----------------------------

Utah State Digest, Vol. 2017, No. 21 (November 1, 2017)

------------------------------------------------------------

UTAH STATE DIGEST
Summary of the Contents of the Utah State Bulletin


For information filed October 3, 2017, 12:00 AM through October 16, 2017, 
11:59 PM


Volume 2017, No. 21
November 1, 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
***********************************************




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 Fifth Extraordinary Session, 
Utah Proclamation No. 2017-5E
- 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/ExecDoc159544.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 October 3, 2017, 12:00 a.m., and October 16, 2017, 11:59 p.m. are 
summarized in this, the November 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Digest.

The law requires that an agency accept public comment on Proposed Rules 
published in the November 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin until at 
least December 1, 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 March 1, 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.


COMMERCE
CONSUMER PROTECTION
No. 42218 (Amendment): R152-34-8. Rules Relating to Fair and Ethical 
Practices Set Forth in Section 13-34-108.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The amended Section R152-34-8 changes the 
three-business-day cooling-off period by removing the requirement to have the 
cooling-off period end three-business-days after the day the student first 
visits the institution if the program lasts 30 consecutive calendar days or 
fewer.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division of Consumer Protection (Division) does not 
anticipate any cost or benefit to the state budget because the rule will not 
affect the number of schools paying fees to the Division to register, and the 
rule does not apply to publicly-funded institutions.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The Division does not anticipate any affect on local 
governments because the rule does not apply to publically-funded 
institutions.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Some small schools which hold programs lasting fewer 
than 30 days will receive a benefit by not having to provide refunds to 
individuals who paid a down payment or signed an enrollment agreement more 
than three days prior to attending the school.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: In limited circumstances, some individuals attending school at 
programs that last fewer than 30 days will not be entitled to refunds when 
they otherwise would be, resulting in a cost to that person.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no foreseeable compliance 
costs, because this rule simply lessens the applicability of a previously 
existing rule, and does not impose new obligations.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The Section R152-34-8 amendment changes the three-business-day 
cooling-off period by removing the requirement of having the cooling-off 
period end three-business-days after the day the student visits the 
institution, if the program lasts 30 consecutive calendar days or fewer.  The 
change to the rule has no negative fiscal impact to small businesses, but 
would have a positive fiscal impact to small businesses which will now be 
able to retain tuition money for classes of short duration, where the benefit 
of the class would be realized in a brief period of time.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jacob Hart by phone at 801-530-6636, or by Internet E-mail at 
jfhart@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42218.htm


OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING
No. 42221 (Amendment): R156-1. General Rule of the Division of Occupational 
and Professional Licensing.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  In Subsection R156-1-102(1), this filing 
clarifies that a license that has been placed on probation subject to terms 
and conditions is not "active and in good standing".  In Subsection R156-1-
308a(1), first, this filing establishes two-year renewal dates for: 1)  "hair 
designer", "hair designer instructor", and "hair designer school license" 
classifications (H.B. 287); 2) "restricted associate osteopathic physician" 
license classification (H.B. 396); and 3) "restricted associate physician" 
license classifications (H.B. 396).  Second, this filing changes the 
September 30 renewal dates for "CPA Firm" licensees and "Certified Public 
Accountant" licensees to December 31.  In Subsection R156-1-308a(2), this 
filing establishes a three-year renewal cycle date for tier 1 certified 
medical language interpreters and tier 2 certified medical language 
interpreters (S.B. 74).  In Section R156-1-308d, this filing:  1)  
establishes the parameters within which the division will grant continuing 
education credit to a licensee for volunteering as a subject-matter expert in 
the development of exams; and 2) clarifies that under Section 58-13-3, a 
health care professional licensee may fulfill up to 15% of the licensee's 
continuing education requirements by providing volunteer services at a 
qualified location.  In Section R156-1-308f, this filing clarifies that the 
concept of conditional licensure may include the license of an applicant that 
is pending the completion of an inspection.  In Section R156-1-501, 1) In 
accordance with H.B. 128 (2017), this filing designates as unprofessional 
conduct failing as a health care provider to follow the health care claims 
practices of Subsection 31A-26-301.5(4), in violation of Subsection 58-1-
508(2); and 2) in accordance with Subsection 26-59-104(1) enacted by H.B. 154 
(2017), this filing designates as unprofessional conduct failing, as a 
provider offering telehealth services, to comply with any term, condition, or 
requirement contained in Section 26-60-103 or the new Section R156-1-601.  In 
Section R156-1-502, in accordance with H.B. 128 (2017), this filing 
establishes the following fine schedule for violating Subsection 58-1-508(2) 
(failing as a health care provider to follow the health care claims practices 
of Subsection 31A-26-301.5(4)):  first offense is $250, second offense is 
$500.  In Section R156-1-601, in accordance with Section 26-60-103 and 
Subsection 26-60-104(1) enacted by H.B. 154 (2017), DOPL, in collaboration 
with the Physicians Licensing Board, proposes these amendments to clarify the 
standards required from a provider offering telehealth services, as follows:  
Subsection (1) incorporates certain definitions regarding telehealth from the 
Telehealth Act (Title 26, Chapter 60), and includes within the definition of 
"provider" an unlicensed individual who is required to be licensed, or who is 
exempt from licensure.  Subsection (2) clarifies scope of practice, including 
requiring the provider to establish a provider-patient relationship.  
Subsection (3) requires the provider to obtain a patient's signed informed 
consent containing details and disclosures specific to telehealth services 
and technologies.  Subsection (4) clarifies that treatment based solely on an 
online questionnaire does not constitute an acceptable standard of care.  
Subsection (5) clarifies that a provider may only issue prescription drug 
orders for a telehealth patient in compliance with Title 58, Chapter 82, and 
only after establishing a provider-patient relationship.  Subsection (6) 
clarifies that a provider offering telehealth services must generate and 
maintain medical records for the patient in compliance with applicable state 
and federal laws, rules, and regulations, including HIPAA (Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act) and HITECH (Health Information Technology 
for Economic and Clinical Health Act); and must make those medical records 
accessible to other providers and to the patient in accordance with 
applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  Rule R156-1 will have to be reprinted at an approximate 
cost of $75.  The clarification and technical changes will have no cost or 
savings impact.  Any cost or saving impact of new licensure regulation was 
addressed in the referenced legislation, or will be described in separate 
rule filings more fully implementing the new regulation, or both.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  This filing pertains to DOPL and its licensees and as 
such does not affect or impact local governments.  Local governments neither 
enforce the listed violations, nor will they be affected by these application 
process clarifications.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This filing pertains to general provisions of DOPL and 
its licensees. The clarification and technical changes will have no cost or 
savings impact.  As a result, the Division estimates that they will have no 
impact on small business.  Any cost or saving impact of new licensure 
regulation was addressed in the referenced legislation, or will be described 
in separate rule filings more fully implementing the new regulation, or both.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: This filing pertains to general provisions of DOPL and its 
licensees.  The clarification and technical changes will have no cost or 
savings impact, because they only make formatting changes and add 
clarification to practices already taking place in the industry.  Any cost or 
saving impact of new licensure regulation was addressed in the referenced 
legislation, or will be described in separate rule filings more fully 
implementing the new regulation, or both Subsection R156-1-308d(1).  Some 
savings to individual licensees may result from the proposed amendments to 
this Section, under which the Division clarifies how and when it may grant 
continuing education credit to a licensee for volunteering as a subject-
matter expert in the development of exams.  Licensees who choose to volunteer 
by serving as a subject-matter expert may save on the cost of attendance at 
one or more continuing education courses.  However, the amount of the savings 
cannot be estimated, as it will vary significantly from licensee to licensee 
depending on a number of widely ranging factors, such as the number and type 
of volunteer services provided, any individual ratios for service hours 
decided upon by the licensing board over the licensee's profession, and the 
number and type of credit hours required from the licensee to maintain that 
particular license. In Section R156-1-502, the Division estimates that there 
will be no cost or savings to other persons from these proposed amendments, 
over and above the impact from the underlying legislation, because the 
amendments establish a fine schedule for unprofessional conduct in accordance 
with H.B. 128 (2017).  Costs or savings to other persons were included in the 
Legislature's consideration of H.B. 128, which determined that enactment of 
the legislation "could result in 24 licensees annually paying a $500 fine for 
total costs of $12,000".  The fiscal analysis is available from the Utah 
State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0128.html.  This conclusion is 
supported by the fact that any impact from these amendments cannot and should 
not be scaled to all other persons, as the fines will not affect the majority 
of those who meet the new professional standards and will never be fined.  In 
other words, the impact of the fines will never be uniformly felt across the 
industry.  Additionally, per the Division's review a licensee sanctioned for 
unprofessional conduct is unlikely to be fined again in succeeding years.  In 
short, after conducting a thorough analysis, the Division has determined that 
these proposed amendments will not result in a measurable fiscal impact to 
other persons.  In Section R156-1-601, the amendments define and clarify the 
standards required from a provider offering telehealth services under Title 
58, in accordance with Section 26-60-103 and Subsection 26-60-104(1) enacted 
by H.B. 154 (2017).  No additional costs or savings are anticipated to other 
persons from these proposed rules, as they merely clarify how existing health 
care standards and practices apply to a telehealth setting for Title 58 
providers offering telehealth services, and allow the Division to enforce 
these standards for Title 58 providers, as required by the underlying 
legislation.  Any additional costs or savings to other persons result from 
H.B. 154, and were included in the Legislature's consideration of this bill.  
A copy of this analyses is available from the Utah State Legislature's 
website at https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0154.html.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  This filing pertains to general 
provisions of DOPL and its licensees.  The clarification and technical 
changes will have no cost or savings impact.  Any cost or saving impact of 
new licensure regulation was addressed in the referenced legislation, or will 
be described in separate rule filings more fully implementing the new 
regulation, or both.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The amendments to Rule R156-1 are proposed to:  1) carry out the 
mandate of H.B. 287 (2017), Cosmetology Licensing Act amendments, S.B. 74 
(2017), Medical Interpreter Act amendments, H.B. 128 (2017), Health Care Debt 
Collection amendments, H.B. 142 (2017), Administration of Anesthesia 
amendments and H.B. 154 (2017), Telehealth amendments; 2) make clarifying 
revisions; and 3) make technical revisions.  The clarifying revisions and the 
technical revisions have no fiscal or non-fiscal impacts.  The Subsection 
R156-1-308a(1) amendments establish a two-year renewal cycles for licensing 
five new categories of licensees and changes the "CPA Firm" renewal date from 
September 30 to December 31.  The new categories of licensees will have a 
renewal cycle similar to other licensees in the same field and there will be 
no adverse fiscal impact.  The three-month change to the renewal cycle of CPA 
Firms will have a negligible impact, and only in the first year of the 
change.  The Subsection R156-1-308a(2) amendments have no adverse fiscal 
impact by establishing a three-year license renewal cycle for certain medical 
language interpreters.  The Section R156-1-308d amendments will have no 
adverse fiscal impact to small businesses by granting continuing education 
credit to certain licensees providing volunteer service.  The Section R156-1-
308f amendment clarifies that the concept of conditional licensure may 
include the license of an applicant that is pending the completion of an 
inspection, and will have no adverse fiscal impact to small businesses.  The 
Section R156-1-501 amendment clarifies certain conduct as constituting 
unprofessional conduct, and will have no adverse fiscal impact to small 
businesses.  The Section R156-1-502 amendment provides a two-tier fine 
schedule for violations of Subsection 58-1-508(2) and will impact only those 
health care providers that fail to follow certain health care claims 
practices.  This would impact only  violators and would not have an adverse 
fiscal impact on small business health care providers as a whole.  The 
adoption of newly framed rules for providers of telehealth services under 
Section R156-1-601 will have no fiscal impact beyond the fiscal impact and 
analysis of the Legislature regarding H.B. 154 (2017) for providers offering 
telehealth services.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Larry Marx by phone at 801-530-6254, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet 
E-mail at lmarx@utah.gov
- W. Ray Walker by phone at 801-530-6256, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at raywalker@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 11/16/2017 11:30 AM, Heber Wells Bldg, 160 E 300 S, Conference Room 464, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42221.htm

No. 42198 (Amendment): R156-9a (Changed to R156-87). Uniform Athlete Agents 
Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendments to Rule R156-9a 
accomplish the following:  1) renumber the rule throughout, from Rule R156-9a 
to Rule R156-87; and 2) update the name of the rule to the "Revised" Uniform 
Athlete Agents Licensing Act Rule in Sections R156-9a-101, R156-9a-102, R156-
9a-103, R156-9a-104, R156-9a-303, and R156-9a-502.  Additional proposed 
amendments to the new Section R156-87-502 clarify that "unprofessional 
conduct" by an athlete agent includes:  1) failing to comply with the agency 
contract cancellation requirements of Section 58-87-303; and 2) failing to 
create records required by Section 58-87-304.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur minimal costs of approximately 
$75 to print and distribute the rule once the proposed amendments are made 
effective.  Any costs incurred will be absorbed in the Division's current 
budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The proposed amendments apply only to registered 
athlete agents and applicants for licensure in that classification.  As a 
result, the Division estimates that the proposed amendments will have no 
impact on local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The proposed amendments only make formatting corrections 
and clarify existing requirements, and they only apply to registered athlete 
agents and to applicants for licensure in that classification.  As a result, 
the Division estimates that the proposed amendments will have no impact on 
small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The proposed amendments only make formatting corrections and 
clarify existing requirements, and they only apply to registered athlete 
agents and to applicants for licensure in that classification.  As a result, 
the Division estimates that the proposed amendments will have no impact on 
other persons.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The proposed amendments only make 
formatting corrections and clarify existing requirements, and they only apply 
to registered athlete agents and to applicants for licensure in that 
classification.  As a result, the Division estimates that the proposed 
amendments will have no impact on affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The proposed amendments to Rule R156-9a accomplish the 
following:  1) renumber the rule throughout; 2) update the rule to add the 
word "revised" to the name of the rule; and 3) clarify that "unprofessional 
conduct" by an athlete agent includes: a) failing to comply with the agency 
contract cancellation requirements of the applicable statute, and b) failing 
to create records required by the applicable statute.  The first two 
categories of amendment have no fiscal or non-fiscal impact.  The clarifying 
amendments to the definition of "unprofessional conduct" have no fiscal or 
non-fiscal impact, as the statute already requires the actions to be taken as 
addressed in the amended rules.  The rule amendments merely define violations 
of the statute as constituting "unprofessional conduct".
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Robyn Barkdull by phone at 801-530-6727, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at rbarkdull@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42198.htm

No. 42225 (Amendment): R156-17b. Pharmacy Practice Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Subsection R156-17b-102(8) is added to define 
"clinic" as used in Subsection 58-17b-625(3)(b).  Subsection R156-17b-102(11) 
is added to define "community pharmacy" as used in Subsection 58-17b-
625(3)(b).  Subsection R156-17b-102(33) is added to define "long-term care 
facility" as used in Section 58-17b-610.7.  Subsection R156-17b-102 (61) is 
modified to update the reference to the United States Pharmacopeia-National 
Formulary.  Section R156-17b-303 is modified to allow the Division, in 
collaboration with the Pharmacy Board, the discretion to credit up to 500 
hours of substantially related experience towards pharmacy internship 
standards required for licensure as a pharmacist.  Section R156-17b-610.6 is 
added to establish the guidelines for a hospital pharmacy to dispense to an 
individual, who is no longer a patient, on the day that the individual is 
discharged from the hospital setting.  Section R156-17b-610.7 is added to 
establish that a pharmacy that partially fills a schedule II controlled 
substance shall specify by prescription number for each partial fill the 
date, quantity supplied, and quantity remaining of the prescription partially 
filled.  In Section R156-17b-620, the proposed amendments to this section 
clarify a PIC (pharmacist-in-charge) or pharmacist designee's 
responsibilities regarding user access to an automated pharmacy system and 
its medications.  Section R156-17b-621a is added to establish the training 
requirements for a pharmacist's administration of long-acting injectables 
intramuscularly.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur a minimal cost of approximately 
$75 to reprint the rule once the filing is made effective.  The Division also 
incurs a yearly cost of $908 to maintain the subscription to the updated 
United States Pharmacopeia-National Formulary which are incorporated by 
reference in the rule.  Because the primary focus of these proposed rule 
changes, as they affect the Division, is to implement S.B. 246 (2017), H.B. 
61 (2017) and H.B. 146 (2017), the additional costs or savings to the 
Division were included in the Legislature's consideration of these bills.  A 
copy of these fiscal analyses are available from the Utah State Legislature's 
website at https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0246.html, 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0061.html, and 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0146.html.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no anticipated costs or savings to local 
governments created by the proposed rule changes, because the proposed 
amendments apply only to licensees under Title 58, Chapter 17b, and to 
owners, managers, and users of pharmacies and hospitals.  Local governments 
will also not be indirectly impacted because none of the amendments create a 
situation requiring services from any local government.  As a result, the 
Division estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There are no anticipated costs or savings created by the 
proposed rule changes related to small businesses beyond those created by the 
underlying legislation.  The primary focus of the proposed rule changes is to 
implement S.B. 246 (2017), H.B. 61 (2017), and H.B. 146 (2017), and the costs 
or savings to small business were included in the Legislature’s consideration 
of the bills.  A copy of these analyses are available from the Utah State 
Legislature's website at https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0246.html, 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0061.html, and 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0146.html
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Some savings to individual applicants for licensure as a pharmacist 
may result from the proposed amendments to Section R156-17b-303b, which allow 
the Division, in collaboration with the Pharmacy Board, to credit up to 500 
hours of substantially related experience towards an individual's pharmacy 
internship standards.  It is estimated that this simplification of the 
licensure application process could shorten the time period for some 
individuals to obtain a license and begin practicing.  However, the exact 
amount of time savings and resultant cost savings is impossible to measure 
because it will vary significantly from individual to individual depending on 
circumstances.  No additional costs or savings are anticipated to other 
persons from the remaining proposed rule changes, which are only updates or 
clarification of existing practice, or which implement S.B. 246 (2017), H.B. 
61 (2017), and H.B. 146 (2017).  Any additional costs or savings to other 
persons result from the underlying legislation, and were included in the 
Legislature’s consideration of the bills.  A copy of these analyses are 
available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0246.html, 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0061.html,and 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0146.html.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no anticipated costs 
created by the proposed rule changes for affected persons, beyond those 
created by the underlying legislation, which were included in the 
Legislature's consideration of the bills.  Copies of the analyses for S.B. 
246 (2017), H.B. 61 (2017) and H.B. 146 (2017) are available from the Utah 
State Legislature website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0246.html, 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0061.html,and 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0146.html.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Three bills passed by the Legislature during the 2017 General 
Session amended the Pharmacy Practice Act and require amendment of the 
Pharmacy Practice Act Rule.  S.B. 246 (2017) permits certain pharmacies to 
administer some long-acting injectable drugs intramuscularly under certain 
conditions and requires training to those administering the injectable drugs.  
H.B. 61 (2017) requires the Division to draft rules to allow a hospital 
pharmacy to dispense a limited supply of a prescription drug to a discharged 
patient under circumstances when the patient's regular retail pharmacy is not 
available, and H.B. 146 (2017) requires that the partial filling of a 
Schedule II controlled substance prescription for certain patients must be 
made in accordance with federal law and rules made by the Division.  In 
addition, Subsection R156-17b-102(61) is amended to update the reference in 
the rule to the current version of the United States Pharmacopeia-National 
Formulary and Section R156-17b-303 is amended to allow the Division, in 
collaboration with the Pharmacy Board, the discretion to credit up to 500 
hours of substantially related experience towards pharmacy internship 
standards.  Beyond the fiscal analysis included in the Legislature's 
consideration of the three referenced bills, there is no additional fiscal 
impact to businesses.  Further, there is no fiscal impact with regard to the 
two described rule changes that were not mandated by the legislative action.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jennifer Zaelit by phone at 801-530-7632, or by Internet E-mail at 
jzaelit@utah.gov
- Larry Marx by phone at 801-530-6254, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet 
E-mail at lmarx@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42225.htm

