---------------------------- Utah State Digest, Vol. 2017, No. 18 (September 15, 2017) ------------------------------------------------------------ UTAH STATE DIGEST Summary of the Contents of the Utah State Bulletin For information filed August 16, 2017, 12:00 AM through September 1, 2017, 11:59 PM Volume 2017, No. 18 September 15, 2017 Prepared by Office of Administrative Rules Department of Administrative Services The Utah State Digest (Digest) is an official electronic noticing publication of the executive branch of Utah state government. The Office of Administrative Rules, part of the Department of Administrative Services, produces the Digest under authority of Section 63G-3-402. The Digest is a summary of the information found in the Utah State Bulletin (Bulletin) of the same volume and issue number. The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this Bulletin issue is available at https://rules.utah.gov/publications/utah- state-bull/. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and other versions will be resolved in favor of the PDF version. 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: Office of Administrative Rules, PO Box 141007, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1007, telephone 801-538-3003. Additional rulemaking information and electronic versions of all administrative rule publications are available at https://rules.utah.gov/. The Digest is available free of charge online at https://rules.utah.gov/publications/utah-state-dig/ and by e-mail Listserv. ************************************************ Office 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 *********************************************** SPECIAL NOTICES Notice for October 2017 Medicaid Rate Changes - Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/sn159339.htm EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS Under authority granted by the Utah Constitution and various federal and state statutes, the Governor periodically issues Executive Documents, which can be categorized as either Executive Orders, Proclamations, and Declarations. Executive Orders set policy for the executive branch; create boards and commissions; provide for the transfer of authority; or otherwise interpret, implement, or give administrative effect to a provision of the Constitution, state law or executive policy. Proclamations call special or extraordinary legislative sessions; designate classes of cities; publish states-of-emergency; promulgate other official formal public announcements or functions; or publicly avow or cause certain matters of state government to be made generally known. Declarations designate special days, weeks or other time periods; call attention to or recognize people, groups, organizations, functions, or similar actions having a public purpose; or invoke specific legislative purposes (such as the declaration of an agricultural disaster). The Governor's Office staff files Executive Documents that have legal effect with the Office of Administrative Rules for publication and distribution. Calling the Sixty-Second Legislature Into the Fourth Extraordinary Session, Utah Proclamation No. 2017-4E - Cherilyn Bradford by phone at 801-538-1505, by FAX at 801-538-1528, or by Internet E-mail at Cbradford@utah.gov FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/execdocs/2017/ExecDoc159313.htm Wildland Fire Management, Utah Exec. Order No. 2017-8 - Ashlee Buchholz by phone at 801-538-1621, by FAX at 801-538-1528, or by Internet E-mail at Abuchholz@utah.gov FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/execdocs/2017/ExecDoc159340.htm NOTICES OF PROPOSED RULES A state agency may file a Proposed Rule when it determines the need for a substantive change to an existing rule. With a Notice of Proposed Rule, an agency may create a new rule, amend an existing rule, repeal an existing rule, or repeal an existing rule and reenact a new rule. Filings received between August 16, 2017, 12:00 a.m., and September 1, 2017, 11:59 p.m. are summarized in this, the September 15, 2017, issue of the Utah State Digest. The law requires that an agency accept public comment on Proposed Rules published in the September 15, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin until at least October 16, 2017 (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 January 13, 2018, the agency may notify the Office 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 Office of Administrative Rules does not receive a Notice of Effective Date or a Change in Proposed Rule, the Proposed Rule lapses. 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, R15-4-5a, R15-4-9, and R15-4-10. AGRICULTURE AND FOOD MARKETING AND DEVELOPMENT No. 42033 (New Rule): R65-13. Utah's Own. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The rule restricts membership to the Utah's Own program to businesses that grow, raise, produce, or process food or body care products within the state of Utah. It further explains the proper use of the Utah's Own logo which is made available to member of the program. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: The rule includes a membership fee that has been approved by the legislature. The approved fee is $25 for new members with a $50 annual fee being charged after the first year. It is anticipated that out of the 500 current members the the fee will generate around $12,500 for the program. The next year, if membership stays the same, the program anticipates at least $27,500 from the current members and $1,000 from new companies joining the program. Currently, the program sees a growth of 40 to 60 new companies each year. The money generated by the program will stay within the program. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: The Utah's Own program is run entirely by the Department of Agriculture and Food. There is no responsibility that would involve any local government. - SMALL BUSINESSES: There will be a cost of $25 the first year of membership to a small business with an annual fee of $50 for the life of their membership. Due to their membership in the Utah's Own program, the member company has the opportunity to use the Utah's Own logo and participate in the program's marketing campaigns. Since 2015, the program has created over 49,000,000 impressions in its marketing campaigns. Additionally, membership entitles a company a profile on the Utah's Own website, a website created to direct shoppers to local products. This website receives thousands of visits each month. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: The money generated from the fees will be used to promote member companies. There is a current demand for local products and the program is helping to market local companies by helping consumers locate and become familiar with these companies. Individuals who meet the criteria for membership will be subject to the same fee as any other small business and will be given the same benefits of using the Utah's Own logo and participating in the program's promotion and marketing opportunities. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: The cost of compliance is $25 for the first year and then an annual fee of $50 for as long as they would like to remain in the program. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: The Utah's Own program provides economic opportunities to our member companies. There will be an entry fee of $25 assessed to a new business and a $50 annual fee, but the benefits of the Utah's Own program will help mitigate the impacts of the membership fee. There is increased interest across the state in buying local. The Utah's Own program taps into the interests and connects consumers with companies. The program connects companies together so that they can discuss and share concerns and ask for advice. Membership in the Utah's Own program gives permission to use the Utah's Own logo which is becoming increasingly more well known throughout the state because of the marketing campaigns and promotions of the program. Additionally, membership in the Utah's Own program provides online marketing through posting a companies profile on the Utah's Own website which is used to allow consumers to find the local products they need. This website receives thousands of visitors each month raising the visibility of the companies with profiles. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Kathleen Mathews by phone at 801-538-7103, by FAX at 801-538-7126, or by Internet E-mail at kmathews@utah.gov - Melissa Ure by phone at 801-538-4976, or by Internet E-mail at mure@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42033.htm ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DRINKING WATER No. 42058 (Amendment): R309-300. Certification Rules for Water Supply Operators. