended to provide for civil penalties. In other instances, provisions that had previously appeared in rule were incorporated into statute and the criminal penalty was maintained. The Governor signed S.B. 138 on 03/15/2007. S.B. 138 (Chapter 320, Laws of Utah 2007) went into effect on 04/30/2007. More information about 1st Substitute S.B. 138 is available on the Legislature’s web site at http://le.utah.gov/~2007/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0138s01.htm. Also see “Statutes Imposing a Criminal Penalty for Violating a Rule, Part II” in this newsletter.

Questions about this legislation may be directed to Ken Hansen, Director, Division of Administrative Rules, 4120 State Office Building, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-1201, phone: 801-538-3777, FAX: 801-538-1773, or Internet E-mail: khansen “at” utah.gov.

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.

“Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses” Bill Numbered

Posted by on December 20, 2006 Comments Off

Rep. S. Clark’s “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses” bill has been numbered as H.B. 64. Questions about H.B. 64 may be directed to Ken Hansen (801-538-3777).

Small Business Impact Bill to Return in 2007 General Session

Posted by on September 20, 2006 Comments Off

At its meeting on Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the Business and Labor Interim Committee approved as a committee bill “Impact of Administrative Rules on Small Businesses.” This bill is essentially the same as S.B. 157 (2006) except that the committee decided to change the definition of small business from “businesses employing fewer than 50 persons” to “businesses employing fewer than 100 persons.” Rep. Stephen D. Clark will sponsor the bill.