No. 42197 (Amendment): R156-24b. Physical Therapy Practice Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  In Section R156-24b-302b, the proposed 
amendments renumber certain citations to conform to statutory changes.  In 
Subsection R156-24b-305(1)(a), the proposed amendment updates the application 
procedures for temporary licensure to reflect the current process of 
submitting a "Request for Authorization to Test".  In Section R156-24b-505, 
the proposed amendment provides that the approved Trigger Point Dry Needling 
course and supervised treatment sessions must be completed no later than 
three calendar years from the start of the course.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to the Division 
from any of the proposed amendments, over and above those already described 
in the Fiscal Note to S.B. 248 (2017).  The Division will incur minimal costs 
of approximately $75 to print and distribute the rule once the proposed 
amendments are made effective.  Any costs incurred will be absorbed in the 
Division's current budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is not anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments from any of the proposed amendments.  The changes will only 
affect physical therapists and physical therapist assistants applying for 
licensure in Utah.  Local governments neither enforce nor are affected by the 
time frames and application process.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The proposed amendments to Sections R156-24b-302b, R156-
24b-305, and R156-24b-505 will have no fiscal impact on small businesses 
because the updated provisions clarify existing practices.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The proposed amendments to Sections R156-24b-302b, R156-24b-305, 
and R156-24b-505 will have no fiscal impact on other persons because the 
updated provisions clarify existing practices.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The proposed amendments to Sections 
R156-24b-302b, R156-24b-305, and R156-24b-505 will have no compliance costs 
to affected person because the updated provisions clarify existing practices.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The proposed amendments to Rule R156-24b accomplish the 
following:  1) renumber certain citations to conform to statutory changes; 2) 
update the application procedure for temporary licensure to reflect the 
current process of submitting a "Request for Authorization to Test"; and 3) 
provide a generous three calendar year period to complete the approved 
Trigger Point Dry Needling course and related supervised treatment sessions.  
The first two categories of amendment have no fiscal or non-fiscal impact.  
Providing for a three calendar year completion date for the Trigger Point Dry 
Needling course and related supervised treatment sessions has an 
indeterminately negligible fiscal impact and has no non-fiscal impact.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jeff Busjahn by phone at 801-530-6789, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at jbusjahn@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 11/16/2017 10:30 AM, Heber Wells Bldg, 160 E 300 S, Conference Room 464 
(fourth floor), Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42197.htm

No. 42219 (Amendment): R156-31b. Nurse Practice Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The Section R156-31-102 proposed amendments:  
1) clarify that verification of completion of a pre-licensing program for 
licensure requires official transcripts showing degree and date of 
completion; and 2) update a citation in Subsection R156-31-102(12)(c) 
regarding delegating tasks to an unlicensed person.  The Section R156-31b-
301c proposed amendments clarify Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) 
licensure requirements regarding certification bodies/agencies and 
examination requirements.  Section R156-31b-301d proposed amendments clarify 
the licensure requirements for applicants whose education was completed 
through a foreign program not meeting the requirements of Section 58-31b-601, 
including the required English proficiency tests.  The Section R156-31b-301e 
proposed amendments include certified nurse midwives in the existing 
requirement for nurses to pass licensure or certification examinations within 
five years of completing school.  The Section R156-31b-402 proposed 
amendments carry out the mandate of H.B. 142 (2017), establishing fine 
schedules for violations in administering sedation or anesthesia 
intravenously to a patient in an outpatient setting that is not an emergency 
department, as follows:  1) failing to obtain the required written consent 
from the patient, in violation of Subsection 58-31b-502.5(1) (first offense 
$500 to $5,000, second offense $1,500 to $10,000, ongoing offense $2,000/day 
but not less than the second offense); 2) failing to report an adverse event 
under Section 26-1-40, in violation of Subsection 58-31b-502.5(2) (first 
offense $500 to $5,000, second offense $1,500 to $10,000, ongoing offense 
$2,000/day but not less than the second offense); and 3) failing to have 
access to an advanced cardiac life support crash cart with equipment 
regularly maintained according to AHA guidelines, in violation of Subsection 
58-31b-502.5(3) (first offense $5,000, second offense $10,000, ongoing 
offense $2,000/day but not less than the second offense).  In Section R156-
31b-701a, proposed amendments clarify the delegation of tasks by a Registered 
Nurse (RN) in a school setting, with respect to administering the first dose 
of a medication.  This will give a school nurse more latitude for 
administering first doses.  Section R156-31b-703b proposed amendments clarify 
that APRNs have the ability to practice as a RN within the state of Utah, and 
that APRNs wishing to practice as an RN in a Compact state must reinstate and 
obtain a Utah RN Compact license.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur a minimal cost of approximately 
$75 to reprint the rule once the filing is made effective.  Because the 
primary focus of these proposed rule changes, as they affect the Division, is 
to implement H.B. 142 (2017), the additional costs or savings to the Division 
were included in the Legislature's consideration of this bill.  A copy of the 
fiscal analysis is available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments from any of the proposed amendments.  Local governments neither 
enforce the listed violations, nor will they be affected by these application 
process clarifications.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  In Section R156-31b-402, the Division estimates that 
there will be no cost or savings to small businesses from these proposed 
amendments, which only conform the rule to statutory changes by establishing 
fine schedules for the unprofessional conduct as defined by H.B. 142 (2017).  
Costs or savings to businesses were included in the Legislature's 
consideration of H.B. 142 (2017), which determined that enactment of the 
legislation "likely would not result in direct, measurable expenditures by 
Utah residents or businesses".  The fiscal analysis is available from the 
Utah State Legislature website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.  This conclusion is 
supported by the fact that any impact from these amendments cannot and should 
not be scaled to all small businesses, as the fines never will affect the 
majority of small businesses who meet the new professional standards and will 
never be fined.  In other words, the impact of the fines will never be 
uniformly felt across the industry.  Additionally, per the Division's review 
a licensee sanctioned for unprofessional conduct is unlikely to be fined 
again in succeeding years.  In short, after conducting a thorough analysis, 
the Division has determined that these proposed amendments will not result in 
a measurable fiscal impact to small business.  All of the other proposed 
amendments only make formatting changes and add clarification to practices 
already taking place in the industry.  As a result, the Division estimates 
that they will have no impact on small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The Division estimates that there will be no cost or savings to 
other persons from these proposed amendments, which only conform the rule to 
statutory changes by establishing fine schedules for unprofessional conduct 
defined by H.B. 142 (2017).  Costs or savings to other persons were included 
in the Legislature's consideration of H.B. 142 (2017), which determined that 
enactment of the legislation "likely would not result in direct, measurable 
expenditures by Utah residents or businesses".  The fiscal analysis is 
available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.  Further, any impact from 
these fines will never be uniformly felt across the industry, and a licensee 
sanctioned for unprofessional conduct is unlikely to be fined again in 
succeeding years.  In short, after conducting a thorough analysis, the 
Division has determined that these proposed amendments will not result in a 
measurable fiscal impact to other persons.  All of the other proposed 
amendments only make formatting changes and add clarification to practices 
already taking place in the industry.  As a result, the Division estimates 
that they will have no impact on other persons.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no anticipated costs to 
affected persons from any of these substantive proposed changes, as set forth 
in the Legislature’s consideration of H.B. 142 (2017).  A copy of the fiscal 
analysis is available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The proposed amendments to Rule R156-31b carry out the mandate 
of H.B. 142 (2017), establishing fine schedules for violations in 
administering sedation or anesthesia intravenously to a patient in an 
outpatient setting that is not an emergency room department.  There will be 
no cost or savings to businesses from these proposed amendments, which 
conform the rule to statutory changes adopted by H.B. 142 (2017).  The 
Legislature's analysis of this matter determined that enactment of the 
legislation "likely would not result in direct, measurable expenditures by 
Utah residents or businesses".  The proposed rule amendments also make 
changes deemed necessary by the Division and Board of Nursing to clarify 
certain licensure requirements and practice standards.  No fiscal impact on 
any business is anticipated with regard to these additional changes to the 
rule.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jeff Busjahn by phone at 801-530-6789, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at jbusjahn@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42219.htm

No. 42229 (Amendment): R156-37. Utah Controlled Substances Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  A new Subsection R156-37-102(5) is added to 
define "SBIRT training" in reference to the definition of "SBIRT" in Section 
58-37-6.5, the "Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment 
approach used by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration."  This proposed amendment is made because Subsection 58-37-
6.5(1)(e), enacted by H.B. 175 (2017), allows the Division to either 
promulgate a definition of "SBIRT" by rule, or to use the federal Substance 
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) definition. By 
incorporating the federal SAMHSA definition, the Division is choosing it for 
the SBIRT training requirements.  Section R156-37-402 is amended to refer to 
the new SBIRT training requirements enacted in Subsection 58-67-6.5(2)(b), 
and provides that the approved SBIRT training satisfies the Division's 
continuing education requirements for license renewal and shall be posted on 
the Division's website at http://dopl.utah.gov/.  Sections R156-37-502, R156-
37-601, and R156-37-602 are amended to make nonsubstantive formatting changes 
for better comprehension.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur a cost of approximately $75 to 
print and distribute the rule once the proposed amendments are made 
effective, and estimates that there will be no other measurable cost or 
savings to the state. This rule will be implemented by adding course 
information to the Division's existing "approved courses" web page, and 
verification as to whether or not licensees are taking the required courses 
will be accomplished by continuing education audits, which is the current 
practice.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The proposed amendments apply only to persons required 
to be licensed as a controlled substance prescriber in Utah.  Local 
governments are not involved in continuing education for prescribers, 
therefore, the Division estimates there will be no cost or savings impact on 
local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The Division estimates that the proposed amendments to 
Section R156-37-402 will have no fiscal impact to small businesses even if 
they are owned, operated by, or employ controlled substance licensees.  The 
SBIRT training that will be allowed by this rule for licensees is currently 
available through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA) for little or no cost; further, in accordance with 
Section 58-37-6.5 the SBIRT training fulfills existing continuing education 
hour requirements, so it will not increase the total number of state-required 
continuing education hours.  This analysis is supported by the fiscal note to 
H.B. 175 (2017), which estimated that enactment of this legislation likely 
will not result in direct, measurable expenditures by Utah businesses.  The 
fiscal note is available on the Utah Legislature's website at: 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0175.html.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The Division estimates that the proposed amendments to Section 
R156-37-402 will have no fiscal impact to large businesses or individual 
controlled substance licensees.  The SBIRT training that will be allowed by 
this rule for licensees is currently available through the Substance Abuse 
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) for little or no cost; 
further, in accordance with Section 58-37-6.5, the SBIRT training fulfills 
existing continuing education hour requirements, so it will not increase the 
total number of state-required continuing education hours.  This analysis is 
supported by the fiscal note to H.B. 175 (2017), which estimated that 
enactment of this legislation likely will not result in direct, measurable 
expenditures by Utah residents or businesses.  The fiscal note is available 
on the Utah Legislature's website at: 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0175.html.  The proposed changes to 
R156-37-402 may also provide an indirect health benefit and associated fiscal 
savings to those who receive medical treatment after 01/01/2024, from 
licensees trained in SBIRT.  SBIRT training educates licensees in methods to 
screen patients for substance use disorders and to provide resources for 
patient treatment.  However, this fiscal benefit cannot be quantified because 
the relevant data as to the number of patients in 2024 and thereafter who 
will benefit from training is unavailable, and the cost of acquiring any 
relevant data is prohibitively expensive.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The Division estimates that there 
will be no compliance costs to affected persons from these proposed 
amendments.  The SBIRT training that will be allowed by this rule is 
currently available through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA) for little or no cost; further, in accordance with 
Section 58-37-6.5 the SBIRT training fulfills existing continuing education 
hour requirements, so it will not increase the total number of state-required 
continuing education hours.  This analysis is supported by the fiscal note to 
H.B. 175 (2017), which estimated that enactment of this legislation likely 
will not result in direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or 
businesses. The fiscal note is available on the Utah Legislature's website 
at: https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0175.html.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This proposed rule filing implements H.B. 175 passed in the 2017 
General Session, which established SBIRT training as a continuing education 
requirement that licensees must obtain after 2024 as a condition for license 
renewal.  The proposed rule also makes some nonsubstantive formatting 
changes.  No additional fiscal impact to businesses is anticipated beyond 
those considered in passing H.B. 175 (2017).
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Larry Marx by phone at 801-530-6254, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet 
E-mail at lmarx@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42229.htm

No. 42220 (Amendment): R156-37f. Controlled Substance Database Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Formatting changes are made throughout these 
sections for clarification.  In Section R156-37f-102, the proposed amendments 
add the following definitions:  1) new Subsections (6) and (12) define the 
terms "null report" and "zero report", respectively, meaning a report 
containing the data fields required by Subsection R156-37f-203(5), indicating 
that no controlled substance required to be reported has been dispensed since 
the previous submission of data; 2) new Subsection (8) defines the terms 
"point of sale date", "POS date", and "Date Sold" as the date that the 
prescription drug leaves the pharmacy (and not the date that the prescription 
was filled, if the dates differ).  This definition also clarifies that ASAP 
Version 4.2 uses the "DSP17" field to identify the point of sale date.  In 
Subsections R156-37f-203(1) and (2), the proposed amendments make formatting 
changes for clarity, by renumbering previous subsections (3) and (4) to 
subsections (1) and (2), respectively, in order to conform the provisions of 
this rule more closely with the provisions of the Controlled Substance 
Database Act.  These proposed amendments also change the working title of the 
CSD "Manager" to CSD "Administrator", and, together with the definitions 
established in Section R156-37f-102, clarify that the data submitted to the 
Database shall be from the date the drug leaves the pharmacy.  In Subsection 
R156-37f-203(3) and (4), the proposed amendments update and clarify what data 
must be submitted to the Database, by deleting references to obsolete or 
unclear data requirements, and specifying the ASAP Version 4.2 data fields 
that must be completed to capture data in accordance with the intent of the 
Controlled Substance Database Act and the capability or functionality of 
Database collection instruments.  In Subsection R156-37f-203(5), the proposed 
amendments require "zero reporting" to the Database if no controlled 
substance required to be reported has been dispensed since the previous 
submission of data, and specify the data fields that must be completed to 
submit a zero report in accordance with ASAP Version 4.2.  In Subsection 
R156-37f-203(6), minor formatting changes are made to this subsection for 
clarification.  In Subsection R156-37f-301(2), the proposed amendments 
further conform the requirements for Database access to the Controlled 
Substance Database Act, by 1) requiring each registered user to apply for an 
online account and user name only under the specific Controlled Substance 
Database Act provision under which he or she qualifies; and 2) prohibiting a 
registered user from permitting another person to have knowledge of or use 
his or her assigned password or PIN.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  No fiscal impact is anticipated to the state budget from 
any of the formatting changes.  The proposed amendments are being made to 
further clarify and to codify best practices with respect to Section 58-37f-
203 regarding the submission, collection, and maintenance of the data 
contained in the Database, and to further clarify and to codify best 
practices with respect to Section 58-37f-301 regarding access to the 
Database.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No fiscal impact is anticipated to any local government 
from any of the formatting changes, because the proposed amendments do not 
apply to local governments, and they only further clarify and codify best 
practices with respect to Section 58-37f-203 regarding the submission, 
collection, and maintenance of the date contained in the Database, and 
further clarify and codify best practices with respect to Section 58-37f-301 
regarding access to the Database.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No additional fiscal impact is anticipated to any small 
businesses from any of the formatting changes.  The proposed amendments are 
being made only to further clarify and to codify best practices with respect 
to Section 58-37f-203 regarding the submission, collection, and maintenance 
of the date contained in the Database, and further clarify and codify best 
practices with respect to Section 58-37f-301 regarding access to the 
Database.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No additional fiscal impact is anticipated to other persons from 
any of the formatting changes.  The proposed amendments are being made only 
to further clarify and to codify best practices with respect to Section 58-
37f-203 regarding the submission, collection, and maintenance of the date 
contained in the Database, and further clarify and codify best practices with 
respect to Section 58-37f-301 regarding access to the Database.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The Division estimates that the 
proposed amendments will not impose any compliance costs on persons affected 
by this rule, because the proposed amendments are only being made to further 
clarify and to codify best practices with respect to Section 58-37f-203 
regarding the submission, collection, and maintenance of the data contained 
in the Database, and to further clarify and to codify best practices with 
respect to Section 58-37f-301 regarding access to the Database.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The proposed rule changes recommended by the Division and the 
Utah State Board of Pharmacy update and clarify the standards, timing, and 
data required to be reported to the Controlled Substance Database in 
accordance with the requirements of the American Society for Automation in 
Pharmacy (ASAP) Format.  The proposed amendments are being made only to 
further clarify and to codify best practices with respect to Section 58-37f-
203 regarding the submission, collection, and maintenance of the data 
contained in the Database, and to further clarify and to codify best 
practices with respect to Section 58-37a-301 regarding access to the 
Database.  No fiscal impact is anticipated by reason of these rule changes.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- David Furlong by phone at 801-530-6608, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at dfurlong@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 11/16/2017 11:30 AM, Heber Wells Bldg, 160 E 300 S, Conference Room 464, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42220.htm