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: In Section R309-300-3, remove the outdated information in the Extent of Coverage. In Section R309-300-4, remove the "specialist" definition. In Section R309-300-4, add those who passed the exam to the "operator" definition. In Sections R309-300-4 through R309-300- 19, remove every reference to specialist including the minimum qualifications for specialist to become unrestricted (Table 6). In Section R309-300-5, reference the IPS rule for failure to comply in subsections (5) and (10). In Subsection R309-300-7(1), remove the local health department exams and add 30-day policy for those who failed an exam. In Subsection R309-300-7(3), change from written notices to discussion for areas deficient in oral exams. In Subsections R309-300-8(4) and (5), remove the conversion requirement for operators and specialists. In Subsection R309-300-8(7), remove failure to remain in the waterworks field resulting in denial of renewal. In Section R309-300-13, remove the outdated population requirement for Grandparent Certificates. In Subsection R309-300-14(2), removes the outdated Continuing Education Unit (CEU) requirement for Grandparent Certificates. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: This change would cost the state budget $80 a year. During the 2017 Fiscal Year, four $20 conversion fees were paid to the Division of Drinking Water (DDW), totaling $80 (4 X 20 = $80). This will save the state on staff time spent on processing the applications and corresponding with customers who submitted the conversion instead of renewal. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to local governments because it does not affect them. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - SMALL BUSINESSES: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to local governments because it does not affect them. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: The specialists who do report that they no longer work for a water system will save $20 on the conversion fee. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: The proposed amendment imposes no compliance costs on anyone. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: The proposed amendment would not result in a fiscal impact to businesses because it does not affect any business; it only affects operational procedures within DDW. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Dawnie Jacobo by phone at 801-536-4217, by FAX at 801-536-4211, or by Internet E-mail at dmjacobo@utah.gov - Kim Dyches by phone at 801-536-4202, or by Internet E-mail at kdyches@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42058.htm No. 42052 (Amendment): R309-500. Facility Design and Operation: Plan Review, Operation and Maintenance Requirements. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: Primarily, the proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement for water systems with Approved Standard Installation Drawings and Specifications to obtain Plan Submittal Waivers, individually or at year’s end, from the Division for the installation of water lines. Instead, it would allow a water system with Approved Standard Installation Drawings and Specifications to install water lines up to and including 16-inches in diameter for a five-year period without any further interaction with the Division. The proposed amendment also makes minor revisions to the rule by eliminating redundant requirements, providing additional examples of public drinking water projects, providing an additional example of operation and maintenance, clarifying some plan submittal requirements, reordering some requirements, renumbering some paragraphs, and eliminating the term Plan Submittal Waivers. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to the state budget. Although the amendment is expected to reduce the amount of time that the Division of Drinking Water spends reviewing plans and specifications for water line projects, the time saved would be reallocated to the review of other kinds of drinking water facilities. Therefore, it would not result in a reduction in the number of full time employees needed for plan review. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost to local governments and minor savings to a subset of local governments that own or operate public water systems and have obtained Approved Standard Installation Drawings and Specifications to install water lines. These local governments would save time and money by not submitting plans and specifications to the Division of Drinking Water and by not obtaining Plan Approval, an Operating Permit, or a Plan Submittal Waiver from the Division. The savings to a properly qualified public water system is estimated to be $150 per eligible water line project. Since May of 2014, such water systems have submitted an average of 48 Plan Submittal Waiver requests per year. Therefore, the aggregate savings per year for public water systems is estimated to be $7,200 ($150 times 48). - SMALL BUSINESSES: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to small businesses. The amendment applies only to public water systems and is anticipated to provide minor savings only to certain public water systems. Small businesses that operate their own public water systems do not typically install the number of water lines that would make Approved Standard Installation Drawings useful. Small businesses that are customers of public water systems are unlikely to see any savings as a result of the amendment because of the small savings that the water systems themselves would realize. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: In aggregate, persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities are anticipated to see no cost or savings as a result of the proposed amendment. Although the proposed amendment is anticipated to provide a small savings to certain public water systems, it wouldn’t be worth a water system’s time to calculate the insignificant savings per customer and to pass on that savings. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: The proposed amendment directly affects public water systems and indirectly affects its customers. It is anticipated to have no additional compliance costs because no additional regulations are being imposed by the amendment. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that the proposed amendment would not result in a fiscal impact to businesses. The proposed amendment would impose no costs upon businesses. Theoretically, a business that was supplied water from a public water system with Approved Standard Installation Drawings to install water lines would realize a small savings in its water bill. However, the savings would probably be so small that it would not be worthwhile for the water system to calculate the savings per customer and to pass it on. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that in such circumstances the proposed amendment would not result in a fiscal impact to businesses. The savings to a properly qualified public water system are estimated to be $150 per eligible water line project. Since May of 2014, such water systems have submitted an average of 48 Plan Submittal Waiver requests per year. Therefore, the aggregate savings per year for public water systems are estimated to be $7,200 ($150 times 48). INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Bernie Clark by phone at 801-536-0092, or by Internet E-mail at bernieclark@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42052.htm No. 42056 (Amendment): R309-600-8. DWSP Plan Review. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The proposed amendment would allow the Director to authorize the designated the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Source Protection Manager to "concur" and "concur with recommendations" with DWSP plans submitted by public water systems to DDW for review. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to the state budget because it does not affect the state budget. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to local governments because it does not affect them. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - SMALL BUSINESSES: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to small businesses because it does not affect them. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities because it does not affect such persons. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: The proposed amendment imposes no compliance costs on anyone. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: The proposed amendment would not result in a fiscal impact to businesses because it does not affect any business; it only affects operational procedures within DDW. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Melissa Noble by phone at 801-536-4224, or by Internet E-mail at mnoble@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42056.htm No. 42057 (Amendment): R309-605-7. Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP) for Surface Sources. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The proposed amendment would allow the Director to authorize the designated the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Source Protection Manager to "concur" with DWSP plans submitted by public water systems to DDW for review. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to the state budget because it does not affect the state budget. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to local governments because it does not affect them. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - SMALL BUSINESSES: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to small businesses because it does not affect them. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: In aggregate, the proposed amendment is anticipated to have no cost or savings to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local government entities because it does not affect such persons. It only affects operational procedures within DDW. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: The proposed amendment imposes no compliance costs on anyone. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: The proposed amendment would not result in a fiscal impact to businesses because it does not affect any business; it only affects operational procedures within the Division of Drinking Water. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Melissa Noble by phone at 801-536-4224, or by Internet E-mail at mnoble@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42057.htm WATER QUALITY No. 42053 (Amendment): R317-1-8. Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: A new Expedited Settlement Offer (ESO) is created for assessing penalties when violations of the Water Quality Act meet the defined criteria described in the new Subsection R317-1-8(8.6). ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: Utilizing the ESO will likely result in cost savings within the Division of Water Quality due to efficiencies gained through the expedited enforcement process. Actual dollars saved will depend upon the number and type of violations incurred and enforcement actions processed. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: As a result of this rule amendment, expedited enforcement actions administered by the Division of Water Quality to local governmental entities could result in a 40% cost savings in penalties assessed to resolve violations when compared to the previous settlement options. - SMALL BUSINESSES: As a result of this rule amendment, expedited enforcement actions administered by the Division of Water Quality to small businesses could result in a 40% cost savings in penalties assessed to resolve violations when compared to the previous settlement options. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: As a result of this rule amendment, expedited enforcement actions administered by the Division of Water Quality to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities could result in a 40% cost savings in penalties assessed to resolve violations when compared to the previous settlement options. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: Compliance costs for affected persons may be approximately 40% less by using the new Expedited Settlement Offer than if a traditional enforcement action is filed against them. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: When a business qualifies for the new Expedited Settlement Offer, it can save time and money since there are reduced penalty assessments and they would not incur legal costs and fees that may be associated with negotiations of a traditional enforcement action and notice of violation. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Kim Shelley by phone at 801-536-4385, by FAX at 801-536-4301, or by Internet E-mail at kshelley@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 12/01/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42053.htm GOVERNOR CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE (STATE COMMISSION ON) No. 42055 (New Rule): R356-4. Juvenile Confinement. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: This rule transfers adult jail and lockup certification authority from Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) to the State Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) and replaces Rule R547-3, Juvenile Jail Standards, and Rule R547-7, Juvenile Holding Room Standards. (EDITOR'S NOTE: A corresponding 120-day (emergency) filing for Rule R356-4 that is effective as of 09/10/2017 is under Filing No. 42054 in this issue, September 15, 2017, of the Bulletin.) ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: After conducting a thorough analysis, there will be no impact to the state budget. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: After conducting a thorough analysis, there will be no impact to local government. - SMALL BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, there will be no impact to small businesses. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: There will not be any other persons affected by the new rule. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: CCJJ will pay for any administrative costs out of existing budgets. This includes an allocation for compliance monitoring and the Juvenile Jail Removal Program. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Darien Hickey by phone at 801-538-1754, or by Internet E-mail at dhickey@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42055.htm HEALTH HEALTH CARE FINANCING, COVERAGE AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICY No. 42049 (Repeal): R414-99. Chiropractic Services. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: This rule is repealed in its entirety. Existing policies for chiropractic services will be moved to the Child Health Evaluation and Care (CHEC) Provider Manual and to the Extended Services for Pregnant Women section of the Physician Services Provider Manual. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: There is no impact to the state budget because this rule repeal only moves existing policy from one provider manual to other provider manuals. It neither affects service coverage to Medicaid members nor reimbursement to Medicaid providers. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: There is no budget impact to local governments because they do not fund chiropractic services under the Medicaid program. - SMALL BUSINESSES: There is no impact to small businesses because this rule repeal only moves existing policy from one provider manual to other provider manuals. It neither affects service coverage to Medicaid members nor reimbursement to Medicaid providers. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: There is no impact to Medicaid providers or to Medicaid members because this rule repeal only moves existing policy from one provider manual to other provider manuals. It neither affects service coverage nor provider reimbursement. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: There are no compliance costs to a single Medicaid provider or to a Medicaid member because this rule repeal only moves existing policy from one provider manual to other provider manuals. It neither affects service coverage nor provider reimbursement. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42049.htm No. 42050 (Amendment): R414-504-3. Principles of Facility Case Mix Rates and Other Payments. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: This amendment updates and clarifies Medicaid policy in relation to a nursing facility's response to a request for information. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: There is no impact to the state budget because this change only clarifies Medicaid policy in relation to nursing facilities. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: There is no budget impact to local governments because this change only clarifies Medicaid policy in relation to nursing facilities. - SMALL BUSINESSES: There is no impact to small businesses because this change only clarifies Medicaid policy in relation to nursing facilities. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: There is no impact to Medicaid providers or to Medicaid members because this change only clarifies Medicaid policy in relation to nursing facilities. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: There are no compliance costs to a single Medicaid provider or to a Medicaid member because this change only clarifies Medicaid policy in relation to nursing facilities. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 11/01/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42050.htm No. 42051 (New Rule): R414-517. Inpatient Hospital Provider Assessments. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: This rule implements provisions of the Inpatient Hospital Assessment Act (IHAA), and includes details and procedures for administrative purposes. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: There is no impact to the state budget because appropriations have already been allocated for implementation through the IHAA. This rule also implements certain procedures without additional administrative costs. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: There is no budget impact to local governments because they do not reimburse hospital providers under the Medicaid program. - SMALL BUSINESSES: There is no impact to small businesses because appropriations have already been allocated for implementation through the IHAA. This rule also implements certain procedures without additional administrative costs. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: There is no impact to Medicaid providers because appropriations have already been allocated for implementation through the IHAA. This rule also implements certain procedures without additional administrative costs, and Medicaid members do not incur further expenses. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: There are no compliance costs to a single Medicaid provider because appropriations have already been allocated for implementation through the IHAA. This rule also implements certain procedures without additional administrative costs, and a single Medicaid member does not incur further expenses. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 11/01/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42051.htm HUMAN SERVICES SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH No. 42042 (New Rule): R523-15. Drug Testing Requirements. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The rule: 1) defines a drug screen, drug test, confirmation test, and participants; 2) requires all agencies receiving public funds to provide substance use treatment, to have written policies and procedures on drug testing, and a requirement to allow review of those policies and procedures by the Division; 3) requires agencies to notify participants of: the purpose of a drug screen, who will have access to results, the potential consequence of testing positive, and their right to request confirmation testing; 4) requires testing methodologies to meet the scientific standards developed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 5) establishes testing frequencies; 6) sets cut-off levels; 7) prescribes requirements for positive results; 8) prescribes sanctions; 9) requires agencies to not bill for confirmation tests that are returned as negative; 10) recommends that duplicate drug testing among the Department of Human Services' divisions should be avoided; 11) recommends addition methods to fully monitor treatment compliance; and 12) recommends the use of Medication Assisted Treatment. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: This rule has existed as a Division directive for many years. Recent discussions within the Division have led to a decision to move this directive into rule because the directive is mainly designed to give guidance to the publicly-funded agencies with whom the Division contracts for substance use and mental health services. Over the past couple of years, the Division has been legislatively directed to interact more fully with private treatment providers with the passage of H.B. 348, also known as the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), in the 2015 General Session, and H.B. 259 in the 2016 General Session. These bills in part require the Division, to establish minimum standards for the treatment of substance use disorders that would apply to all treatment providers regardless of public or private funding sources. Drug testing criteria is part of those standards that have been created and it seems more logical to create a rule that would apply to all agencies rather than refer non-contracted private agencies to a directive that is more applicable to publicly funded programs. This requirement is already in force and monitoring for compliance remains within current funding and will not impact future budgets. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: No costs are associated with this rule other than those that already exist from the initial establishment of the Division directive on drug testing. Local governments have been complying with the standards set forth in this rule for many years, and their budgets are already established around the anticipated costs of drug testing in each fiscal year. - SMALL BUSINESSES: It is anticipated that some small businesses will have costs associated with the implementation of this rule. The Division surveyed 70 small businesses that would be required to comply with this rule. Of the 70 contacted, 13 responded to the request for information. Ten agencies or 77% of the agencies responding claimed no cost associated with the conditions of this rule. The following is a list of the potential cost identified by the other 23% of respondents: one agency claimed a $50 cost increase every month; one agency claimed a onetime cost to bring charge of custody into compliance and a $0.55 cost increase for 320 tests, which will effect 213 people; and one agency claimed an increase cost of $50 per client at $20,000 per year. The Division acknowledges at least 23% of the small businesses that will be required to comply with this rule will have a cost increase between $0.55 and $50 per client per month. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: This rule may cause a person receiving services from 23% of the small businesses providing services to justice involved individuals to have a possible cost of $0.55 to $50 passed on to them or their insurance, if the agency they receive treatment from is not able to absorb the increase in compliance costs to their operating costs. The size of the potentially affected population can be at least as large as 30,099 individuals. This number was derived from the Key JRI Quarterly Performance Measures created by the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. This number represents all felony and class A and B misdemeanors filed in district and justice courts, where the charge is alcohol or drug relate, with FY 2016 as the time frame. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: A firm compliance cost cannot be provided, but there is a potential that at least 23% of all affected persons would have to pay up to $50 per month, $600 per year, in compliance costs. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this proposed rule will result in a fiscal impact to businesses. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Thomas Dunford by phone at 801-538-4181, by FAX at 801-538-4696, or by Internet E-mail at tdunford@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42042.htm INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION No. 42041 (New Rule): R590-275. Qualified Health Plan Alternate Enrollment. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The rule establishes a state-directed process for the purpose of defining the hierarchy when an issuer leaves the individual Federal Marketplace as provided in 45 CFR 155.335(j)(3). Failure of the state to direct the alternate enrollment process will result in Utah enrollees' plan enrollments being directed by a default federal hierarchy. (EDITOR'S NOTE: A corresponding 120-day (emergency) filing for Rule R590-275 that is effective as of 08/24/2017 is under Filing No. 42038 in this issue, September 15, 2017, of the Bulletin.) ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state budget. This rule does not affect the workload or budget of the state. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: There is no anticipated cost or savings to local governments. This rule does not affect the workloads or budgets of local governments. - SMALL BUSINESSES: While the rule itself does not have direct cost or savings to small businesses, there is a potential cost to small businesses who are health care providers that contract with an issuer who will no longer offer a qualified health plan on the individual Federal Exchange. Such small businesses may see a decrease in patients. The Department of Insurance is unable to determine the potential decrease due to other underlying factors, including an enrollee's ability to switch to another plan that offers the same provider network; or in cases where the plan assigned by the alternate enrollment process may include the enrollee's current health care providers. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: While the rule does not have direct cost or savings to any individual, partnership, association, government entity, or public organization, it may affect a corporation or private organization that offers health insurance based on the use of a state-defined process rather than defaulting to the federal process. The cost or savings cannot be calculated at this time because it is not known which individuals will enroll in the default plan based on the rule's hierarchy; nor is it possible to know the health status of those individuals. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: There are no compliance costs for any affected persons as a result of this rule. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: I. WHETHER A FISCAL IMPACT TO BUSINESS IS EXPECTED AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND, IF SO, A DESCRIPTION OF WHY: While the rule does not have a direct cost or savings to any individual, partnership, association, government entity, or public organization, it may affect a corporation or private organization that offers health insurance based on the use of a state-defined process rather than defaulting to the federal process. The cost or savings cannot be calculated at this time because it is not known which individuals will enroll in the default plan based on the rule's hierarchy; nor is it possible to know the health status of those individuals. Because the rule establishes a process to assign businesses, there is a potential cost to small businesses who are health care providers that contract with an issuer who will no longer offer a qualified health plan on the individual Federal Exchange; such small businesses may see a decrease in patients. The Department is unable to determine the potential decrease due to other underlying factors, including an enrollee's ability to switch to another plan that offers the same provider network; or in cases where the plan assigned by the alternate enrollment process may include the enrollee's current health care providers. II. AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED: The Department is unable to determine the number of business establishments in Utah that may be affected by this rule. This rule may have an indirect impact on a portion of Utah's healthcare system, including physicians, clinics, health care facilities, and pharmacies, if an enrollee fails to select a new plan that includes their current health care providers. It is unknown how many enrollees will select which plans. III. AN ESTIMATE OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED: The Department is unable to determine the number of business establishments in Utah that may be affected by this rule. This rule may have an indirect impact on a portion of Utah's healthcare system, including physicians, clinics, health care facilities, and pharmacies, if an enrollee fails to select a new plan that includes their current health care providers. It is unknown how many enrollees will select which plans. IV. A DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCES OF COST OR SAVINGS AS WELL AS THE EXPECTED NET SAVINGS OR COST TO BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS AND SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED RULE OVER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, IDENTIFYING ONE-TIME AND ONGOING COSTS: The Department is unable to determine the number of business establishments in Utah that may be affected by this rule. This rule may have an indirect impact on a portion of Utah's healthcare system, including physicians, clinics, health care facilities, and pharmacies, if an enrollee fails to select a new plan that includes their current health care providers. It is unknown how many enrollees will select which plans. V. DEPARTMENT HEAD'S COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS: When possible, Utah's leadership has always chosen to invoke the state's right to define processes required by the Affordable Care Act. In the past, the state has chosen its own Essential Health Benefit Plan, selected to run a SHOP Exchange, chosen not to expand Medicaid, and selected to perform plan management review, amongst other things. This rule invokes the state's right to define the alternate enrollment hierarchy based on the Utah marketplace. This rule preserves private competition in the marketplace, rather than federal assignment. INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 10/16/2017 DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Steve Gooch by phone at 801-538-3803, by FAX at 801-538-3829, or by Internet E-mail at sgooch@utah.gov THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON: 10/23/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42041.htm NOTICES OF 120-DAY (EMERGENCY) RULES An agency may file a 120-Day (Emergency) Rule when it finds that the regular rulemaking procedures would: (a) cause an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare; (b) cause an imminent budget reduction because of budget restraints or federal requirements; or (c) place the agency in violation of federal or state law (Subsection 63G- 3-304(1)). A 120-Day Rule is effective when filed with the Office of Administrative Rules, or on a later date designated by the agency. A 120-Day Rule is effective for 120 days or until it is superseded by a permanent rule. Because of its temporary nature, a 120-Day Rule is not codified as part of the Utah Administrative Code. The law does not require a public comment period for 120-Day Rules. However, when an agency files a 120-Day Rule, it may file a Proposed Rule at the same time, to make the requirements permanent. Emergency or 120-Day Rules are governed by Section 63G-3-304, and Section R15-4-8. GOVERNOR CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE JUSTICE (STATE COMMISSION ON) No. 42054 (Emergency Rule): R356-4. Juvenile Confinement. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: This rule transfers adult jail and lockup certification authority from Juvenile Justice Services (JJS) to the State Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ) and replaces Rule R547-3, Juvenile Jail Standards, and Rule R547-7, Juvenile Holding Room Standards. (EDITOR'S NOTE: A corresponding proposed new Rule R356-4 is under Filing No. 42055 in this issue, September 15, 2017, of the Bulletin.) EMERGENCY RULE REASON AND JUSTIFICATION: REGULAR RULEMAKING PROCEDURES WOULD place the agency in violation of federal or state law. JUSTIFICATION: Without this rule, the state of Utah may be in violation of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), as amended in 2002. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: After conducting a thorough analysis, there will be no impact to the state budget. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: After conducting a thorough analysis, there will be no impact to local government. - SMALL BUSINESSES: After conducting a thorough analysis, there will be no impact to small businesses. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: After conducting a thorough analysis, there will not be any other persons affected by the new rule. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: CCJJ will pay for any administrative costs out of existing budgets. This includes an allocation for compliance monitoring and for the Juvenile Jail Removal Program. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: After conducting on a thorough analysis, it was determined that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Darien Hickey by phone at 801-538-1754, or by Internet E-mail at dhickey@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 09/01/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42054.htm INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION No. 42038 (Emergency Rule): R590-275. Qualified Health Plan Alternate Enrollment. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The rule establishes a state-directed process for the purpose of defining the hierarchy when an issuer leaves the individual Federal Marketplace as provided in 45 CFR 155.335(j)(3). Failure for a state to direct the alternate enrollment process will result in Utah enrollees' plan enrollments being directed by a default federal hierarchy. (EDITOR'S NOTE: The corresponding proposed new Rule R590-275 is under Filing No. 42041 in this issue, September 15, 2017, of the Bulletin.) EMERGENCY RULE REASON AND JUSTIFICATION: REGULAR RULEMAKING PROCEDURES WOULD cause an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare. JUSTIFICATION: On 08/02/2017, Molina Healthcare of Utah (Molina) announced it would no longer offer qualified health plans on the individual Federal Exchange as of 01/01/2018; this action leaves only two insurers on the Federal Exchange for 2018. It is estimated that Molina has about 40% of the enrollees who purchased their coverage on the Federal Exchange. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) enacted an alternate enrollment hierarchy for enrollees whose plans will not be made available in the following plan year, but it also provides for a state-directed hierarchy. The Department of Insurance (Department) did not have a need to define such a hierarchy until the announcement was made by Molina in August. Once the Department was able to determine that the federal hierarchy was at odds with Utah's defined terms for network plans, the Department worked quickly to identify what type of hierarchy could be established. During this shortened process, the Department met with various stakeholders and carefully considered the process that would provide the greatest consumer protection, while preserving market competition. Utah must define the state hierarchy no later than 09/01/2017. However, the Department did not receive answers to all of the questions posed to HHS until 08/24/2017. Failure to enact a state hierarchy will further erode Utah's ability to regulate Utah's insurance markets, disrupt the core of private market competition, and cause imminent peril to the public's ability to address their own healthcare needs. The emergency rule must be made in order to meet the 09/01/2017 deadline. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state budget. This rule does not affect the workload or budget of the state. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: There is no anticipated cost or savings to local governments. This rule does not affect the workloads or budgets of local governments. - SMALL BUSINESSES: While the rule itself does not have direct cost or savings to small businesses, there is a potential cost to small businesses who are health care providers that contract with an issuer who will no longer offer a qualified health plan on the individual Federal Exchange. Such small businesses may see a decrease in patients. The Department is unable to determine the potential decrease due to other underlying factors, including an enrollee's ability to switch to another plan that offers the same provider network; or in cases where the plan assigned by the alternate enrollment process may include the enrollee's current health care providers. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: While the rule does not have direct cost or savings to any individual, partnership, association, government entity, or public organization, it may affect a corporation or private organization that offers health insurance based on the use of a state-defined process rather than defaulting to the federal process. The cost or savings cannot be calculated at this time because it is not known which individuals will enroll in the default plan based on the rule's hierarchy; nor is it possible to know the health status of those individuals. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: There are no compliance costs for any affected persons as a result of this rule. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: I. WHETHER A FISCAL IMPACT TO BUSINESS IS EXPECTED AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED RULE AND, IF SO, A DESCRIPTION OF WHY: While the rule does not have a direct cost or savings to any individual, partnership, association, government entity, or public organization, it may affect a corporation or private organization that offers health insurance based on the use of a state-defined process rather than defaulting to the federal process. The cost or savings cannot be calculated at this time because it is not known which individuals will enroll in the default plan based on the rule's hierarchy; nor is it possible to know the health status of those individuals. Because the rule establishes a process to assign businesses, there is a potential cost to small businesses who are health care providers that contract with an issuer who will no longer offer a qualified health plan on the individual Federal Exchange; such small businesses may see a decrease in patients. The Department is unable to determine the potential decrease due to other underlying factors, including an enrollee's ability to switch to another plan that offers the same provider network; or in cases where the plan assigned by the alternate enrollment process may include the enrollee's current health care providers. II: AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED: The Department is unable to determine the number of business establishments in Utah that may be affected by this rule. This rule may have an indirect impact on a portion of Utah's healthcare system, including physicians, clinics, health care facilities, and pharmacies, if an enrollee fails to select a new plan that includes their current health care providers. It is unknown how many enrollees will select which plans. III: AN ESTIMATE OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED: The Department is unable to determine the number of business establishments in Utah that may be affected by this rule. This rule may have an indirect impact on a portion of Utah's healthcare system, including physicians, clinics, health care facilities, and pharmacies, if an enrollee fails to select a new plan that includes their current health care providers. It is unknown how many enrollees will select which plans. IV. A DESCRIPTION OF THE SOURCES OF COST OR SAVINGS AS WELL AS THE EXPECTED NET SAVINGS OR COST TO BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS AND SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED RULE OVER A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, IDENTIFYING ONE-TIME AND ONGOING COSTS: The Department is unable to determine the number of business establishments in Utah that may be affected by this rule. This rule may have an indirect impact on a portion of Utah's healthcare system, including physicians, clinics, health care facilities, and pharmacies, if an enrollee fails to select a new plan that includes their current health care providers. It is unknown how many enrollees will select which plans. V. DEPARTMENT HEAD'S COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS: When possible, Utah's leadership has always chosen to invoke the state's right to define processes required by the Affordable Care Act. In the past, the state has chosen its own Essential Health Benefit Plan, selected to run a SHOP Exchange, chosen not to expand Medicaid, and selected to perform plan management review, amongst other things. This rule invokes the state's right to define the alternate enrollment hierarchy based on the Utah marketplace. This rule preserves private competition in the marketplace, rather than federal assignment. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Steve Gooch by phone at 801-538-3803, by FAX at 801-538-3829, or by Internet E-mail at sgooch@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/24/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42038.htm NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE RESOURCES No. 42031 (Emergency Rule): R657-19. Taking Nongame Mammals. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The proposed revisions to this rule make it consistent with new guidelines issued by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service in regards to the management of Utah Prairie Dogs. (EDITOR'S NOTE: The 120-day (emergency) filing for Rule R657-70 that is effective as of 08/17/2017 is under Filing No. 42032 in this issue, September 15, 2017, of the Bulletin.) EMERGENCY RULE REASON AND JUSTIFICATION: REGULAR RULEMAKING PROCEDURES WOULD place the agency in violation of federal or state law. JUSTIFICATION: The Utah Prairie Dog is listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, and its management has been the subject of ongoing litigation in the case People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. and Friends of Animals (Case No. 2:13- cv-00278). In November 2014, Judge Dee Benson issued a decision declaring that the species could not be listed under the Endangered Species Act on non- federal lands, and as such the State of Utah held management authority in those circumstances. This prompted the development of a specific rule for management of Utah prairie dogs (Rule R657-70) and modification of the Division of Wildlife Resources' nongame rule (Rule R657-19). The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the district court decision returning full management authority to the federal government. As some provisions of Rule R657-70 may violate terms of the Endangered Species Act, repealing that rule is necessary. Rule R657-19 will largely be restored to the format it was in prior to the issuance of the district court decision, with two substantive changes: one in Subsection R657-19-7(5) and one in Subsection R657-19-7(6). These changes are necessary to be consistent with the federal rules regulating the taking of Utah Prairie Dogs. The first specifies the dates of allowable taking for Utah Prairie Dogs, and the second specifies the totals for range-wide take of Utah Prairie Dogs. The remaining differences between this version of Rule R657-19 and its format prior to the issuance of the district court decision are nonsubstantive, i.e. changes in zip codes, but are necessary to ensure proper administration of the rule and associated permits. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal laws. The Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) determines that this emergency rule will not create any cost or savings impact to the state budget or DWR's budget, and all changes in workload can be carried out within their existing budget, however changes to federal Law may have a financial impact which is unknown at this time. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal laws. While this emergency rule alone does not create any direct cost impact to local governments, it is anticipated that the transition to federal management authority mandated by the district court decision may increase costs and burdens on local government. - SMALL BUSINESSES: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal rules. While the emergency rule alone does not create any direct cost impact to small businesses, it is anticipated that the transition to federal management authority necessitating the emergency rule may increase costs and burdens on local governments and citizens affected by Utah Prairie Dogs. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal rules. While the emergency rule alone does not create any direct cost impact to other persons, it is anticipated that the transition to federal management authority necessitating the emergency rule may increase costs and burdens on local governments and citizens affected by Utah Prairie Dogs. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: The federal management authority has oversight and costs for federal compliance is unknown at this time. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: The federal management authority has oversight and costs for federal compliance is unknown at this time. 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: 08/17/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42031.htm No. 42032 (Emergency Rule): R657-70. Taking Utah Prairie Dogs. SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE: The proposed revisions to this rule make it consistent with new guidelines issued by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service in regards to the management of Utah Prairie Dogs. (EDITOR'S NOTE: The 120-day (emergency) filing for Rule R657-19 that is effective as of 08/17/2017 is under Filing No. 42031 in this issue, September 15, 2017, of the Bulletin.) EMERGENCY RULE REASON AND JUSTIFICATION: REGULAR RULEMAKING PROCEDURES WOULD place the agency in violation of federal or state law. JUSTIFICATION: The Utah Prairie Dog is listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, and its management has been the subject of ongoing litigation in the case People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. and Friends of Animals (Case No. 2:13- cv-00278). In November 2014, Judge Dee Benson issued a decision declaring that the species could not be listed under the Endangered Species Act on non- federal lands, and as such the State of Utah held management authority in those circumstances. This prompted the development of a specific rule for management of the Utah Prairie Dog (Rule R657-70) and modification of the Division of Wildlife Resources' nongame rule (Rule R657-19). The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned the district court decision, returning full management authority to the federal government. As some provisions of Rule R657-70 may violate terms of the Endangered Species Act, repealing the rule is necessary. Rule R657-19 will largely be restored to the format it was in prior to the issuance of the district court decision, with two substantive changes: one in Subsection R657-19-7(5) and one in Subsection R657-19-7(6). These changes are necessary to be consistent with the federal rules regulating the taking of Utah Prairie Dogs. The first specifies the dates of allowable take for Utah Prairie Dogs, and the second specifies the totals for range-wide take of Utah Prairie Dogs. The remaining differences between this version of Rule R657-19 and its format prior to the issuance of the district court decision are nonsubstantive, i.e. changes in zip codes, but are necessary to ensure proper administration of the rule and associated permits. ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO: - THE STATE BUDGET: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal laws. The Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) determines that this emergency rule will not create any cost or savings impact to the state budget or DWR's budget, and all changes in workload can be carried out within their existing budget, however changes to Federal Law may have a financial impact which is unknown at this time. - LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal laws. While the emergency rule alone does not create any direct cost impact to local governments, it is anticipated that the transition to federal management authority mandated by the district court decision may increase costs and burdens on local government. - SMALL BUSINESSES: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal rules. While the emergency rule alone does not create any direct cost impact to small businesses, it is anticipated that the transition to federal management authority necessitating the emergency rule may increase costs and burdens on local governments and citizens affected by Utah Prairie Dogs. - PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES: The emergency rule is necessary to align the state rule to a recent court decision and applicable federal rules. While the emergency rule alone does not create any direct cost impact to other persons, it is anticipated that the transition to federal management authority necessitating the emergency rule may increase costs and burdens on local governments and citizens affected by Utah Prairie Dogs. COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS: The federal management authority has oversight and costs for federal compliance is unknown at this time. COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON BUSINESSES: The federal management authority has oversight and costs for federal compliance is unknown at this time. 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: 08/17/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42032.htm 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 help the agency determine, and to notify the public that, the administrative rule in force is still authorized by statute and necessary. Upon reviewing a rule, an agency may: repeal the rule by filing a Proposed Rule; continue the rule as it is by filing a Five-Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation (Review); or amend the rule by filing a Proposed Rule and by filing a Review. By filing a Review, the agency indicates that the rule is still necessary. The rule text that is being continued may be found in the online edition of the Utah Administrative Code at https://rules.utah.gov/publications/utah-adm- code/. The rule text may also be inspected at the agency or the Office of Administrative Rules. Reviews are effective upon filing. Reviews are governed by Section 63G-3-305. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER QUALITY No. 42048 (5-year Review): R317-1. Definitions and General Requirements. 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 provides definitions and general requirements for implementation of the Utah Water Quality Act. It is central to the implementation of the Act, in that it provides the general framework for control of water pollution, including the requirements for construction permits, compliance with state Water Quality Standards, and requirements for waste discharges. Section R317-1-7 defines which waterbodies have TMDL determinations completed for them and adopts by reference the limits and recommendations contained therein. Incorporating TMDLs into rule by reference is important for implementing pollution controls and attaining water quality standards including the regulatory requirements set forth in stormwater and wastewater discharge permits and voluntary implementation of best management practices for nonpoint sources of pollution. Section R317-1-10 is required by Section 19-5-105.3 and provides a clear and consistent process for the Division to engage in independent scientific review. Therefore, this rule should be continued. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Judy Etherington by phone at 801-536-4344, by FAX at 801-536-4301, or by Internet E-mail at jetherington@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/30/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42048.htm HEALTH HEALTH CARE FINANCING, COVERAGE AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICY No. 42046 (5-year Review): R414-2B. Inpatient Intensive Physical Rehabilitation Services. 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 will continue this rule because it implements inpatient intensive physical rehabilitation services for Medicaid members as described in the Hospital Services Provider Manual and in the Medicaid State Plan. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/29/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42046.htm No. 42036 (5-year Review): R414-29. Client Review/Education and Restriction Policy. REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY: In its response, the Department emphasized that verbal requests are only "requests" and not verbal "changes". The Department still maintains notes in the Medicaid Managed Care System (MMCS) to record requests and actions by case workers. In addition, the case worker is required to evaluate and investigate circumstances surrounding the request and to make a decision as to the appropriateness of the change. The Department also emphasized that the requirement for written requests may present access-to-care problems that a simple member phone call would prevent. The Department further stated that the emergency changes proposed by OIG are actually too lenient and provide even less control over pharmacies by allowing pharmacies to provide an emergency three-day supply of any prescription at any time, thus giving pharmacies more latitude in dispensing drugs. OIG was satisfied with the Department's response and did not pursue the suggested changes. Regardless, the Department filed a change to the proposed rule in 2013 to clarify restriction policies and procedures based on the Department's own internal review. The Department will continue this rule because it implements a restriction program for Medicaid members who overutilize Medicaid services, and allows the Department to provide cost effective and medically necessary services to all Medicaid members. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/22/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42036.htm No. 42037 (5-year Review): R414-70. Medical Supplies, Durable Medical Equipment, and Prosthetic Devices. 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 will continue this rule because it implements policy for Medicaid members to receive medical supplies, DME, and prosthetic devices as either optional services, mandatory services, or services provided in long- term care facilities. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Craig Devashrayee by phone at 801-538-6641, by FAX at 801-538-6099, or by Internet E-mail at cdevashrayee@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/22/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42037.htm INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION No. 42034 (5-year Review): R590-96. Rule to Recognize New Annuity Mortality Tables for Use in Determining Reserve Liabilities for Annuities. 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 because it sets reserving standards. In the absence of the rule, an insurer would be able to hold lower, inadequate reserves that could result in the insolvency of the insurance company. Therefore, this rule should be continued. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Steve Gooch by phone at 801-538-3803, by FAX at 801-538-3829, or by Internet E-mail at sgooch@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/18/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42034.htm No. 42035 (5-year Review): R590-216. Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information. 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 implements the requirements of federal law regarding the disclosure of nonpublic personal information. It establishes standards applicable to department licensees to assist them in developing and implementing administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of customer information. As long as the federal law regarding the privacy of non-public personal information is in force, and as long as the insurance industry continues to collect this type of information regarding their customers, this rule will be necessary. Therefore, this rule should be continued. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Steve Gooch by phone at 801-538-3803, by FAX at 801-538-3829, or by Internet E-mail at sgooch@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/18/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42035.htm NATURAL RESOURCES PARKS AND RECREATION No. 42045 (5-year Review): R651-227. Boating Safety Course Fees. REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY: Boating safety course fees are a necessity to defray the cost of the course. Therefore, this rule should be continued. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Tammy Wright by phone at 801-538-7359, by FAX at 801-538-7378, or by Internet E-mail at tammywright@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/28/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42045.htm FORESTRY, FIRE AND STATE LANDS No. 42044 (5-year Review): R652-121. Wildland Fire Suppression Fund. 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 essential for the continued statutory application of the Wildland Fire Suppression Fund and the health of the Wildland Fire Program. Therefore, this rule should be continued. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Jamie Phillips-Barnes by phone at 801-538-5421, by FAX at 801-533-4111, or by Internet E-mail at jamiebarnes@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/28/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42044.htm NOTICES OF FIVE-YEAR REVIEW EXTENSIONS Rulewriting agencies are required by law to review each of their administrative rules within five years of the date of the rule's original enactment or the date of last review (Section 63G-3-305). If the agency finds that it will not meet the deadline for review of the rule (the five- year anniversary date), it may file a Notice of Five-Year Review Extension (Extension) with the Office of Administrative Rules. The Extension permits the agency to file the review up to 120 days beyond the anniversary date. Agencies have filed Extensions for the rules listed below. The "Extended Due Date" is 120 days after the anniversary date. Extensions are governed by Subsection 63G-3-305(6). GOVERNOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT (OFFICE OF) No. 42043 (Five-Year Extension): R362-1. Qualification for the Alternative Energy Development Tax Credit. EXTENSION REASON: The Office of Energy Development is requesting this extension to provide the needed time to fully consider amending and/or repealing and rewriting this administrative rule. The new deadline is 01/22/2018. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Robert Simmons by phone at 801-657-2867, or by Internet E-mail at rsimmons@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/28/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42043.htm No. 42039 (Five-Year Extension): R362-2. Renewable Energy Systems Tax Credits. EXTENSION REASON: ?The Office of Energy Development is requesting this extension to provide the needed time to fully consider amending and/or repealing and rewriting this administrative rule. The new deadline is 12/28/2017. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Robert Simmons by phone at 801-657-2867, or by Internet E-mail at rsimmons@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/24/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42039.htm No. 42040 (Five-Year Extension): R362-3. Energy Efficiency Fund. EXTENSION REASON: The Office of Energy Development is requesting this extension to provide the needed time to fully consider amending and/or repealing and rewriting this administrative rule. The new deadline is 12/28/2017. DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO: - Robert Simmons by phone at 801-657-2867, or by Internet E-mail at rsimmons@utah.gov EFFECTIVE: 08/24/2017 FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT: https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20170915/42040.htm NOTICES OF RULE EFFECTIVE DATES State law provides for agencies to make their administrative 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 make a rule effective 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 case of Changes in Proposed Rules with no designated comment period, the law permits an agency to make a rule effective on any date including or after the thirtieth day after the rule's publication date, but not more than 120 days after the 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. Agencies have notified the Office of Administrative Rules that the rules listed below have been made effective. Notices of Effective Date are governed by Subsection 63G-3-301(12), Section 63G-3-303, and Sections R15-4-5a and R15-4-5b. COMMERCE OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING No. 41843 (AMD): R156-22.Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors Licensing Act Rule Published: 07/15/2017 Effective: 08/21/2017 HEALTH DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, EPIDEMIOLOGY No. 41831 (AMD): R386-703.Injury Reporting Rule Published: 07/01/2017 Effective: 08/23/2017 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION No. 41805 (AMD): R477-1.Definitions Published: 07/01/2017 Effective: 08/30/2017 No. 41806 (AMD): R477-2.Administration Published: 07/01/2017 Effective: 08/30/2017 No. 41808 (AMD): R477-8.Working Conditions Published: 07/01/2017 Effective: 08/30/2017 HUMAN SERVICES CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES No. 41842 (AMD): R512-205.Child Protective Services, Investigation of Domestic Violence Related Child Abuse Published: 07/15/2017 Effective: 08/28/2017 INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION No. 41867 (NEW): R590-274.Submission and Required Disclosures of Public Adjuster Contracts Published: 07/15/2017 Effective: 08/23/2017 MONEY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION No. 41866 (AMD): R628-4.Bonding of Public Treasurers Published: 07/15/2017 Effective: 08/21/2017 No. 41862 (AMD): R628-15.Certification as an Investment Adviser Published: 07/15/2017 Effective: 08/21/2017 NATURAL RESOURCES WILDLIFE RESOURCES No. 41853 (AMD): R657-20.Falconry Published: 07/15/2017 Effective: 08/21/2017 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT No. 41884 (AMD): R926-11.Clean Fuel Vehicle Decal Program Published: 07/15/2017 Effective: 08/23/2017 RULES INDEX The Rules Index is a cumulative index that reflects all administrative rulemaking actions made effective since January 1. The Rules Index is not included Digest. However, a copy of the current Rules Index is available https://rules.utah.gov/researching/ . <> ----------------------------