RulesNews

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

The Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee (ARRC) met on October 23. Toward the end of the meeting (2:21:00 on the audio recording of the meeting), Rep. Ben Ferry announced that he had opened a bill file to address the criminal penalties issue. For background, see “Statutes Imposing a Criminal Penalty for Violating a Rule, Part II”. The ARRC’s efforts to

A draft version of the bill that will recodify Title 63 is now available. It was presented to the Government Operations Interim Committee on October 17. The bill text is available at http://le.utah.gov/interim/2007/html/00001745.htm. Do not plan to print this bill. It is 3,097 pages long — over 6 reams of paper. Audio of the committee presentation is available at http://le.utah.gov/ASP/Interim/Commit.asp?Year=2007&Com=INTGOC.

The Legislature is planning to recodify Title 63, State Affairs in General, during the 2008 General Session. The recodification will have an associated impact on the rules from almost every department. An analysis of the administrative rules in effect on 05/01/2007 shows that agencies will have to change 1,261 references to Title 63 that currently appear in rule. With the

At its July 18 meeting, the Government Operations Interim Committee discussed recodification of Utah Code Title 63. Title 63, State Affairs in General, is the title that contains the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Government Records Access and Management Act, to name a few. The proposal calls for these chapters to be moved to a

In 2005, the Administrative Rules Review Committee looked at statutes that authorized criminal penalties for violating a rule. Back then, the Committee decided that to tackle the issue in two parts. With input from agencies, the Committee identified those provisions for which the criminal penalties could be eliminated without creating major concern or disruption. This bill finally passed during the

Because of the changes made by H.B. 327, agencies must now pay close attention to the effective dates of legislation requiring rulemaking. For legislation effective 04/30/2007 that explicitly mandates rulemaking, agencies must file the implementing rules by 10/27/2007. If an agency is unable to make this deadline, it must then appear before the legislative Administrative Rules Review Committee to explain

To resolve ambiguity around the meaning of the word “requires” as it is used in the rulemaking act and H.B. 327, the Division amended Section R15-3-5. This amendment states: For the purposes of Subsection 63-46a-4(11), the phrase “statutory provision that requires the rulemaking” means a state statutory provision that explicitly mandates rulemaking. The amendment was published in the 03/15/2007, issue

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

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