No. 42222 (Amendment): R156-63a. Security Personnel Licensing Act Contract 
Security Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  In Section R156-63a-102, the definitions of 
"approved basic education and training program", "approved basic firearms 
training program", and "instructor" are clarified, and the term "trainer" is 
defined to have the same meaning as "instructor". The definitions of 
"corporate officer" and "qualifying agent" are further defined and clarified 
in accordance with the Security Personnel Licensing Act, as amended by H.B. 
425 (2017), to ensure consistency and proper enforcement of the rule. 
Formatting changes are also made throughout for clarification.  In Section 
R156-63a-201, the proposed amendments specify the credentials required for 
the person who fills the Education Advisory Committee's member-trainer 
position.  The member who is a trainer must be, in order of preference:  1) a 
member of the Utah Peace Officers Association; 2) a qualifying agent of a 
licensed security company that is in good standing with the Division; or 3) a 
member of a security association that is in good standing with the Utah 
Division of Corporations.  Formatting changes are also made throughout for 
clarification.  In Section R156-63a-302a, the proposed amendments update the 
terms used to refer to the persons from whom a fingerprint card is required, 
and make formatting changes for clarification.  In Section R156-63a-302b, the 
proposed amendments update the terms used to refer to training programs, and 
make formatting changes for clarification.  In Section R156-63a-302c, the 
proposed amendments update the references to the Utah Contract Security 
Company Qualifying Agent Examination and to the approved basic education and 
training program.  In Section R156-63a-302e, the proposed amendments make 
formatting changes for clarification.  In Section R156-63a-302f, the proposed 
amendments make formatting changes for clarification, and update the terms 
used to refer to those who participate in ownership or operation of a 
contract security company, such as a "corporate officer", in accordance with 
the Security Personnel Licensing Act as amended by H.B. 425 (2017).  In 
Section R156-63a-302g, the proposed amendments make formatting changes for 
clarification.  In Section R156-63a-601, the proposed amendments make 
formatting changes for clarification.  In Section R156-63a-602, the proposed 
amendments:  1) clarify the materials needed for a training program to be 
reviewed and approved by the Division; 2) put the responsibility for 
reporting qualified instructors on the individual or entity using the 
instructor; and 3) make formatting changes throughout for clarification.  In 
Section R156-63a-603, the proposed amendments make formatting changes for 
clarification.  In Section R156-63a-604, the proposed amendments make 
formatting changes for clarification.  In Section R156-63a-607, the proposed 
amendments update the terms used to refer to those persons who should not 
participate in ownership or operation of a contract security company, in 
conformance with the requirements of the Security Personnel Licensing Act.  
Formatting changes are made for clarification.  In Section R156-63a-611, the 
proposed amendments add "hazardous chemical release" to the list of topics 
required in a contract security company's operational procedures manual.  In 
Section R156-63a-613, these proposed amendments make formatting changes for 
clarification.  In addition, the proposed new Subsection R156-63a-613(2) was 
considered and recommended by the Security Services Licensing Board and 
security associations, to implement the following reporting procedures for an 
on-duty discharge of a firearm by a licensed armed private security officer:  
1) the licensee is required to report the discharge within 24 hours to the 
licensee's employer (or if none, to the Division); 2) an employer is required 
to give the Division written notice of the discharge within 72 hours of being 
notified or becoming aware of a firearm discharge; and 3) the qualifying 
agent over the licensee, is required to appear before the Security Services 
Licensing Board.  Formatting changes are also made throughout for 
clarification.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur a minimal cost of approximately 
$75 to print and distribute the rule once the proposed amendments are made 
effective.  The proposed amendments to Section R156-63a-602, which clarify 
materials needed for training program approval by the Division, and put the 
responsibility for reporting qualified instructors on those using the 
instructor, will likely result in some savings to the Division due to the 
streamlining of the approval process.  The current rule requires the Division 
to verify that each applicant has a current trainer with an outside source.  
This requires approximately 5 minutes per review, and there are approximately 
1,800 such applicants in each reporting period.  This results in 
approximately 150 staff hours to process requested approvals.  At an average 
staff rate of $24 per hour, based on an estimated $15 per hour office 
specialist I wage and the cost of employment taxes and benefits, these 
changes are expected to result in an ongoing savings to the Division of 
$4,050 each year.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  Review of the amendments to this rule confirms that 
none of these changes will result in any additional cost or savings to local 
governments.  The proposed amendments apply only to:  the Security Education 
Committee and its members; to owners, operators, and users of security 
personnel training programs; and to licensed Contract Security Officers and 
applicants for licensure in that classification.  Nor will local governments 
be indirectly impacted because none of the amendments create a situation 
requiring services from local governments.  As a result, the Division 
estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  In Section R156-63a-201, these proposed amendments apply 
only to the Security Education Committee and its members.  As a result, the 
Division estimates that they will have no impact on small businesses.  In 
Section R156-63a-602, these proposed amendments may minimally impact small 
businesses that either own, operate, or use security personnel training 
programs.  The clarifications regarding the materials needed for program 
review and approval by the Division may cause small businesses seeking such 
approval to incur some cost corresponding to the time required to gather and 
organize the required materials.  With an estimated time expenditure of 2 
hours at a rate of $100 per hour, a small business may incur a one-time 
impact of $200 if they choose to have their own training program approved for 
use.  It is estimated that there are 30 small businesses in the security 
industry that could be impacted by this change.  However, any such cost will 
likely be offset by the streamlining of the approval process for these 
businesses.  Outlining the required material for a program review will 
eliminate the need for the small business to return repeatedly before the 
review committee due to missing information.  Further, many small businesses 
use a third-party program that has already received approval and will not be 
subject to a program review, negating this cost.  The changes that put the 
responsibility for reporting qualified instructors on the individual or 
entity using the instructor may save businesses/associations that own a 
training program some costs corresponding to the time that they will now no 
longer need to spend making these reports; however, there will be a 
proportionate and offsetting increase in time and cost to the small 
businesses using the training programs.  Accordingly, although these changes 
will result in better reporting to the Division regarding program 
instructors, no material change in costs or savings is expected for small 
businesses in the aggregate.  In sum, after conducting a thorough analysis, 
the Division has determined that none of these amendments will result in a 
measurable fiscal impact to small businesses.  In Section R156-63a-611, the 
proposed amendment adding "hazardous chemical release" as a required topic to 
a contract security company's operational procedures manual could potentially 
minimally impact small businesses due to the need to research this topic and 
update their materials.  However, the Division expects that most if not all 
small businesses already cover this topic in their training and/or 
operational procedures manual, due to ongoing continuing education and the 
education of new employees.  Accordingly, this change is primarily a 
codification of existing industry practice.  Further, this topic can so 
easily be added to manuals that the consensus from those in the industry is 
that the cost will be insignificant.  Accordingly, the Division has 
determined that this amendment will not result in a measurable fiscal impact 
to small businesses.  In Section R156-63a-613, these proposed amendments may 
impact small business security companies that employee a licensee involved in 
an on-duty discharge of a firearm.  There may be some loss of income 
proportionate to the time required to make the required reports and the time 
required for the mandatory appearances by the qualifying agent before the 
Security Services Licensing Board.  A historical review by the Division and 
discussions with businesses in the industry indicates that this type of 
incident could potentially occur 3 times per year across the industry as a 
whole.  An incident may result in an estimated total one-time cost of $120 to 
a business that employs a licensee involved in an on-duty discharge of a 
firearm.  Cost determined based upon an average estimated $20 per hour wage 
for the qualifying agent, with a 5-hour time commitment for each for Board 
meeting attendance, and a 1-hour time commitment for each spent in making 
reports. In the aggregate across the industry, the total ongoing cost is 
expected to be $360 per year.  However, the impact of such costs cannot and 
should not be scaled to all small business security companies, as these costs 
will never affect the overwhelming majority of small businesses whose 
employees will never be subject to these measures.  Stated another way, the 
nature of the incident addressed in this amended rule is such that the impact 
of the corresponding costs will never be uniformly felt across the industry.  
Furthermore, based on the Division's historical review, a business with an 
employee involved in an on-duty discharge of a firearm is extremely unlikely 
to experience such an incident in succeeding years.  In short, after 
conducting a thorough analysis, the Division has determined that the scope of 
these proposed amendments is so narrow that they will not affect the vast 
majority of small businesses, and will not result in a measurable fiscal 
impact to small business.  All of the other proposed amendments only make 
formatting changes and add clarification to practices that should already be 
taking place in the industry.  As a result, the Division estimates that they 
will have no impact on small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: In Section R156-63a-201, these proposed amendments apply only to 
the Security Education Committee and its members.  As a result, the Division 
estimates that they will have no impact on other persons.  In Section R156-
63a-602, these proposed amendments may minimally impact large businesses and 
any individuals that either own, operate, or use security personnel training 
programs.  First, similar to the impact on small businesses, the 
clarifications regarding the materials needed for program review and approval 
by the Division may cause a large business or an individual seeking such 
approval to incur some cost corresponding to the time required to gather and 
organize the required materials, but this cost is expected to be offset by 
the streamlining of the approval process.  Accordingly, the overall fiscal 
impact is expected to be negligible.  Second, also similar to the impact on 
small business, the changes that put the responsibility for reporting 
qualified instructors on the individual or entity using the instructor will 
save other persons who are owners of a training program some costs 
proportionate to the time that they would have spent making these reports, 
while a corresponding increase in time required for reporting may cause some 
small increase in costs for other persons who are training program users.  
Again, although these changes are expected to result in better reporting to 
the Division regarding program instructors, in the aggregate no material 
change in costs or savings is expected for other persons in the aggregate.  
In sum, after conducting a thorough analysis, the Division has determined 
that the scope of these proposed amendments is so narrow that they will not 
affect the vast majority of small businesses, and will not result in a 
measurable fiscal impact to small businesses.  In Section R156-63a-611, the 
proposed amendment adding "hazardous chemical release" as a required topic to 
a contract security company's operational procedures manual may minimally 
impact a large contract security business due to the need to research this 
topic and update their materials.  However, the Division expects that most if 
not all such businesses, due to ongoing continuing education and the 
education of new employees, already cover this topic in their training and/or 
operational procedures manual.  Accordingly, this change is primarily a 
codification of existing industry practice.  Further, this topic can so 
easily be added to manuals that the consensus from those in the industry is 
that the cost will be insignificant. Accordingly, the Division has determined 
that this amendment will not result in a measurable fiscal impact to these 
other persons. In Section R156-63a-613, first, these proposed amendments may 
impact large businesses that employ a licensee involved in an on-duty 
discharge of a firearm.  There may be some loss of income proportionate to 
the time required to be spent in making the required reports and the time 
required for the mandatory appearance by the qualifying agent before the 
Security Services Licensing Board.  Again, a historical review by the 
Division and discussions with businesses in the industry indicates that this 
type of incident could potentially occur 3 times per year in the industry as 
a whole, resulting in an estimated ongoing cost across the industry of $360 
per year.  However, again, the impact of such costs cannot and should not be 
scaled to all large business security companies.  The nature of the incident 
is such that the impact of the corresponding costs will never be uniformly 
felt across the industry; furthermore, based on the Division's historical 
review a business with an employee involved in an on-duty discharge of a 
firearm is extremely unlikely to experience such an incident in succeeding 
years.  Therefore, after conducting a thorough analysis the Division has 
determined that the scope of these proposed amendments is so narrow that they 
will not affect the vast majority of large businesses, and will not result in 
a measurable fiscal impact to these other persons.  Second, as described 
above, a qualifying agent over a licensee involved in an on-duty firearm 
discharge may also be subject to a potential loss of income corresponding to 
the time spent assisting with reports and appearing before the Security 
Services Licensing Board.  However, those in the industry anticipate that a 
qualifying agent will almost certainly be compensated at regular rates for 
the qualifying agent's time in such a matter; accordingly, no fiscal impact 
is anticipated to qualifying agents from these amendments.  All of the other 
proposed amendments only make formatting changes and add clarification to 
practices that should already be taking place in the industry. As a result, 
the Division estimates that they will have no impact on other persons.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  In Section R156-63a-602, the changes 
to this section may minimally impact an individual that owns, operates, or 
uses security personnel training programs.  The clarifications regarding the 
materials needed for program review and approval by the Division may cause an 
individual seeking such approval to incur some cost corresponding to the time 
required to gather and organize the required materials, though this cost will 
likely be offset by the streamlining of the approval process.  With an 
estimated time expenditure of 2 hours at a rate of $100 per hour, an 
individual may incur a one-time impact of $200 if they choose to have their 
own training program approved for use.  But any such cost will likely be 
offset by the streamlining of the approval process for these businesses.  
Outlining the required material for a program review will eliminate the need 
for the individual having to return repeatedly before the review committee 
due to missing information.  Further, many individuals use a third-party 
program that has already received approval and will not be subject to a 
program review, negating this cost.  The changes that put the responsibility 
for reporting qualified instructors on the individual using the instructor 
may cause some small increase in costs for an individual user, corresponding 
to the time required to make such reports.  The Division is not able to 
determine any exact amount of cost due to varying circumstances.  In Section 
R156-63a-613, as described above, the changes to this section may impact a 
qualifying agent over a licensee involved in an on-duty firearm discharge, 
potentially causing a loss of income of approximately $120 per incident.  
This corresponds to the estimated time required to be spent by the qualifying 
agent in making the required report and appearing before the Security 
Services Licensing Board, at an average wage of $20 per hour, with an average 
Board meeting length of 5 hours and an hour spent in reporting.  But this 
loss would only occur if the qualifying agent is not paid for his or her 
time.  An individual qualifying agent over a licensee involved in an on-duty 
firearm discharge is unlikely to be impacted by a loss of income for time 
spent, because a qualifying agent will almost certainly be paid for his or 
her time.  However, the exact amount of time spent and resultant cost to 
these affected persons is impossible to measure because it will vary 
significantly from individual to individual, as well as from incident to 
incident.  The remaining proposed amendments apply only to the Security 
Education Committee and its members, or make formatting changes and clarify 
practices that should already be taking place in the industry.  As a result, 
the Division estimates that they will have no impact on individual persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  In accordance with changes made by H.B. 425 (2017), which 
defined certain terms, modified qualifying agent requirements, and made 
changes deemed necessary or desirable by the Division and the Security 
Services Licensing Board regarding on-duty firearm discharges, amendments are 
proposed for Rule R156-63a.  Specifically, these rule amendments:  1) further 
refine and clarify certain terms and operating standards; 2) specify the 
credentials required for the Security Education Advisory Committee's member-
trainer position; 3) clarify the training program requirements for armed and 
unarmed private security officers; 4) address the Security Services Licensing 
Board and Utah Peace Officers Association concerns regarding on-duty firearm 
discharge by detailing reporting procedures for an on-duty firearm discharge, 
and 5) make formatting changes throughout for clarity and correct minor 
typographical errors.  No non-fiscal impacts are anticipated.  Only the 
changes related to reporting procedures for an on-duty firearm discharge are 
expected to have a fiscal impact to small businesses.  The other changes have 
little or no fiscal impact.  In the case of changes addressed in item 2) 
above, such changes only affect members of the Security Education Advisory 
Committee, and do not affect small businesses as a whole.  In the case of 
changes in item 3) above, it is estimated that approximately 30 small 
businesses will have a one-time impact of $200.  Further, many small 
businesses impacted by this rule change already choose to have their training 
program conducted by a third-party provider and will not experience a fiscal 
impact.  A historical review by the Division indicates that on-duty 
discharges of a firearm by small business security services businesses occurs 
three times per year across the industry as a whole.  The impact of such 
costs would not be scaled to all small business security services companies, 
as these costs will never affect the overwhelming majority of small 
businesses whose employees will not be subject to these measures.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jana Johansen by phone at 801-530-6621, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at janajohansen@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 11/16/2017 11:00 AM, Heber Wells Bldg, 160 E 300 S, Conference Room 464, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42222.htm

No. 42223 (Amendment): R156-63b. Security Personnel Licensing Act Armored Car 
Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  In Section R156-63b-102, the definitions of 
"approved basic education and training program", "approved basic firearms 
training program", and "instructor" are clarified, and the term "trainer" is 
defined to have the same meaning as "instructor".  The definitions of 
"corporate officer" and "qualifying agent" are further defined and clarified 
in accordance with the Security Personnel Licensing Act as amended by H.B. 
425 (2017), to ensure consistency and proper enforcement of the rule.  
Formatting changes are also made throughout for clarification.  In Section 
R156-63b-302a, the proposed amendments update the terms used to refer to the 
persons from whom a fingerprint card is required, and make formatting changes 
for clarification.  In Section R156-63b-302b, the proposed amendments update 
the terms used to refer to training programs, and make formatting changes for 
clarification.  In Section R156-63b-302c, the proposed amendments update the 
terms used to refer to approved basic firearms training programs.  In Section 
R156-63b-302d, the proposed amendments update the references to examinations.  
In Section R156-63b-302f, the proposed amendments make conforming changes in 
accordance with Subsection 75-10-509(1) and Section 76-10-509.4, to provide 
that an armored car security officer must be 18 years of age or older at the 
time of submitting an application for licensure.  In Section R156-63b-302g, 
the proposed amendments make formatting changes for clarification, and update 
the terms used to refer to those who participate in ownership or operation of 
an armored car company, such as a "corporate officer", in accordance with the 
Security Personnel Licensing Act as amended by H.B. 425 (2017).  In Section 
R156-63b-302h, the proposed amendments make formatting changes for 
clarification.  In Section R156-63b-601, the proposed amendments make 
formatting changes for clarification.  In Section R156-63b-602, the proposed 
amendments:  1) clarify the materials needed for a training program to be 
reviewed and approved by the Division; 2) put the responsibility for 
reporting qualified instructors on the individual or entity using the 
instructor; and 3) make formatting changes throughout for clarification.  In 
Section R156-63b-603, the proposed amendments make formatting changes for 
clarification.  In Section R156-63b-604, the proposed amendments make 
formatting changes for clarification.  In Section R156-63b-607, the proposed 
amendments update the terms used to refer to those persons who shall not 
participate in ownership or operation of an armored car company, in 
conformance with the requirements of the Security Personnel Licensing Act as 
amended by H.B. 425 (2017).  Formatting changes are also made for 
clarification.  In Section R156-63b-610, the proposed amendments add 
"hazardous chemical release" to the list of topics required in an armored car 
company's operational procedures manual.  In Section R156-63b-612, these 
proposed amendments make formatting changes for clarification.  In addition, 
the proposed new Subsection R156-63b-612(2) was considered and recommended by 
the Security Services Licensing Board and security associations, to implement 
the following reporting procedures for an on-duty discharge of a firearm by a 
licensed armored car security officer:  1) the licensee is required to report 
the discharge within 24 hours to the licensee's employer (or if none, to the 
Division); 2) an employer is required to give the Division written notice of 
the discharge within 72 hours of being notified or becoming aware of a 
firearm discharge; and 3) the qualifying agent over the licensee, is required 
to appear before the Security Services Licensing Board.  Formatting changes 
are also made throughout for clarification of existing notification 
requirements.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur a minimal cost of approximately 
$75 to print and distribute the rule once the proposed amendments are made 
effective.  The proposed amendments to Section R156-63b-602, which clarify 
materials needed for training program approval by the Division, and put the 
responsibility for reporting qualified instructors on those using the 
instructor, will likely result in some savings to the Division due to the 
streamlining of the approval process.  The current rule requires the 
Division, to verify with an outside source, that each applicant has a current 
trainer.  This requires approximately 5 minutes per review, and there are 
approximately 1,800 such applicants requiring review in each reporting 
period.  This results in approximately 150 staff hours to process requested 
approvals.  At an average staff rate of $24 per hour, based on an estimated 
$15 per hour Office Specialist I wage and the cost of employment taxes and 
benefits, these changes are expected to result in an ongoing savings to the 
Division of $4,050 each year.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  Review of the amendments to this rule confirms that 
none of these changes will result in any additional cost or savings to local 
governments.  The proposed amendments apply only to the Security Education 
Committee and its members; to owners, operators, and users of security 
personnel training programs; and to licensed Armored Car Security Officers 
and applicants for licensure in that classification.  Nor will local 
governments be indirectly impacted because none of the amendments create a 
situation requiring services from any local governments.  As a result, the 
Division estimates that there will be no fiscal impact on local government.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  In Section R156-63b-602, these proposed amendments may 
minimally impact small businesses that either own, operate, or use security 
personnel training programs.  The clarifications regarding the materials 
needed for program review and approval by the Division may cause small 
businesses seeking such approval to incur some cost corresponding to the time 
required to gather and organize the required materials.  With an estimated 
time expenditure of 2 hours at a rate of $100 per hour, a small business may 
incur a one-time impact of $200 if it chooses to have its own training 
program approved for use.  It is estimated that there are three small 
businesses in the armored car security industry that could be impacted by 
this change.  However, any such cost will likely be offset by the 
streamlining of the approval process for these businesses.  Outlining of the 
required material for a program review will eliminate the need for the small 
business to return repeatedly before the review committee due to missing 
information.  Further, many small businesses use a third-party program that 
has already received approval and will not be subject to a program review, 
which will negate this cost for those businesses.  The changes that put the 
responsibility for reporting qualified instructors on the individual or 
entity using the instructor may save businesses/associations that own a 
training program some costs corresponding to the time that they will now no 
longer need to spend making these reports; however, there will be a 
proportionate and offsetting increase in time and cost to the small 
businesses using the training programs.  Accordingly, although these changes 
will result in better reporting to the Division regarding program 
instructors, no material change in costs or savings is expected for small 
businesses in the aggregate.  In sum, after conducting a thorough analysis, 
the Division has determined that none of these amendments will result in a 
measurable fiscal impact to small businesses.  In Section R156-63b-610, the 
proposed amendment adding "hazardous chemical release" as a required topic to 
a contract security company's operational procedures manual could potentially 
minimally impact small businesses due to the need to research this topic and 
update their materials.  However, the Division expects that most if not all 
small businesses already cover this topic in their training and/or 
operational procedures manual, due to ongoing continuing education and the 
education of new employees.  Accordingly, this change is primarily a 
codification of existing industry practice.  Further, this topic can so 
easily be added to manuals that the consensus from those in the industry is 
that the cost will be insignificant.  Accordingly, the Division has 
determined that this amendment will not result in a measurable fiscal impact 
to small businesses.  In Section R156-63b-612, these proposed amendments may 
impact small business armored car companies that employ a licensee involved 
in an on-duty discharge of a firearm.  There may be some loss of income 
proportionate to the time required to make the required reports and the time 
required for the mandatory appearances by the qualifying agent before the 
Security Services Licensing Board.  A historical review by the Division and 
discussions with businesses in the industry indicates that this type of 
incident could potentially occur three times per year across the industry as 
a whole.  An incident may result in an estimated total one-time cost of $120 
to a business that employs a licensee involved in an on-duty discharge of a 
firearm.  Cost determined based upon an average estimated $20 per hour wage 
for the qualifying agent, with a 5-hour time commitment for each for Board 
meeting attendance, and a 1-hour time commitment for each spent in making 
reports.  In the aggregate across the industry, the total ongoing cost is 
expected to be $360 per year.  However, the impact of such costs cannot and 
should not be scaled to all small business armored car companies, as these 
costs will never affect the overwhelming majority of small businesses whose 
employees will never be subject to these measures.  Stated another way, the 
nature of the incident addressed in this amended rule is such that the impact 
of the corresponding costs will never be uniformly felt across the industry.  
Furthermore, based on the Division's historical review, a business with an 
employee involved in an on-duty discharge of a firearm is extremely unlikely 
to experience such an incident in succeeding years.  In short, after 
conducting a thorough analysis, the Division has determined that the scope of 
these proposed amendments is so narrow that they will not affect the vast 
majority of small businesses, and will not result in a measurable fiscal 
impact to small businesses.  All of the other proposed amendments only make 
formatting changes and add clarification to practices that should already be 
taking place in the industry.  As a result, the Division estimates that they 
will have no impact on small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: In Section R156-63b-602, these proposed amendments may minimally 
impact large businesses and any individuals that either own, operate, or use 
security personnel training programs.  First, similar to the impact on small 
businesses, the clarifications regarding the materials needed for program 
review and approval by the Division may cause a large business or an 
individual seeking such approval to incur some cost corresponding to the time 
required to gather and organize the required materials, but this cost is 
expected to be offset by the streamlining of the approval process.  
Accordingly, the overall fiscal impact is expected to be negligible.  Second, 
also similar to the impact on small business, the changes that put the 
responsibility for reporting qualified instructors on the individual or 
entity using the instructor will save other persons who are owners of a 
training program some costs proportionate to the time that they would have 
spent making these reports, while a corresponding increase in time required 
for reporting may cause some small increase in costs for other persons who 
are training program users.  Again, although these changes are expected to 
result in better reporting to the Division regarding program instructors, in 
the aggregate no material change in costs or savings is expected for other 
persons in the aggregate.  In sum, after conducting a thorough analysis, the 
Division has determined that the scope of these proposed amendments is so 
narrow that they will not affect the vast majority of other persons, and will 
not result in a measurable fiscal impact to other persons.  In Section R156-
63b-610, the proposed amendment adding "hazardous chemical release" as a 
required topic to a contract security company's operational procedures manual 
may minimally impact a large contract security business due to the need to 
research this topic and update its materials.  However, the Division expects 
that most if not all such businesses, due to ongoing continuing education and 
the education of new employees, already covers this topic in their training 
and/or operational procedures manual.  Accordingly, this change is primarily 
a codification of existing industry practice.  Further, this topic can so 
easily be added to manuals that the consensus from those in the industry is 
that the cost will be insignificant.  Accordingly, the Division has 
determined that this amendment will not result in a measurable fiscal impact 
to these other persons.  In Section R156-63b-612, first, these proposed 
amendments may impact large businesses that employ a licensee involved in an 
on-duty discharge of a firearm.  There may be some loss of income 
proportionate to the time required to be spent in making the required reports 
and the time required for the mandatory appearance by the qualifying agent 
before the Security Services Licensing Board.  Again, a historical review by 
the Division and discussions with businesses in the industry indicates that 
this type of incident could potentially occur 3 times per year in the 
industry as a whole, resulting in an estimated ongoing cost across the 
industry of $360 per year.  However, again, the impact of such costs cannot 
and should not be scaled to all large business armored car companies.  The 
nature of the incident is such that the impact of the corresponding costs 
will never be uniformly felt across the industry; furthermore, based on the 
Division's historical review a business with an employee involved in an on-
duty discharge of a firearm is extremely unlikely to experience such an 
incident in succeeding years.  Therefore, after conducting a thorough 
analysis the Division has determined that the scope of these proposed 
amendments is so narrow that they will not affect the vast majority of large 
businesses, and will not result in a measurable fiscal impact to these other 
persons.  Second, as described above, a qualifying agent over a licensee 
involved in an on-duty firearm discharge may also be subject to a potential 
loss of income corresponding to the time spent assisting with reports and 
appearing before the Security Services Licensing Board.  However, those in 
the industry anticipate that a qualifying agent will almost certainly be 
compensated at regular rates for the qualifying agent's time in such a 
matter; accordingly, no fiscal impact is anticipated to qualifying agents 
from these amendments.  All of the other proposed amendments only make 
formatting changes and add clarification to practices that should already be 
taking place in the industry.  As a result, the Division estimates that they 
will have no impact on other persons.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  In Section R156-63b-602, the changes 
to this section may minimally impact an individual that owns, operates, or 
uses security personnel training programs.  The clarifications regarding the 
materials needed for program review and approval by the Division may cause an 
individual seeking such approval to incur some cost corresponding to the time 
required to gather and organize the required materials, though this cost will 
likely be offset by the streamlining of the approval process.  With an 
estimated time expenditure of 2 hours at a rate of $100 per hour, an 
individual may incur a one-time impact of $200 if he or she chooses to have 
his or her own training program approved for use.  However, any such cost 
will likely be offset by the streamlining of the approval process.  Outlining 
the required material for a program review will eliminate the need for the 
individual having to return repeatedly before the review committee due to 
missing information.  Further, many individuals use a third-party program 
that has already received approval and will not be subject to a program 
review, which will negate this cost.  The changes that put the responsibility 
for reporting qualified instructors on the individual using the instructor 
may cause some small increase in costs for an individual user, corresponding 
to the time required to make such reports.  The Division is not able to 
determine any exact amount of cost due to varying circumstances.  In Section 
R156-63b-612, as described above, the changes to this section may impact a 
qualifying agent over a licensee involved in an on-duty firearm discharge but 
is unlikely to be impacted by a loss of income for time spent, because a 
qualifying agent will almost certainly be paid for his or her time.  However, 
the exact amount of time spent and resultant cost to these affected persons 
is impossible to measure because it will vary significantly from individual 
to individual, as well as from incident to incident.  The remaining proposed 
amendments apply only to the Security Education Committee and its members, or 
make formatting changes and clarify practices that should already be taking 
place in the industry.  As a result, the Division estimates that they will 
have no impact on individual persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  In accordance with changes made by H.B. 425 (2017), which 
defined certain terms, modified qualifying agent requirements, and made 
changes deemed necessary or desirable by the Division and the Security 
Services Licensing Board regarding on-duty firearm discharges, amendments are 
proposed for Rule R156-63b.  Specifically, these rule amendments:  1) further 
refine and clarify certain terms and operating standards, 2) specify the 
credentials required for the Security Education Advisory Committee's member-
trainer position, 3) clarify the training program requirements for armored 
car security officers, 4) address the Security Services Licensing Board and 
Utah Peace Officer Association concerns regarding on-duty firearm discharge 
by detailing reporting procedures for an on-duty firearm discharge, and 5) 
make formatting changes throughout for clarity and correct minor 
typographical errors.  No non-fiscal impacts are anticipated.  Only the 
changes related to reporting procedures for an on-duty firearm discharge are 
expected to have a fiscal impact to small businesses.  The other changes have 
little or no fiscal impact.  In the case of changes addressed in item 2) 
above, such changes only affect members of the Security Education Advisory 
Committee, and do not affect small businesses as a whole.  In the case of 
changes addressed in item 3) above, it is estimated that small businesses 
will have a one-time impact of $200, if they choose to have their own 
training program approved for use.  Further, many small businesses impacted 
by this rule change already choose to have their training program conducted 
by a third-party provider and will not experience a fiscal impact.  A 
historical review by the Division indicates that on-duty discharges of a 
firearm occur three or fewer times per year across the industry as a whole.  
The impact of such costs would not be scaled to all small business armored 
car companies as these costs will never affect the overwhelming majority of 
small businesses whose employees will not be subject to these measures.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jana Johansen by phone at 801-530-6621, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by 
Internet E-mail at janajohansen@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 11/16/2017 11:00 AM, 160 East 300 South, Conference Room 464, Salt Lake 
City, Utah
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42223.htm

No. 42199 (Amendment): R156-67-503. Administrative Penalties.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendments to Section R156-67-
503 carry out the mandate of H.B. 142 (2017), establishing fine schedules for 
violations in administering sedation or anesthesia intravenously to a patient 
in an outpatient setting that is not an emergency department, as follows:  1) 
failing to obtain the required written consent from the patient, in violation 
of Subsection 58-67-502.5(1) (first offense $500 - $5,000, second offense 
$1,500 - $10,000, ongoing offense $2,000/day but not less than the second 
offense); 2) failing to report an adverse event under Section 26-1-40, in 
violation of Subsection 58-67-502.5(2) (first offense $500 - $5,000, second 
offense $1,500 - $10,000, ongoing offense $2,000/day but not less than the 
second offense); and 3) failing to have access to an advanced cardiac life 
support crash cart with equipment regularly maintained according to AHA 
guidelines, in violation of Subsection 58-67-502.5(3) (first offense $5,000, 
second offense $10,000, ongoing offense $2,000/day but not less than the 
second offense).
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division will incur minimal costs of approximately 
$75 to reprint the rule once the filing is made effective.  The primary focus 
of these proposed rule changes, as they affect the Division, is to implement 
H.B. 142 (2017), the additional costs or savings to the Division were 
included in the Legislature's consideration of this bill.  A copy of the 
fiscal analysis for H.B. 142 is available from the Utah State Legislature 
website at https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments from any of the proposed amendments.  Local governments neither 
enforce nor will be affected by the listed violations.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The Division estimates that there will be no cost or 
savings to small businesses from these proposed amendments, which conform the 
rule to statutory changes by establishing fine schedules for the 
unprofessional conduct defined by H.B. 142 (2017).  Costs or savings to 
businesses were included in the Legislature's consideration of H.B. 142 
(2017), which determined that enactment of the legislation "likely would not 
result in direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or businesses".  
The fiscal analysis is available on the Utah State Legislature website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.  This conclusion is 
supported by the fact that any impact from these amendments cannot and should 
not be scaled to all small businesses, as the fines never will affect the 
majority of small businesses who meet the new professional standards and will 
never be fined.  In other words, the impact of the fines will never be 
uniformly felt across the industry.  Additionally, per the Division's review 
a licensee sanctioned for unprofessional conduct is unlikely to be fined 
again in succeeding years. In short, after conducting a thorough analysis, 
the Division has determined that these proposed amendments will not result in 
a measurable fiscal impact to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The Division estimates that there will be no cost or savings to 
other persons from these proposed amendments, which conform the rule to 
statutory changes by establishing fine schedules for the unprofessional 
conduct defined by H.B. 142 (2017).  Costs or savings to other persons were 
included in the Legislature's consideration of H.B. 142 (2017), which 
determined that enactment of the legislation "likely would not result in 
direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or businesses".  The fiscal 
analysis is available on the Utah State Legislature website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.  Further, any impact from 
these fines will never be uniformly felt across the industry, and a licensee 
sanctioned for unprofessional conduct is unlikely to be fined again in 
succeeding years.  In short, after conducting a thorough analysis, the 
Division has determined that these proposed amendments will not result in a 
measurable fiscal impact to other persons.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no anticipated costs to 
affected persons from any of these proposed changes, in keeping with the 
Legislature’s consideration of H.B. 142 (2017).  A copy of the fiscal 
analysis is available on the Utah State Legislature website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  In accordance with changes made by H.B. 142 (2017), Subsection 
R156-67-503(1) is to be amended to establish fine schedules for violations in 
administering sedation or anesthesia intravenously to a patient in an 
outpatient setting that is not an emergency department.  Costs or savings to 
businesses were included in the Legislature's consideration of H.B. 142, 
which determined that enactment of the legislation "likely would not result 
in direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or businesses".  
Similarly, the rule amendment will have no fiscal impact scaled to all small 
businesses, as the fines would only be imposed against the few violator 
businesses.  No non-fiscal impact is anticipated by reason of the rule 
change.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Larry Marx by phone at 801-530-6254, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet 
E-mail at lmarx@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42199.htm

No. 42224 (Amendment): R156-68-503. Administrative Penalties.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The proposed amendments to Section R156-68-
503 carry out the mandate of H.B. 142 (2017), establishing fine schedules for 
violations in administering sedation or anesthesia intravenously to a patient 
in an outpatient setting that is not an emergency department, as follows:  1) 
failing to obtain the required written consent from the patient, in violation 
of Subsection 58-68-502.5(1) (first offense $500 to $5,000, second offense 
$1,500 to $10,000, ongoing offense $2,000/day but not less than the second 
offense); 2) failing to report an adverse event under Section 26-1-40, in 
violation of Subsection 58-68-502.5(2) (first offense $500 to $5,000, second 
offense $1,500-$10,000, ongoing offense $2,000/day but not less than the 
second offense); and 3) failing to have access to an advanced cardiac life 
support crash cart with equipment regularly maintained according to AHA 
guidelines, in violation of Subsection 58-68-502.5(3) (first offense $5,000, 
second offense $10,000, ongoing offense $2,000/day but not less than the 
second offense).
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing 
(Division) will incur minimal costs of approximately $75 to reprint the rule 
once the filing is made effective.  Because the primary focus of these 
proposed rule changes as they affect the Division is to implement H.B. 142 
(2017), the additional costs or savings to the Division were included in the 
Legislature's consideration of this bill.  A copy of the fiscal analysis for 
H.B. 142 is available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments from any of the proposed amendments.  Local governments neither 
enforce nor will be affected by the listed violations.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The Division estimates that there will be no cost or 
savings to small businesses from these proposed amendments, which conform the 
rule to statutory changes by establishing fine schedules for the 
unprofessional conduct defined by H.B. 142 (2017).  Costs or savings to 
business were included in the Legislature's consideration of H.B. 142 (2017), 
which determined that enactment of the legislation "likely would not result 
in direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or businesses".  The 
fiscal analysis is available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.  This conclusion is 
supported by the fact that any impact from these amendments cannot and should 
not be scaled to all small businesses, as the fines never will affect the 
majority of small businesses who meet the new professional standards and will 
never be fined.  In other words, the impact of the fines will never be 
uniformly felt across the industry.  Additionally, per the Division's review 
a licensee sanctioned for unprofessional conduct is unlikely to be fined 
again in succeeding years.  In short, after conducting a thorough analysis, 
the Division has determined that these proposed amendments will not result in 
a measurable fiscal impact to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The Division estimates that there will be no cost or savings to 
other persons from these proposed amendments, which conform the rule to 
statutory changes by establishing fine schedules for the unprofessional 
conduct defined by H.B. 142 (2017).  Costs or savings to other persons were 
included in the Legislature's consideration of H.B. 142 (2017), which 
determined that enactment of the legislation "likely would not result in 
direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or businesses".  The fiscal 
analysis is available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.  Further, any impact from 
these fines will never be uniformly felt across the industry, and a licensee 
sanctioned for unprofessional conduct is unlikely to be fined again in 
succeeding years.  In short, after conducting a thorough analysis, the 
Division has determined that these proposed amendments will not result in a 
measurable fiscal impact to other persons.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no anticipated costs to 
affected persons from any of these proposed changes, in keeping with the 
Legislature’s consideration of H.B. 142 (2017).  A copy of the fiscal 
analysis is available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0142.html.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The proposed amendments to Subsection R156-68-503(1) carry out 
the mandate of H.B. 142 (2017), establishing fine schedules for violations in 
administering sedation or anesthesia intravenously to a patient in an 
outpatient setting that is not an emergency room department.  There will be 
no cost or savings to businesses from these proposed amendments, which 
conform the rule to statutory changes by establishing fine schedules for the 
unprofessional conduct defined by H.B. 142 (2017).  The Legislature's 
analysis of this matter determined that enactment of the legislation "likely 
would not result in direct, measurable expenditures by Utah residents or 
businesses."
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Larry Marx by phone at 801-530-6254, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet 
E-mail at lmarx@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42224.htm

No. 42228 (Amendment): R156-80a. Medical Language Interpreter Act Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  In Section R156-80a-303, these proposed 
amendments clarify and further define the requirements for the tier 1 and 
tier 2 certifications, as follows:  first, these amendments clarify that the 
written and oral exams for tier 1 and tier 2 certification must be 
administered or recognized by one of the two national certification 
organizations, as defined in Subsection 58-80a-102(4).  These are either the 
National Board of Certification for Medical Interpreters (NBCMI), or the 
Certification Commission for Healthcare Interpreters (CCHI).  Second, in 
accordance with the requirements of S.B. 74 (2017), these amendments require 
an applicant to apply for a tier 1 certification if the language for which 
they will provide medical interpreting is Arabic, Cantonese, Korean, Russian, 
Mandarin, Spanish, or Vietnamese.  The reason for this clarification is that 
oral and written examinations which satisfy the requirements of Subsection 
58-80a-303(1)(b), are currently available from one or both of the two 
national certification organizations for these seven common languages.  
Third, these amendments carry out the mandate of Subsection 58-80a-303(2) as 
enacted by S.B. 74 (2017), by requiring an applicant for tier 2 certification 
to:  1) attest that the language for which they are seeking certification 
does not have an oral examination available under Subsection 58-80a-
303(1)(b); and 2) agree that if an oral examination does become available, 
the applicant must pass that exam and apply for tier 1 certification within 
six months of the exam's availability or by the end of that licensing period, 
whichever is later.  In Section R156-80a-304, as mandated by S.B. 74 (2017), 
this amendment establishes a three-year licensing/renewal period for 
certification.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The cost of the rule amendments was included in the 
Legislative Fiscal Analysis for S.B. 74 (2017).  The fiscal impact to the 
Division was estimated in the fiscal note as a net loss of $400 in year-end 
transfers to the General Fund from the Commerce Service Fund.  The loss is 
based on changing the medical language interpreter certificates from a two-
year renewal to a three-year renewal.  A copy of the fiscal analysis is 
available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0074.html.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  In Section R156-80a-303, these proposed amendments 
merely clarify or further define the requirements enacted by S.B. 74 (2017); 
accordingly, the Division estimates that they will not result in any fiscal 
impact to local governments over and above the impact from the underlying 
legislation.  As a result of the expansion and standards mandated by S.B. 74 
(2017) and implemented by these proposed amendments, there may be some 
indirect savings to local governments employing medical language 
interpreters, or providing services to individuals benefitting from medical 
language interpreter services, due to improved patient outcomes.  However, 
this indirect savings cannot be measured because it will vary depending on 
circumstances.  In Section R156-80a-304, the Division estimates that these 
proposed amendments will not result in any fiscal impact to local governments 
over and above the impact from the underlying legislation.  As mandated by 
H.B. 74 (2017), these amendments establish a three-year renewal for 
certification.  This may result in some savings to local governments that 
choose to pay licensing costs for their certified employees.  The fiscal note 
to S.B. 74 (2017) estimated that "enactment of this bill could result in 152 
licensees paying $25 every three years instead of every year to renew".  A 
copy of the fiscal analysis is available from the Utah State Legislature's 
website at https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0074.html.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  In Section R156-80a-303, the Division estimates that 
these proposed amendments will not result in any fiscal impact to small 
businesses over and above the impact from the underlying legislation, because 
the amendments merely clarify or further define the requirements enacted by 
S.B. 74 (2017).  As a result of the standards mandated by S.B. 74 (2017) and 
implemented by these proposed amendments, there may be some indirect savings 
to small businesses that use medical language interpreters, or that employ or 
provide services to individuals benefiting from medical language interpreter 
services, due to improved patient outcomes.  However, this indirect savings 
cannot be measured because it will vary depending on circumstances.  In 
Section R156-80a-304, the Division estimates that these proposed amendments 
will not result in any fiscal impact to small businesses over and above the 
impact from the underlying legislation.  As mandated by H.B. 74 (2017), these 
amendments establish a three-year renewal for certification.  This may result 
in some savings to small businesses if the business owner obtains 
certification, or if the business chooses to pay licensing costs for its 
certified employees.  The fiscal note to S.B. 74 (2017) estimated that 
"enactment of this bill could result in 152 licensees paying $25 every three 
years instead of every year to renew".  A copy of the fiscal analysis is 
available from the Utah State Legislature's website at 
https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0074.html.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: In Section R156-80a-303, the Division estimates that these proposed 
amendments will not result in any fiscal impact to other persons over and 
above the impact from the underlying legislation, because the amendments 
merely clarify or further define the requirements enacted by S.B. 74 (2017).  
As a result of the standards mandated by S.B. 74 (2017) and implemented by 
these proposed amendments, there may be some indirect savings to other 
persons that use medical language interpreters, or who employ or provide 
services to individuals benefiting from medical language interpreter 
services, due to improved patient outcomes. However, this indirect savings 
cannot be measured because it will vary depending on circumstances.  In 
Section R156-80a-304, the Division estimates that these proposed amendments 
will not result in any fiscal impact to other persons over and above the 
impact from the underlying legislation.  As mandated by H.B. 74 (2017), these 
amendments establish a three-year renewal for certification.  This may result 
in some savings to other persons who obtain certification, or who choose to 
pay licensing costs for their certified employees.  The fiscal note to S.B. 
74 (2017) estimated that "enactment of this bill could result in 152 
licensees paying $25 every three years instead of every year to renew".  A 
copy of the fiscal analysis is available from the Utah State Legislature's 
website at https://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/SB0074.html.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The proposed amendments merely 
clarify or further define the requirements enacted by S.B. 74 (2017); 
accordingly, the Division estimates that they will not result in any 
compliance costs for affected persons over and above the impact from the 
underlying legislation.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This proposed rule filing implements statutory changes passed 
through S.B. 74 in the 2017 General Legislative Session, which expanded the 
examinations and languages the Division may accept when licensing a certified 
medical interpreter, established a two-tier system of certification, and 
established a three-year renewal cycle.  No additional fiscal impact to 
businesses is anticipated beyond those considered in passing S.B. 74.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Larry Marx by phone at 801-530-6254, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet 
E-mail at lmarx@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 11/16/2017 11:30 AM, Heber Wells Bldg, 160 E 300 S, Conference Room 464, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42228.htm



EDUCATION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 42226 (Amendment): R277-419. Pupil Accounting.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The amendments to this rule include revising 
definitions; rearranging text related to exceptions to the rule requirements; 
providing very specific reporting requirements; and providing a new section 
regarding a waiver from the minimum requirements of this rule due to snow, 
inclement weather, or other emergency school closure days.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The amendments to Rule R277-419 will likely not result 
in a cost or savings to the state budget.  The changes are procedural and 
apply to LEAs providing instruction to students. are procedural with the 
intent to better clarify those procedures for LEAs and provide greater 
flexibility to LEAs when providing instruction to students.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  The amendments to Rule R277-419 will likely not result 
in a cost or savings to local governments.  The intent of the changes to the 
rule are to provide clarification and flexibility for LEAs as they provide 
instruction to students.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The amendments to Rule R277-419 will likely not result 
in a cost or savings to small businesses.  The changes apply to LEAs and 
public education and do not affect small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The amendments to Rule R277-419 will likely not result in a cost or 
savings to persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities.  The amendments apply to LEAs and do not affect 
individuals.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  The amendments to Rule R277-419 will 
likely not result in any compliance costs for affected persons.  The changes 
are intended to provide both flexibility and clarification to LEAs.
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 
amendments to this 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 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Angela Stallings by phone at 801-538-7656, by FAX at 801-538-7768, or by 
Internet E-mail at angie.stallings@schools.utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42226.htm



ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL, RADIATION
No. 42204 (Amendment): R313-25. License Requirements for Land Disposal of 
Radioactive Waste – General Provisions.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  During the 2015 General Session, the 
Legislature passed S.B. 173 that affected portions of Rule R313-25.  However, 
rulemaking was deferred because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
determined that certain provisions of S.B. 173 were incompatible with federal 
law.  These incompatibility issues were not finally resolved until 2017.  
During the 2017 General Session, the Legislature passed and the governor 
signed S.B. 79 which requires the Board to promulgate rules regarding 
financial assurance requirements for the closure and post closure care of a 
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.  S.B. 79 also modified certain 
facility definitions, triggering the need for conforming amendments in the 
rules.  The current changes reflect both S.B. 173 and S.B. 79.  Although 
financial assurance requirements have existed in Rule R313-25 for several 
years, the proposed changes are being made in order to meet the prescribed 
rulemaking direction found in S.B. 79, and to provide the tools and 
flexibility the Director believes are necessary to implement S.B. 79.  More 
specifically, S.B. 79 allows radioactive waste licensees the opportunity to 
rely on either (i) RS Means or (ii) a "competitive site-specific estimate" as 
the basis for calculating financial surety.  While RS Means represents a 
national average of heavy civil construction costs, S.B. 79 did not provide a 
definition for "competitive site-specific estimate".  Based on the 
legislative history of S.B. 79, it was apparent to the Director that this 
undefined term referred to local market costs.  Based on the Utah Supreme 
Court case, Associated General Contractors v. Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, 
2001 UT 112, 38 P.3d 291, the Director in this rulemaking proposes to:  i) 
define this term; ii) provide the Division with access to local market 
expertise from heavy civil contractors or cost estimators who are familiar 
with local market construction costs in order to review and validate the 
information submitted by a licensee; and iii) provide that the licensee fund 
such review costs.  The proposed changes to Section R313-25-31 incorporate 
the mandatory new rule text from S.B. 79.  In addition a new section, R313-
25-31.5, is being added to include the changes summarized above.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  The proposed rule change allows a radioactive disposal 
facility applicant or licensee two options in providing a financial assurance 
cost estimate to the Director for his review.  The Director's review of and 
action on the cost estimate will be covered by the existing budget and 
allocation of staff resources.  If the applicant or licensee elects to submit 
a competitive site-specific cost estimate and the Director chooses to engage 
the services of a contractor or cost estimator to assist the Director in his 
review, then the applicant or licensee is required to reimburse the agency 
for the cost of the contractor's and/or the cost estimator's review.  
Therefore, the proposed rule change will be cost neutral to the state's 
budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No local governments own, operate, or are licensed to 
operate a radioactive waste disposal facility; therefore there is no cost or 
savings impact to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The existing radioactive waste disposal facility is not 
considered a small business and no small businesses in Utah own, operate, or 
are licensed to operate a radioactive waste disposal facility; therefore 
there is no cost or savings impact to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is only one facility in Utah that is currently affected by 
the proposed rule changes.  S.B. 79 creates an optional way that a licensee 
may establish the estimated closure and post-closure costs.  If the licensee 
chooses RS Means as the basis, there is no added cost compared to existing 
requirements.  If the licensee chooses to submit a competitive site-specific 
estimate, the cost to a licensee to prepare such cost estimate may include 
the hiring an outside contractor.  In addition, the licensee will be required 
to provide funding if the Director seeks outside assistance from a consultant 
who is familiar with local market costs to help evaluate the licensee’s 
submission.  Such contractor and consulting costs will be based on the scope 
of the development of the estimate and the Director's review.  Whether these 
additional costs are incurred is completely within the licensee's discretion.  
Because S.B. 79 and the associated proposed rule changes allow a facility the 
option to prepare a cost estimate using RS Means data rather than developing 
a competitive site-specific estimate through an outside contractor,  the use 
of RS Means compared to the competitive site-specific estimate will result in 
an unspecified cost savings to the licensee.  The proposed rule change could 
decrease the estimated cost of closing the facility, by an unspecified 
amount, by allowing the facility to separate or combine units and use 
whichever estimate has the lowest closure and post-closure care costs.  The 
proposed rule change also allows the facility to reduce closure costs by 
closing the unit that is not filled to capacity as a smaller unit.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Existing law places the burden on the 
licensee to demonstrate that its financial surety is sufficient at all times 
to cover the costs of a third party contractor to complete the required 
closure and post-closure activities in the event the licensee is unable or 
unwilling to perform closure and post-closure activities.  This serves to 
protect Utah taxpayers from paying for these activities.  S.B. 173, S.B, 79, 
and the proposed rule changes do not alter the underlying compliance 
requirement; however, these changes do provide an alternate way in lieu of RS 
Means for the licensee to demonstrate compliance.  The licensee’s potential 
compliance costs will be similar to those described above.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There is only one facility in Utah that is currently affected by 
the proposed rule changes.  If the licensee chooses RS Means as the basis, 
there is no added cost compared to the existing requirements.  If the 
licensee chooses to prepare and submit a competitive site-specific estimate, 
there are undetermined costs due to the variability in the scope of the 
development of the estimate and the Director’s review.  It is important that 
the Director have access to the expertise of an outside estimator familiar 
with local market costs to assist in the review and evaluation of the 
competitive site-specific estimate.  The proposed rule changes establish that 
the cost of this assistance should be borne by the licensee.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Rusty Lundberg by phone at 801-536-4257, by FAX at 801-536-0222, or by 
Internet E-mail at rlundberg@utah.gov
- Thomas Ball by phone at 801-536-0251, or by Internet E-mail at 
tball@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  01/12/2018
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42204.htm



GOVERNOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
No. 42232 (Amendment): R357-5. Motion Picture Incentive.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This change clarifies frequent questions that 
have been asked by participants of the program.  More specifically, it 
outlines a definition for what counts as "dollars left in the state" and 
provides a more detailed explanation for what is required of a CPA when hired 
by a production company to perform the statutorily required CPA audit of the 
dollars left in the state.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no impact to the state budget because the 
program is already limited to an annual fiscal year allocation of tax credits 
and cash rebates it can issue.  This rule change does not apply to any state 
agencies because they are not allowed to participate in the program.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no impact to local governments because they 
are not allowed to participate in the program.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This rule change only clarifies already existing 
requirements and practices within the program and therefore should not create 
any new or additional costs to the small businesses that are approved to 
participate in the program.  This amendment simply clarifies what is required 
of a participant if they are approved to receive a tax credit or cash rebate 
under the requirements laid out in statute.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: As with small businesses, this rule change only clarifies already 
existing requirements and practices within the program and therefore should 
not create any new or additional costs to the larger businesses that are 
approved to participate in the program.  This amendment simply clarifies what 
is required of a participant if they are approved to receive a tax credit or 
cash rebate under the requirements laid out in statute.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There is no new compliance costs for 
any affected persons because the rule only clarifies already existing 
requirements provided for in statute for the program.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There should be no anticipated costs to businesses generally 
because a business must be approved for a tax credit to even participate in 
the program.  Furthermore, those that are approved are already required to 
live by these requirements. This amendment is simply clarifying those 
requirements.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jeffrey Van Hulten by phone at 801-538-8694, by FAX at 801-538-8888, or by 
Internet E-mail at jeffreyvan@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42232.htm



HEALTH
HEALTH CARE FINANCING, COVERAGE AND REIMBURSEMENT POLICY
No. 42203 (Amendment): R414-1-5. Incorporations by Reference.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The Department incorporates by reference the 
Utah Medicaid State Plan and any approved State Plan Amendments (SPAs) to 
10/01/2017.  Accordingly, the Department incorporates by reference the 
following: SPA 17-0001-UT Medicaid Cost Sharing, which updates cost sharing 
for vision services, pharmacy services, chiropractic services, physician or 
podiatrist services, inpatient hospital stays, outpatient hospital services, 
and non-emergency services in emergency departments.  It also updates 
Medicaid policy for members who are outside cost-sharing exempt status, 
updates the list of members who are exempt from cost-sharing requirements, 
and updates the list of services that do not require copayments; SPA 17-0017-
UT Utah Educational Savings Plan, which implements a disregard from resources 
when funds are held in a Utah Educational Savings Plan and when the 
Department makes eligibility determinations for certain Medicaid programs.  
It also specifies eligible groups and individuals; SPA 17-0019-UT Limitations 
on Physician Services, which updates and clarifies limitations in coverage 
for physician services that include limitations on physician licensing, 
provision of services, physician procedures, and utilization criteria; SPA 
17-0020-UT Ambulance Rates, which implements a new effective date of rates 
(July 10) for ambulance services; and SPA 17-0021-UT Peer Support Services, 
which removes the reimbursement page for peer support services because 
reimbursement for these services already falls under the category of 
rehabilitative mental health.  This proposed rule also incorporates by 
reference the following Medicaid provider manuals to 10/01/2017: Medical 
Supplies and Durable Medical Equipment Utah Medicaid Provider Manual, and the 
manual's attachment for Donor Human Milk Request Form; Hospital Services Utah 
Medicaid Provider Manual with its attachments; Home Health Agencies Utah 
Medicaid Provider Manual, and the manual's attachment for the Private Duty 
Nursing Acuity Grid; Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Services Utah 
Medicaid Provider Manual; Hospice Care Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Long 
Term Care Services in Nursing Facilities Utah Medicaid Provider Manual, with 
its attachments; Utah Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waiver for 
Individuals Age 65 or Older Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Personal Care Utah 
Medicaid Provider Manual; Utah Home and Community-Based Waiver Services for 
Individuals with an Acquired Brain Injury Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Utah 
Community Supports Waiver for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities or 
Other Related Conditions Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Utah Home and 
Community-Based Services Waiver for Individuals with Physical Disabilities 
Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Utah Home and Community-Based Waiver Services 
New Choices Waiver Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Utah Home and Community-
Based Services Waiver for Technology Dependent, Medically Fragile Individuals 
Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Utah Home and Community-Based Waiver Services 
Medicaid Autism Waiver Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) Administrative Hearings Procedures Manual; Pharmacy Services 
Utah Medicaid Provider Manual with its attachments; Coverage and 
Reimbursement Code Look-up Tool; Child Health Evaluation and Care (CHEC) 
Services Utah Medicaid Provider Manual with its attachments; Dental, Oral 
Maxillofacial, and Orthodontia Services Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; 
General Attachments (All Providers) for the Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; 
Indian Health Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Medical Transportation Utah 
Medicaid Provider Manual; Non-Traditional Medicaid Plan Utah Medicaid 
Provider Manual with attachment;  Licensed Nurse Practitioner Utah Medicaid 
Provider Manual; Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Services Utah 
Medicaid Provider Manual, and the manual's attachment for Physical Therapy 
and Occupational Therapy Decision Tables; Physician Services Utah Medicaid 
Provider Manual with its attachments; Podiatric Services Utah Medicaid 
Provider Manual; Primary Care Network Utah Medicaid Provider Manual with its 
attachments;  Rehabilitative Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder 
Services Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Rural Health Clinics and Federally 
Qualified Health Centers Services Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; School-Based 
Skills Development Services Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Section I: General 
Information Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; Targeted Case Management for 
Individuals with Serious Mental Illness Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; 
Targeted Case Management for Early Childhood (Ages 0-4) Utah Medicaid 
Provider Manual; Vision Care Services Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; 
Medically Complex Children's Waiver Utah Medicaid Provider Manual; and Autism 
Spectrum Disorder Related Services for EPSDT Eligible Individuals Utah 
Medicaid Provider Manual.  This incorporation of the manuals includes the 
following changes: Policy coverage for the Physician Services manual is moved 
to Rule R414-10, and information regarding specific code coverage and 
radiation therapy is removed from this manual.  The Physician Services manual 
has also acquired all policy from the Anesthesiology Services manual, which 
is archived; The Hospital Services manual contains new information on Long 
Term Acute Care (LTAC) hospitalizations that includes documentation 
requirements on an LTAC request, timely submission of requests for 
preadmission and continued stay, a negotiated rate letter submission, and 
denials of LTAC admission, continued stay, or retroactive requests.  
Information regarding specific code coverage is also removed from this 
manual, although the manual will continue to be a reference for criteria and 
reporting instructions.  Policy coverage for inpatient and outpatient 
hospital services is moved to Rules R414-2A and R414-3A; The Home Health 
Services manual is updated to include new criteria for physical therapy and 
occupational therapy in accordance with physician orders, plan of care, and 
licensure; The General Information provider manual (Section I) is updated to 
include new information on quantity limits as they relate to transportation 
and delivery of health care services.  It also includes an update to coverage 
criteria as it relates to identifying emergency services for non-citizens; 
Coverage criteria on disposable incontinence products is updated in the 
Medical Supplies and Durable Medical Equipment manual; The CHEC Services 
manual and the Physician Services manual have acquired all policy from the 
Chiropractic Services manual, which is archived; The Speech-Language 
Pathology and Audiology Services manual is updated to include hearing 
screening as a covered service for newborns; The HCBS Waiver for Individuals 
Age 65 or Older Manual is updated to include new information on claim 
submissions and to  correct billing codes for personal emergency response; 
The Pharmacy Services manual is updated to include new information on 
copayments, prescriptions, provider-administered drugs, Utah Maximum 
Allowable Cost, dispensing fees, and End Stage Renal Disease.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no budget impact because this change only 
fulfills the requirement to incorporate the State Plan by reference.  
Implementation of the State Plan is within legislative budget allotments.  
Further, the rule's incorporation of ongoing Medicaid policy described in the 
provider manuals and Look-up Tool, and hearings procedures described in the 
OIG manual do not create costs or savings to the Department or other state 
agencies.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no budget impact because this change only 
fulfills the requirement to incorporate the State Plan by reference.  
Implementation of the State Plan is within legislative budget allotments.  
Further, the rule's incorporation of ongoing Medicaid policy described in the 
provider manuals and Look-up Tool, and hearings procedures described in the 
OIG manual do not create costs or savings to local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no budget impact because this change only 
fulfills the requirement to incorporate the State Plan by reference.  
Implementation of the State Plan is within legislative budget allotments.  
Further, the rule's incorporation of ongoing Medicaid policy described in the 
provider manuals and Look-up Tool, and hearings procedures described in the 
OIG manual do not create costs or savings to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is no budget impact because this change only fulfills the 
requirement to incorporate the State Plan by reference.  Implementation of 
the State Plan is within legislative budget allotments.  Further, the rule's 
incorporation of ongoing Medicaid policy described in the provider manuals 
and Look-up Tool, and hearings procedures described in the OIG manual do not 
create costs or savings to Medicaid members and to Medicaid providers.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs because 
this change only fulfills the requirement to incorporate the State Plan by 
reference.  Implementation of the State Plan is within legislative budget 
allotments.  Further, the rule's incorporation of ongoing Medicaid policy 
described in the provider manuals and Look-up Tool, and hearings procedures 
described in the OIG manual do not create costs or savings to a single 
Medicaid member or to a Medicaid provider.
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 12/01/2017
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:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42203.htm


CENTER FOR HEALTH DATA, HEALTH CARE STATISTICS
No. 42209 (Amendment): R428-1. Health Data Plan and Incorporated Documents.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The changes update materials incorporated by 
reference to reflect technical requirements expected for compliance; also 
clarify effective dates for Healthcare Facility Database (HFD) Data 
Submission Guides (Version 1 and Version 2), HEDIS Volume 3 Specifications 
for Survey Measures; HEDIS Volume 5 Compliance Audit, Standards, Policies and 
Procedures; and for the All Payer Claims Database (APCD) Data Submission 
Guides (Version 3.0 and Version 3.1).
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  This rule change iterates forward to the current 
versions of documents.  The Utah Department of Health (UDOH) determines 
enactment of the amended version will not create any cost or savings impact 
to the state budget or UDOH's budget, since the change will not increase 
workload and can be carried out within the existing budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  This filing does not create any direct cost or savings 
impact to local governments since they are not directly affected by the rule; 
nor are local governments indirectly impacted because the rule does not 
create a situation requiring services from local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  None--Small businesses are not impacted by this rule 
change, all potentially impacted businesses have more than 50 employees.  As 
a result, the rule change will have no effect on small business for costs or 
savings.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Some data suppliers will need to program changes in their system in 
order to be consistent with the updated guidelines.  According to our 
research with APCD data carriers, some suppliers may incur cost while others 
report $0 as an estimate for compliance.  Overall, UDOH estimates a one-time 
compliance cost of $2,000 per carrier (approximately 24 man hours x DTS 
approved Tier 3 rate of $88 per hour) to comply with proposed APCD DSG 3.1.  
According to our research of submitting healthcare facilities such as 
hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and emergency departments, the 
compliance costs will be $0 per facility to comply with proposed HFD DSG 
Version 2, in part due to changes being absorbed by existing maintenance 
contracts between the facility and its vendor.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  UDOH anticipates that some APCD 
carriers will need to make programming changes to implement the additional 
flexibility and clarifications.  By agreement with the APCD data suppliers, 
changes to the APCD DSG are limited to once per calendar year, so they should 
anticipate these changes as part of their normal business process in 
preparation for next year.  The burden of these changes is consistent with 
that understanding.  Based on figures reported in Box 7D and current APCD 
submission roster, UDOH estimates an industry cost of $84,000 (42 active 
carriers x $2,000) to comply with proposed APCD DSG 3.1. For healthcare 
facilities, consistent with the per-facility figure presented in Box 7D and 
current HFD submission roster, UDOH estimates an industry cost of $0 (93 
active facilities x $0) to comply with proposed HFD DSG Version 2.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Some businesses will be impacted with a portion of a one time 
industry cost of $84,000 while other business will have no cost.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mike Martin by phone at 801-538-9205, by FAX at 801-538-9916, or by 
Internet E-mail at mikemartin@utah.gov
- Norman Thurston by phone at 801-538-7052, by FAX at 801-237-0787, or by 
Internet E-mail at nthurston@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42209.htm

No. 42208 (Amendment): R428-2. Health Data Authority Standards for Health 
Data.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This change clarifies one definition 
referenced in Subsection R428-1-4(4); and deletes a reference to the 
effective dates for the older version of the document.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  This rule amendment updates the version of Data 
Submitter Guide expected for use by data submitters to Utah's All Payer 
Claims Database.  The Utah Department of Health (UDOH) determined that 
enactment of the amended version will not create any cost or savings impact 
to the state budget or UDOH's budget since the change will not increase 
workload and can be carried out within the existing budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  This filing does not create any direct cost or savings 
impact to local governments since they are not directly affected by the rule; 
nor are local governments indirectly impacted because the rule does not 
create a situation requiring services from local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  None--Small businesses are not impacted by this rule 
change, all potentially impacted businesses have more than 50 employees.  As 
a result, the rule change will have no effect on small businesses for costs 
or savings.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Technical changes will not create any cost or savings to 
businesses, individuals, local governments, or persons that are not small 
businesses.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs for 
affected persons.  The change clarifies a specific reference to the APCD Data 
Submittal Guide in Subsection R428-1-4(4) which does not result in compliance 
costs.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The proposed change clarifies the definition of "Data Submission 
Guide for Claims Data" and removes effective dates for the older version of 
the APCD Data Submission Guide.  After conducting a thorough analysis, it was 
determined that this proposed rule change 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 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mike Martin by phone at 801-538-9205, by FAX at 801-538-9916, or by 
Internet E-mail at mikemartin@utah.gov
- Norman Thurston by phone at 801-538-7052, by FAX at 801-237-0787, or by 
Internet E-mail at nthurston@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42208.htm


FAMILY HEALTH AND PREPAREDNESS, LICENSING
No. 42201 (Amendment): R432-150-8. Administrator.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule amendment is to clarify that 
required reports for nursing care facilities includes a monthly census 
report, defines the due date, and restates that civil money penalties can be 
issued for failure to file the census report.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined 
that this proposed amendment will not result in a fiscal impact to the state 
budget because this amendment simply clarifies the rule requirements.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined 
that this proposed amendment will not result in a fiscal impact to local 
governments because this amendment simply clarifies the rule requirements.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined 
that this proposed amendment will not result in a fiscal impact to small 
businesses because this amendment clarifies the rule requirements.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this 
proposed amendment will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses, 
individuals, local governments, or persons that are not small businesses 
because this amendment simply clarifies the rule requirements.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  After conducting a thorough analysis, 
it was determined that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact 
to affected persons because this amendment simply clarifies the rule 
requirements.
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 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Carmen Richins by phone at 801-273-2802, by FAX at 801-274-0658, or by 
Internet E-mail at carmenrichins@utah.gov
- Joel Hoffman by phone at 801-273-2804, by FAX at 801-274-0658, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhoffman@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42201.htm

No. 42200 (Amendment): R432-270-19. Medication Administration.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule amendment is to clarify that a 
resident can independently administer any type personal injection, previously 
only insulin injections were allowed.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined 
that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to the state 
budget because this amendment simply clarifies the rule requirements.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined 
that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to local 
governments because this amendment simply clarifies the rule requirements.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined 
that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to small 
businesses because this amendment simply clarifies the rule requirements.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: After conducting a thorough analysis, it was determined that this 
proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses, individuals, 
local governments, and persons that are not small businesses because this 
amendment simply clarifies the rule requirements.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  After conducting a thorough analysis, 
it was determined that this proposed rule will not result in a fiscal impact 
to affected persons because this amendment simply clarifies the rule 
requirements.
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 because this amendment 
simply clarifies the rule requirements.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Carmen Richins by phone at 801-273-2802, by FAX at 801-274-0658, or by 
Internet E-mail at carmenrichins@utah.gov
- Joel Hoffman by phone at 801-273-2804, by FAX at 801-274-0658, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhoffman@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42200.htm



HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LICENSING
No. 42216 (Amendment): R501-1. General Provisions for Licensing.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The changes:  1) clarify license extension 
and expiration parameters due to H.B.185 (2017) changes; 2) update 
definitions based on DHS consistency and stakeholder feedback; 3) clarify 
general licensure processes, including criteria for denial; 4) update 
processes for reporting critical incidents in a licensed setting or reporting 
a complain regarding a licensed setting; 5) update critical incident 
definition to allow for streamlined DHS-wide reporting of critical incidents; 
6) clarify that pending investigations or those that do not result in 
violations are classified as protected; 7) remove signature requirements to 
streamline processes; and 8) update the code of conduct.  These changes were 
shared with stakeholders and feedback received.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  These processes do not significantly change the Office 
of Licensing duties that would result in higher cost of service.  There is, 
however, the potential for a little bit more processing time on critical 
incidents as the definition has been expanded to create all the items needed 
DHS wide for critical incident reporting.  For providers, this consistency 
means one report to one DHS agency and it will then be shared across all DHS 
agencies.  For DHS agencies, it means minor increased coordination of report 
sharing.  It is difficult to know if this will result in a savings or a cost 
to the state agencies, but it could go slightly either way. All the agencies 
are already accepting their individual critical incidents separately.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No significant anticipated changes for local 
governments.  A few government entities do hold licenses with the Office of 
Licensing and would be impacted by changes to critical incident reporting. 
This could require more submissions on their part, but costs are not 
anticipated to be significant, and if the entity had previously been 
reporting to multiple DHS agencies they may see a cost savings in their 
processes as their reports will be minimized to just one DHS agency.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Similarly to on the state side, changes in critical 
incident reporting could either take a bit more time or a bit less time for 
agencies depending on their circumstances, contracts, and clientele.  Costs 
or savings are expected to be minimal as the submission of an incident report 
is simply an email with a few basic details in it.  The most significant 
incidents that will take the most time would have already been submitted 
under the former rule as well.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No other entities are affected.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  This rule governs mostly the 
processes and determinations by the Office of Licensing with no costs for 
affected persons.  As detailed above, critical incident reporting could 
possibly lead to slightly increased cost, but especially for those under 
contract it could lead to slight savings due to a more streamlined DHS 
processes.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  After analysis, the fiscal impact of this rule change are either 
none or will result in a slight cost or savings depending on individual 
provider circumstances.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42216.htm

No. 42217 (Amendment): R501-12. Foster Care Services.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This rule is being updated to reflect the 
legislative changes made in H.B. 101, H.B. 185, and S.B. 85 (2017) regarding 
the definition of foster care, capacity limits in foster care, statutory 
requirements of home study evaluations, clarification on who can do adoptive 
home studies, and the use of incidental care for foster care providers.  In 
addition, this rule adds the requirement of a standardized form for 
inspecting certified foster homes, and includes a requirement that some be 
unannounced.  Some definitions that no longer applied to rule were removed.  
Also removed were some signature requirements to simplify paperwork 
processing and the dates of background screenings and how they align with 
license dates were clarified.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  This rule changes the work of the Office of Licensing so 
minimally that it cannot be quantified.  It is mostly clarifications and does 
not change the work for any state entity.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  Local governments are not affected by the rules 
governing foster homes.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There are 54 affected child placing foster agencies in 
the state that certify foster homes.  This rule is the standard for those 
foster homes.  This rule will affect them to the extent that they will be 
required to make a yearly unannounced visit, whereas before the visit could 
be announced. Theoretically this could mean they show up when no one is there 
and have to make a second attempt.  However, it is also possible that it does 
not increase their workload at all.  It should be noted that most child 
placing foster agencies already have contracts with DHS/DCFS that require 
quarterly visits which exceed this rule requirement.  Child placing foster 
agencies frequently have staff visiting certified foster homes and likely can 
incorporate this unannounced requirement quite easily.  This rule was 
provided in advance to those affected and no concerns were raised regarding 
this requirement.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No other entities are affected.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  It is not anticipated that there are 
compliance costs associated with this rule except for possibly in some 
circumstances having to make a follow up visit if the family is not there 
when the child placing foster agency shows up unannounced.  It should be 
noted that most child placing foster agencies already have contracts with 
DHS/DCFS that require quarterly visits which exceed this rule requirement.  
Child placing foster agencies frequently have staff visiting certified foster 
homes and likely can incorporate this unannounced requirement quite easily.
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 
rule change will result in no or very minimal financial impact for small 
businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42217.htm

No. 42233 (Amendment): R501-14. Human Service Program Background Screening.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This rule clarifies processing of the new 
background screening exemption found in Subsection 62A-2-120(13).  It also 
defines related terminology.  It eliminates the expiration date of a 
screening and instead creates circumstances which result in a lapsed 
screening.  It adds more flexibility for those from foreign countries to 
clear a background screening; clarifies that juveniles can only submit 
fingerprints within 30 days of their 18th birthday; expands the types of 
crimes that pass a background screening check without being reviewed by a 
full committee; clarifies the information that an applicant may want to 
submit to the committee for review of their background history; allows the 
grandfathering of those with checks prior to 09/01/2015 who are not on the 
FBI Rap Back system to extend when they go on Rap Back from 2017 to 2018.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  It is not anticipated that any of these changes will 
impact the state budget.  The clarifications in this rule have virtually no 
impact to the workload.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  After analysis, this rule will have no impact on local 
governments.  None of these processes increase costs for those accessing the 
background checks.  It does delay some background screening costs for local 
governments who run checks through the office until FY2019.  However, this is 
neither a cost or savings.  They can still choose to run them earlier.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  After analysis, this rule will have no impact on small 
businesses.  None of these processes increase costs for those accessing the 
background checks.  It does delay some background screening costs for small 
businesses who run checks through the office until FY2019.  However, this is 
neither a cost or savings.  They can still choose to run them earlier.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: After analysis, this rule will have no impact on other persons.  
None of these processes increase costs for those accessing the background 
checks.  It does delay some background screening costs for other persons who 
run checks through the office until FY2019.  However, this is neither a cost 
or savings.  They can still choose to run them earlier.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no increased costs for 
affected persons.  The clarifications in this rule do not increase costs to 
processing background screenings.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  This rule is estimated, after analysis, to have no fiscal impact 
for businesses who license and/or run background screenings through the 
office.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42233.htm

No. 42234 (Amendment): R501-18. Recovery Residence Services.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This rule change eliminates the staffing 
differentiation between Recovery Residences that have seven or more clients 
and those with six or fewer.  In effect, this eliminates the option of 
client/managers and only allows non-client managers.  This is in order to 
ensure similar services and protections for all populations and is a 
recommendation made from the programs themselves.  This change has little 
potential impact since no licenses have ever been granted for a program with 
six or fewer clients.  Thus, all licenses in the past three years have always 
had non-client managers.  Since the license's inception in 2014, all granted 
licenses have had seven or more clients at each site.  In addition, this rule 
clarifies what is expected for program staff site visits including daily 
contact requirements.  These requirements were already in the rule, but are 
being merely clarified.  This addition was again program driven as a minimum 
standard to ensure safe sober environments.  The rule amendments also, for 
safety reasons, clarify that these settings are not be used for those 
actively abusing substances and that these are not clinical treatment 
settings.  It also clarifies fire safety requirements if a fire clearance is 
not required by local authorities and clarifies that clients can choose to 
share their own food without meeting health food handler's requirements.  The 
rule was reorganized for clarity without substantial changes in most areas.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  It is not anticipated that the state budget will be 
affected.  Licensing activities and workload remain unchanged by these 
clarifications.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No local governments are involved in recovery residence 
licensing.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This rule is not expected to have fiscal impact on small 
businesses.  These clarifications primarily are meant to memorialize how the 
rule is being complied with already by both programs and their assigned 
licensors.  It is more clear for more consistent compliance.  If anything, it 
is likely these clarifications will reduce the workload for recovery 
residences.  These amendments would have had an impact on smaller recovery 
residences using client managers, but none of those have existed since the 
rule's inception and no one in the recovery community anticipates any in the 
future.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: No other persons are affected by this rule.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  It is not anticipated that recovery 
residences will incur compliance costs from these rule amendments but they 
may enjoy minimal savings.  Fire safety could theoretically cost a bit more 
due to the clarifications, but also allow an alternative to municipal fire 
safety clearance that is more likely to save than cost the provider while 
still ensuring minimum fire safety standards.  On the whole, this rule is 
more clear, but more flexible for providers than their compliance under the 
former rule.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  Upon analysis, this rule results in no fiscal impact for 
businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42234.htm


CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
No. 42207 (Amendment): R512-308. Out-of-Home Services, Guardianship Services 
and Placements.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The content of the amendment is to make 
technical changes to the rule to bring it in-line with current law and 
practice.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There will be no cost or savings to the state budget 
because these proposed changes do not increase workload that would require 
additional staff or additional funding.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  Local governments have no responsibility for the 
services offered by Child and Family Services and are therefore not affected 
by this rule and will have no fiscal impact.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Small businesses have no responsibility for the services 
offered by Child and Family Services and are therefore not affected by this 
rule and will have no fiscal impact.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is no expected fiscal impact for "persons other than small 
businesses, businesses, or local government entities" because funding 
requests for services offered by Child and Family Services come out of 
already-existing budgets.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs for 
affected persons associated with implementing the changes to this rule 
because these changes are not fiscal in nature.
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 revision will not result in a fiscal impact to businesses 
because the revisions to this rule are to bring it in line with current 
statute and practice.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Carol Miller by phone at 801-557-1772, by FAX at 801-538-3993, or by 
Internet E-mail at carolmiller@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42207.htm


SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH
No. 42206 (New Rule): R523-16. Certification of Essential Treatment Examiners 
and Case Managers.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This rule:  1) describes who is eligible to 
be an Essential Treatment Examiner; 2) establishes a certification process 
for Essential Treatment Examiners; 3) requires applicants to meet minimum 
standards of skill, knowledge, and understanding in order to be certified; 4) 
requires applicants to attend classes developed by DSAMH to receive a 
certification; 5) establishes a process to have certain Division sponsored 
training requirements waived if the applicant can show competence through 
previous training and experience; and 6) requires that compensation for an 
essential treatment examination be negotiated between the petitioner and the 
Essential Treatment Examiner.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  This rule will incur costs to the state budget.  DSAMH 
currently provides a training and certification process for mental health 
designated examiners, all costs and time estimates for this rule are based on 
the designated examiner certification program, because of the similarities in 
the two types of certification processes.  The associated costs will include:  
DSAMH will have to develop a form (onetime cost) and application review and 
processing procedure (ongoing cost) for this certification.  It is 
anticipated that the form will take 1 hour to develop, with a financial cost 
of an average of $40.48 (including benefits) per hour based on the level and 
salary of employee who would complete this task for a minimum total cost of 
$40.48.  The rule requires the Director or designee to review the 
application, and the Director to make a determination if certain training can 
be waived based on the applicants' past experience and training.  The time 
needed to review applications is not estimable nor is the time needed to 
review a waiver.  Financial costs would be a minimum total cost of $40.48 per 
hour for most application reviews based on the designee who will be reviewing 
most of the applications.  The reviewing and making a determination on 
applications seeking waivers will be a minimum cost of $83.84 per hour based 
on the Directors compensation salary including benefits.  A total financial 
cost cannot be estimated, because there is no way of knowing how many 
applications will be submitted or how many will request a waiver.  The time 
it takes to convert the current designated examiner curriculum to meet the 
needs of the essential treatment examiner certification process.  This is a 
one-time cost to DSAMH.  The curriculum used for designated examiners 
provides learners with an understanding of courtroom policies, procedures and 
etiquette, along with the elements of civil commitment law.  It is 
anticipated the courtroom training will remain the same, but DSAMH will need 
to design a segment in the training that discusses the four criteria of an 
essential treatment determination, in that the assessed individual: 1) 
suffers from substance use, 2) can reasonably benefit from treatment, 3) is 
likely to substantially benefit from a less-restrictive treatment, and 4) 
presents a serious harm to self or to others.  DSAMH estimates this task will 
take eight plus hours to complete.  The financial cost of developing this 
trained can be set at an average of $40.48 (including benefits) per hour 
based on the level and salary of the employee who would complete this task 
for a minimum total cost of $323.84.  The time it will take to provide 
training and issue certifications to applicants.  This is an intermittent 
cost that will be based on the number applicants who apply and are not 
trained in the elements of the Essential Treatment Act, or court room 
procedures and testifying as an expert in a court proceeding.  DSAMH 
anticipates this training will be offered as needed and the total time cost 
will be 8 hours per training.  The costs of training materials that is 
estimated at $2,000 per year which includes possible break food items and 
copy materials.  The costs associated with compensating trainers.   DSAMH 
submits this cost based on the current average income of DSAMH staff 
qualified to provide the essential treatment examiner training at an average 
of $40.48 (including benefits) with a total cost of $323.84 per training.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  No costs are associated with this rule for local 
governments.  Certification is based on an individual’s desire to become 
certified .
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No costs are associated with this rule for small 
businesses.  Certification is based on an individual’s desire to become 
certified.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: The affected persons and numbers of licenses in Utah associated 
with this rule are:  1) Clinical Mental Health Counselor: 1,253; 2) Licensed 
Clinical Social Worker: 3,773; and 3) total number of affected persons is 
5,026, per the number of licenses in August 2017 as reported by the Division 
of Occupational Licensing (DOPL).  This rule will create a time cost to 
affected persons.  DSAMH anticipates that the certification process could 
take up to 6 hours of the applicant’s time based on that individual’s 
qualification.  This will include submitting an application, signing up for 
training and participating in training.  This rule creates financial costs to 
affected persons.  This rule restricts an inestimable number of the potential 
affected persons because it requires five-year experience in treating and 
diagnosing substance use disorders.  This means that those without the 
experience could be denied access to the funds available for providing 
essential treatment assessments for up to a maximum of five years, or until 
they acquire the experience needed to become certified.  This experience 
requirement will not be waived.  The loss of potential income for the 6 hours 
that the applicants will need to dedicate to the certification process.  
DSAMH is unable to quantify this cost because the values of individual 
applicants’ time in financial compensation are as varied as the potential 
number of actual applicants.  This rule creates an inestimable financial 
benefit to affected persons.  Those who apply and have the required 
experience had the potential of eventually being certified, are then able to 
seek opportunities to provide essential treatment assessment based on 
whatever compensation rate they negotiate with potential consumers of that 
service.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  Both a time and possible financial 
cost for individuals who apply to be a certified Essential Treatment Examiner 
and are not familiar with the elements of being an expert witness in court, 
and/or the criteria for essential treatment interventions.  Time cost could 
be six or more hours to apply, receive training, and drive to and from the 
trainings.  The monetary cost would be travel to and from the trainings and 
personal salary costs for the six hours needed to apply and complete the 
training.  All of these costs are inestimable.
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 small or large 
businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
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:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42206.htm



INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION
No. 42211 (Amendment): R590-151. Records Access Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The change primarily removes outdated 
submission requirements that direct requesters to send submissions to a 
former Utah Insurance Department employee, and replaces them with a direction 
to file Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) requests through 
the state's Open Record Portal.  It also removes the Enforcement Date section 
and makes a number of small editorial corrections.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state 
budget.  The amendment to the rule merely designates a new method for the 
Department to collect and track GRAMA requests.  Use of the Open Record 
Portal will allow the Department to track GRAMA requests more efficiently and 
should result in requesters receiving their records in a more timely manner.  
However, the new method will not increase or decrease the amount of staff 
time required to research and complete a records request.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There will be no cost or savings to local governments.  
The amendment governs the relationship between the Department and the GRAMA-
filing public.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There will be no cost or savings to small businesses.  
The amendment governs the relationship between the Department and the GRAMA-
filing public.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There will be no cost or savings to any other persons.  The 
amendment merely designates a new method for the Department to collect and 
track GRAMA requests.  Use of the Open Record Portal will allow the 
Department to track GRAMA requests more efficiently and should result in 
requesters receiving their records in a more timely manner.  There is no cost 
to file requests through the Open Record Portal.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs for any 
affected persons.  The amendment merely designates a new method for the 
Department to collect and track GRAMA requests.  Use of the Open Record 
Portal will allow the Department to track GRAMA requests more efficiently and 
should result in requesters receiving their records in a more timely manner.  
There is no cost to filing requests through the Open Record Portal.
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 change 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 12/01/2017
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:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42211.htm

No. 42213 (Amendment): R590-157-4. Stamping Fee Amounts.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The change increases the surplus line 
stamping fee to 0.18 of 1% from its current level of 0.15 of 1%.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There will be an approximate aggregate increase of 
$78,600 to the state budget as a result of this fee increase.  These funds 
will be used to pay for technology improvements at the Surplus Line 
Association, which acts as the agent for the Utah Insurance Commissioner 
pursuant to Section R590-157-5.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments.  This rule governs transactions that involve the state, the 
Surplus Line Association, and surplus line producers and agencies that 
operate within the state.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  After researching the businesses that have insurance 
policies through non-admitted insurers, it was concluded that 90% of those 
businesses are small businesses and will be affected.  This rule change will 
result in an average increase per policy of $3.26.  This figure will be 
explained further in the Department head's comments below.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: This fee change impacts all businesses that have insurance through 
non-admitted insurers.  The approximate aggregate increase that comes as a 
result of the fee will be $78,600, which breaks down to an average increase 
per policy of $3.26.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  This fee change impacts all 
businesses that have insurance through non-admitted insurers.  The 
approximate average increase per policy is $3.26.
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:  Businesses that have 
insurance through non-admitted insurers will be impacted.  The approximate 
average increase per policy is $3.26.  II. AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF 
BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED:  In 2016, 24,128 
surplus line policies were issued in Utah, and that number is expected to 
remain roughly flat.  It is assumed that each policy corresponds to one 
business in the state.  III. AN ESTIMATE OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS 
IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED:  Of the businesses stated above, 
approximately 90% are small businesses.  This means that approximately 21,715 
small businesses will be impacted.  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:  In 
2016, the surplus line market included 24,128 issued policies with a total 
premium of $262 million.  At the current stamping fee of 0.15 of 1%, the 
annual aggregate stamping fee cost is $393,000 ($262M x .0015).  Increasing 
the surplus line stamping fee to 0.18 of 1% will result in an annual 
aggregate cost of $471,600 ($262M x .0018).  This corresponds to an annual 
aggregate cost increase to all businesses of approximately $78,600 ($471,600 
to $393,000) and an annual aggregate cost increase to small businesses of 
approximately $70,740 (90% of $78,600).  The average annual increase per 
policy, whether business or small business, will be $3.26 ($78,600 / 24,128).  
There are no one-time costs as a result of this rule change.  V. DEPARTMENT 
HEAD'S COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS:  This analysis represents the best analysis 
possible using data and resources from both the Utah Insurance Department and 
the Surplus Line Association.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
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:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42213.htm

No. 42210 (Amendment): R590-164. Uniform Health Billing Rule.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule changes include the removal of 
standards that are no longer applicable or have newer versions, the addition 
of one new standard, and the updating of outdated language.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state 
budget.  The changes govern the relationship between insurers and providers, 
and have no bearing on the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments.  The changes govern the relationship between insurers and 
providers, and have no bearing on local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  Small businesses, specifically the 163 licensed 
psychologists in Utah with the Behavior Analyst specialty, will see an 
overall savings of 79% or approximately $1.44 per claim.  Because the 
Insurance Department cannot know the volume of claims that each of these 
psychologists submit within a year, the aggregate savings is impossible to 
determine.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Other persons, specifically the 9 health insurers offering 
comprehensive health insurance coverage in Utah, will see an overall savings 
of 79% or approximately $0.20 per claim.  Because the Insurance Department 
cannot know the volume of claims that each of these insurers submit within a 
year, the aggregate savings is impossible to determine.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs for 
affected persons, rather these changes significantly reduce the financial and 
resource costs of processing payment claims.  It is important to note that 
this standard is currently in use by all affected businesses as a result of 
S.B. 57 (2014).
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:  These changes will 
significantly reduce the financial and resource burden of processing payment 
claims by healthcare payers and providers in Utah.  The rule formally adopts 
the ABA Billing Standard, which substitutes cheaper electronic filing in 
place of costlier paper claim filing.  It is important to note that this 
standard is currently in use by all affected businesses as a result of S.B. 
57 which was passed during the 2014 General Legislative Session.  II. AN 
ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO 
BE IMPACTED: According to data gathered by the Utah Insurance Department and 
the Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing (DOPL), there are 172 
businesses that will be impacted in Utah.  Of these, the majority are small 
businesses (see III, below).  The remaining 9 are health insurers.  III. AN 
ESTIMATE OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE 
IMPACTED: According to DOPL, there are 163 licensed psychologists with the 
Behavior Analyst specialty in Utah.  These providers are all small businesses 
and will see significant savings as a result of the rule change.  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 ABA Billing Standard is a newly required benefit that 
is expected to result in significant savings for payers and providers.  The 
Insurance Department knows that implementing the ABA Billing standard will 
result in an overall savings of $2.03 per claim.  While the standard is too 
new to know the exact breakdown specific to payers and providers, the 
Department can extrapolate using the data that is known.  Currently, a paper 
claim costs payers $0.74 and providers $1.84 per claim, for a total of $2.58 
per claim.  Using the ABA Billing Standard decreases the cost per claim to 
$0.54, which is approximately 21% the cost of the paper claim.  Under the ABA 
Billing Standard, payer costs will be roughly $0.14 while provider costs will 
be roughly $0.40 per claim.  These are all ongoing costs per claim, there are 
no one-time costs.  V. DEPARTMENT HEAD'S COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS:  The above 
analysis represents the Insurance Department's best analysis of the fiscal 
impact of this rule change.  It is important to note that this standard is 
currently in use by all affected businesses as a result of S.B. 57 (2014).  
This amendment is being done to formally codify the standard.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
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:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42210.htm

No. 42215 (Amendment): R590-225. Submission of Property and Casualty Rate and 
Form Filings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  This rule gives property and casualty 
insurance filers instructions on how to file rate and form filings with the 
Department.  The main change to the rule specifies that an actuary must 
certify that private passenger auto, homeowners, and workers' compensation 
rates are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory.  Other 
changes remove outdated sections, add clarifying comment, and make minor 
editorial corrections.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state 
budget.  The rule requires that insurers submit certifications by actuaries, 
but such submissions will likely be electronic and will not require storage 
or any other costs.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments because provisions of the rule only apply to insurers.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to small 
businesses because provisions of the rule only apply to insurers, none of 
which are small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There may be a small cost for insurers if they do not already 
utilize the services of an actuary.  In these cases, insurers would need to 
contract with an actuary to certify their rate filings.  The Department has 
no way of knowing what the costs of such contracts would be, because such 
matters are negotiated between the actuary and the client.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  All insurers in Utah are currently 
required by Section 31A-19a-201 to file rates that are not excessive, 
inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, and most currently use the services 
of an actuary to develop the rates used.  Those that do not currently use the 
services of an actuary would have to negotiate a contract for services.  
Because such negotiations are solely between actuary and client, the 
Department would have no way of determining what the fiscal impact would be.
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:  All insurers in Utah 
are currently required by Section 31A-19a-201 to file rates that are not 
excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory, and most currently use the 
services of an actuary to develop the rates used.  Those that do not 
currently use the services of an actuary would have to negotiate a contract 
for services.  Because such negotiations are solely between actuary and 
client, the Department would have no way of determining what the fiscal 
impact would be.  II. AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BUSINESS 
ESTABLISHMENTS IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED:  There are currently 1,289 
licensed property and casualty insurance companies doing business in Utah.  
While this rule covers all property and casualty insurers, the requirement 
for the actuarial certification will only apply to those insurers that offer 
private passenger auto, homeowners, and workers' compensation.  There are 
currently 625 insurers that have the authorized line of auto liability, 767 
with the authorized line of property, and 563 with the authorized line of 
worker compensation.  III. AN ESTIMATE OF THE SMALL BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS 
IN UTAH EXPECTED TO BE IMPACTED:  No small businesses in Utah will be 
impacted.  Aside from one local company, all insurers that operate in Utah 
are national firms that would be comfortably classified as large employers.  
While not as large as the national companies, even the single local insurer 
would be classed as a mid-to-large employer.  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 cost incurred as a result of the the proposed rule will be the fee paid 
to an actuary for their services in certifying a company's rates.  Because 
most insurers already utilize the services of an actuary, the department 
believes the effect of this rule will not be widespread.  The Department has 
no way of determining the one-time and ongoing costs that result from the 
rule because insurers will negotiate the price with their actuary, and such 
costs will necessarily vary.  V. DEPARTMENT HEAD'S COMMENTS ON THE ANALYSIS:  
The above analysis represents the Insurance Department's best analysis of the 
fiscal impact of this rule change.  Most insurers use the services of an 
actuary, so the effects of the rule will be minimal.  In some cases, insurers 
may need to negotiate a price with an actuary for their services.  In these 
cases, the Department expects that the insurers will attempt to get the best 
price possible in an attempt to keep their costs low.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
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
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 11/15/2017 10:00 AM, State Office Building, 450 N State Street, Room 
3112,Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42215.htm

No. 42212 (Repeal): R590-256. Health Benefit Plan Internet Portal Solvency 
Rating.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule is being repealed in its entirety to 
comply with H.B. 336 (2017).
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state 
budget.  The same process was previously used by the Insurance Department and 
the Department will continue to use it for other regulatory purposes.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments.  The same process was previously used by the Insurance 
Department and the Department will continue to use it for other regulatory 
purposes.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to small 
businesses.  The same process was previously used by the Insurance Department 
and the Department will continue to use it for other regulatory purposes.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is no anticipated cost or savings to any other persons.  The 
same process was previously used by the Insurance Department and the 
Department will continue to use it for other regulatory purposes.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There is no compliance cost for any 
affected persons.  The repeal of the rule requires no compliance of any sort 
by any persons.
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 change 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 12/01/2017
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:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42212.htm

No. 42214 (New Rule): R590-276. Record Retention for Foreign, Alien, 
Commercially Domiciled, Foreign Title and Foreign Fraternals.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The rule notifies foreign, alien, 
commercially domiciled, and foreign fraternal insurers that they must keep 
records and reports for three years, plus the current year, for review by the 
Utah Insurance Department as needed.  It also notifies all title insurers, 
foreign and domestic, that they must keep records for 15 years per Section 
31A-20-110.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to the state 
budget because the rule only applies to certain classes of insurer.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to local 
governments because the rule only applies to certain classes of insurer.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no anticipated cost or savings to small 
businesses because the rule only applies to certain classes of insurer, none 
of which are small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is no anticipated cost or savings to any other persons. All 
states require that all insurers in the affected categories, foreign, alien, 
commercially domiciled, foreign title, and foreign fraternal, keep records 
for a minimum of three years plus the current year for regulator review.  
Since insurers are already following the regulations, there will be no 
additional requirements to comply with, nor any costs.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no compliance costs for any 
affected persons.  All states require that all insurers in the affected 
categories, foreign, alien, commercially domiciled, foreign title, and 
foreign fraternal, keep records for a minimum of three years plus the current 
year for regulator review.  Since insurers are already following the 
regulations, there will be no additional requirements to comply with, nor any 
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 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 12/01/2017
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:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42214.htm



JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 42186 (Amendment): R597-3. Judicial Performance Evaluations.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Subsection R597-3-3(vi) was removed which 
addresses courtroom observations.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There are no anticipated costs or savings to the state 
budget as a result of the change.  The change only removes "convicted felons" 
from persons that shall be excluded from eligibility as courtroom observers.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There are no anticipated costs or savings to local 
governments as a result of the change.  The change only removes "convicted 
felons" from persons that shall be excluded from eligibility as courtroom 
observers.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There are no anticipated costs or savings to small 
businesses as a result of the change.  The change only removes "convicted 
felons" from persons that shall be excluded from eligibility as courtroom 
observers.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There are no anticipated costs or savings to persons other than 
small businesses, businesses, or local governments as a result of the change.  
The change only removes "convicted felons" from persons that shall be 
excluded from eligibility as courtroom observers.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There are no anticipated compliance 
costs for affected persons as a result of the change.  The change only 
removes "convicted felons" from persons that shall be excluded from 
eligibility as courtroom observers.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There are no anticipated fiscal impacts that this change may 
have on businesses.  The change removes "convicted felons" from persons that 
shall be excluded from eligibility as courtroom observers and does not impact 
any fiscal matters.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/01/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Jennifer Yim by phone at 801-538-1652, or by Internet E-mail at 
jyim@utah.gov
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/08/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42186.htm



PARDONS (BOARD OF)
ADMINISTRATION
No. 42227 (Amendment): R671-205. Credit for Time Served.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The purpose of this amendment is to specify 
and define how credit for time served may be considered while awaiting trial 
or conviction, including time spent in confinement, detention or 
hospitalization, as well as prior to commitment at the Utah State Hospital 
under civil commitment order or any similar order to remain in the facility.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings because credit 
for time served does not have a fiscal impact on the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings because credit 
for time served does not have a fiscal impact on local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no anticipated cost or savings because credit 
for time served does not have a fiscal impact on small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is no anticipated cost or savings because the amended rule of 
credit for time served does not affect or impact any individual, partnership, 
corporation, association, governmental entity, or public or private 
organization.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There is no anticipated cost or 
savings because the amended rule of credit for time served does not have a 
fiscal impact on affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There are no anticipated fiscal impacts of the amended rule of 
credit for time served on businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/13/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Bev Uipi by phone at 801-261-6446, or by Internet E-mail at buipi@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 12/06/2017 08:00 AM, Board of Pardons and Parole, 448 E 6400 S, Room 300, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/20/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42227.htm

No. 42231 (Amendment): R671-304. Hearing Record.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  A record is an electronic audio record of all 
in-person, video, or telephone hearings.  This change adds that pursuant to 
Section 77-27-8, a certified shorthand recorder records and transcribes 
proceedings of any death penalty commutation hearing.  This adds that a 
retention copy shall be maintained by the Board for seven years, instead of 
five.  Additions also include that any magnetic, analog, or other non-digital 
hearing record prior to 01/01/2009 shall only be maintained for ten years 
from the date of hearing.  More additions define that an offender and the 
public may request a copy of the record, which requires the record be copied 
to an electronic or digital medium for a fee.  If an offender affirms by 
affidavit indigent, the Board may furnish a copy at no cost to the offender.
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no anticipated cost or savings because the 
hearing record does not have a fiscal impact on the state budget.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no anticipated cost or savings because the 
hearing record does not have a fiscal impact on local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There is no anticipated cost or savings because the 
hearing record does not have a fiscal impact on small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: There is no anticipated cost or savings because the change does not 
affect or impact any individual, partnership, corporation, association, 
governmental entity, or public or private organization.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There is no anticipated cost or 
savings because the change does not have a fiscal impact on affected persons.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There are no anticipated fiscal impacts of the change on 
businesses.
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON THIS RULE BY SUBMITTING WRITTEN 
COMMENTS NO LATER THAN AT 5:00 PM ON 12/13/2017
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Bev Uipi by phone at 801-261-6446, or by Internet E-mail at buipi@utah.gov
INTERESTED PERSONS MAY ATTEND A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THIS RULE:
- 12/06/2017 08:00 PM, Board of Pardons and Parole, 448 E 6400 S, Room 300, 
Salt Lake City, UT
THIS RULE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE ON:  12/20/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42231.htm




NOTICES OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED RULES

After an agency has published a Proposed Rule in the Utah State Bulletin, it 
may receive comment that requires the Proposed Rule to be altered before it 
goes into effect.  A Change in Proposed Rule allows an agency to respond to 
comments it receives. 

While the law does not designate a comment period for a Change in Proposed 
Rule, it does provide for a 30-day waiting period.  An agency may accept 
additional comments during this period and, at its option, may designate a 
comment period or may hold a public hearing.  The 30-day waiting period for 
Changes in Proposed Rules published in Utah State Bulletin ends December 1, 
2017.

From the end of the 30-day waiting period through March 1, 2018, an agency 
may notify the Office of Administrative Rules that it wants to make the 
Change in Proposed Rule effective.  When an agency submits a Notice of 
Effective Date for a Change in Proposed Rule, the Proposed Rule as amended by 
the Change in Proposed Rule becomes the effective rule.  The agency sets the 
effective date.  The date may be no fewer than 30 days nor more than 120 days 
after the publication of the Change in Proposed Rule.  If the agency 
designates a public comment period, the effective 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.  Alternatively, the agency may file 
another Change in Proposed Rule in response to additional comments received.  
If the Office of Administrative Rules does not receive a Notice of Effective 
Date or another Change in Proposed Rule by the end of the 120-day period 
after publication, the Change in Proposed Rule filings, along with its 
associated Proposed Rule, lapses.

Changes in Proposed Rules are governed by Section 63G-3-303, Rule R15-2, and 
Sections R15-4-3, R15-4-4, R15-4-5b, R15-4-7, R15-4-9, and R15-4-10.


ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
No. 41814 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-101-2. Definitions.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  The change adds "pound/pound" as a unit that 
can be used to calculate VOC content.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The original proposed 
amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was based was 
published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 91.  
Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since the 
publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text 
that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and the proposed amendment 
together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the 
agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of this change because the change does not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of this change because the change does not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  No cost or savings is expected for small businesses as a 
result of this change.  The change is merely including a unit that can be 
used to calculate VOC content.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by this change because the rule does 
not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of this change.  The change, adding "pound/pound" to the 
definition of VOC content, does not result in additional compliance costs 
because requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  No fiscal impact is expected as a result of this change.  The 
change is just including a unit that can be used to calculate VOC content.  
The requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41814.htm

No. 41809 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-304. Solvent Cleaning.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Several changes were made throughout Rule 
R307-304 as a result of public comments.  These changes include:  adding an 
exemption for materials for solvent cleaning operations to the compliance 
schedule, adding exemptions for solvent cleaning in laboratory tests, 
analysis, research, and development projects as well as cleaning of solar 
cells, laser hardware, scientific instruments, and high-precision optics, 
clarifying definition for solvent cleaning; and adding VOC limits for 
advanced composites manufacturing and baby and child care diapers 
manufacturing.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The original proposed new rule upon which 
this change in proposed rule (CPR) was based was published in the July 1, 
2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 98.  Underlining in the rule 
below indicates text that has been added since the publication of the 
proposed new rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been 
deleted.  You must view the CPR and the proposed new rule together to 
understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make 
this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemptions may lead to a savings to 
small businesses; however,  it is difficult to determine the amount of the 
savings to be realized.  The other changes would not result in additional 
costs.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes:  added an exemption for 
materials for solvent cleaning operations to the compliance schedule; added 
exemptions for solvent cleaning in laboratory tests, analysis, research, and 
development projects, as well as cleaning of solar cells, laser hardware, 
scientific instruments, and high-precision optics; and clarified the 
definition for solvent cleaning do not result in additional compliance costs 
because requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.  The change to 
add VOC limits for advanced composites manufacturing and baby and child care 
diapers manufacturing are to provide clarification that these industries are 
also regulated and were included in the original rule cost analysis.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemptions may lead to a savings for 
businesses; however, it is difficult to determine the amount of the savings 
to be realized.  The other changes will have no fiscal impact on any 
businesses because the changes do not modify any of the existing requirements 
within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41809.htm

No. 41824 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-343. Wood Furniture Manufacturing 
Operations.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Two changes were made in Rule R307-343 as a 
result of public comments.  These changes include adding a compliance 
schedule for affected sources and extending the exemption for canned aerosol 
products used exclusively for touch-up or repair.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The 
original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was 
based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on 
page 103.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added 
since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out 
indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and the proposed 
amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable 
should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemption for canned aerosol 
products used exclusively for touch-up or repair may lead to a nominal 
savings for small businesses; however, it is difficult to determine the 
amount of the savings that would be realized.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes, the added compliance schedule 
for affected sources and extending the exemption for canned aerosol products 
used exclusively for touch-up or repair, do not result in additional 
compliance costs because the requirements of the rule otherwise remain 
unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemption for canned aerosol products used 
exclusively for touch-up or repair may lead to a nominal savings for small 
businesses; however, it is difficult to determine the amount of the savings 
that would be realized.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41824.htm

No. 41816 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-344. Paper, Film, and Foil 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  A compliance schedule for affected sources 
was added to Rule R307-344 as a result of public comments.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  
The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) 
was based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 108.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and 
the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of this change because the change does not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of this change because the change does not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This change does not result in additional costs or 
savings because the change simply provides a compliance schedule for affected 
sources and does not change any requirements for small business.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by this change because the rule does 
not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of this change.  The change is adding a compliance schedule for 
affected sources; it is not changing any requirements for those that the rule 
regulates.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The change to the proposal will have no fiscal impact on any 
businesses because the change does not modify any of the existing 
requirements within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41816.htm

No. 41817 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-345. Fabric and Vinyl Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Several changes were made throughout Rule 
R307-345 as a result of public comments.  These changes include adding a 
compliance schedule for affected sources, adding a definition, and adding 
clarifying language throughout the rule.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The original 
proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was based 
was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 
111.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since 
the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates 
text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and the proposed amendment 
together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the 
agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  These changes would not result in additional costs or 
savings because the changes do not change the way the rule impacts the small 
businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes (the added compliance schedule 
for affected sources, added definition, and clarifying language throughout 
the rule) do not result in additional compliance costs because requirements 
of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  There will be no added compliance costs because of these 
changes.  The changes (the added compliance schedule for affected sources, 
the added definition, and the added clarifying language) do not result in 
additional compliance costs because requirements of the rule otherwise remain 
unchanged.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41817.htm

No. 41818 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-346. Metal Furniture Surface 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  A compliance schedule for affected sources 
was added to Rule R307-346 as a result of public comments.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  
The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) 
was based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 114.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and 
the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of this change because the changes does not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of this change because the change does not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This change would not result in additional costs or 
savings because the change does not change the way the rule impacts small 
businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by this change because the rule does 
not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of this change.  The change, the added compliance schedule for 
affected sources, did not result in additional compliance costs because 
requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The change to the proposal will have no fiscal impact on any 
businesses because the changes do not modify any of the existing requirements 
within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41818.htm

No. 41819 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-347. Large Appliance Surface 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  A compliance schedule for affected sources 
was added to Rule R307-347 as a result of public comments.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  
The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) 
was based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 118.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and 
the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of this change because the change does not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of this change because the change does not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This change would not result in additional costs or 
savings because the change does not change the way the rule impacts the small 
businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by this change because the rule does 
not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of this change.  The change, the added compliance schedule for 
affected sources, did not result in additional compliance costs because 
requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The change to the proposal will have no fiscal impact on any 
businesses because the change does not modify any of the existing 
requirements within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41819.htm

No. 41826 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-348. Magnet Wire Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Two changes were made in Rule R307-348 as a 
result of public comments.  These changes include adding clarification that 
operations covered by Department of Defense military technical data and 
performed by the United States Armed Forces are exempt from Rule R307-348; 
and adding work practice for solvent cleaning operations.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  
The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) 
was based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 121.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and 
the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  These changes would not result in additional costs or 
savings to small businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes, the exemption for operations 
covered by Department of Defense military technical data and performed by the 
United States Armed Forces, and work practice for solvent cleaning 
operations, do not result in additional compliance costs because the 
requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The changes will have no fiscal impact on any businesses because 
the changes do not modify any of the existing requirements within in the 
rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41826.htm

No. 41820 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-349. Flat Wood Panel Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  A compliance schedule for affected sources 
was added to Rule R307-349 as a result of public comments.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  
The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) 
was based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 123.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and 
the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of this change because the change does not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of this change because the change does not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This change does not result in additional costs or 
savings because the change did not change the way the rule impacts small 
businesses.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by this change because the rule does 
not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of this change.  The change, the added compliance schedule for 
affected sources, did not result in additional compliance costs because 
requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The change to the proposal will have no fiscal impact on any 
businesses because the change does not modify any of the existing 
requirements within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41820.htm

No. 41821 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-350. Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Several changes were made throughout Rule 
R307-350 as a result of public comments.  These changes include adding a 
compliance schedule for affected sources, adding definitions, adding an 
exemption for medical devices, and adding clarifying language throughout the 
rule.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The original proposed amendment upon which this 
change in proposed rule (CPR) was based was published in the July 1, 2017, 
issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 126.  Underlining in the rule below 
indicates text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule 
mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must 
view the CPR and the proposed amendment together to understand all of the 
changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemption for medical devices may 
lead to savings for small businesses; however, it is difficult to determine 
the amount of the savings to be realized.  The other changes would not result 
in additional costs because the changes simply clarify the purpose of the 
rule.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes (the added compliance schedule 
for affected sources, added definitions, added exemption for medical devices, 
and added clarifying language) do not result in additional compliance costs 
because the requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemption for medical devices may lead to 
savings for businesses; however, it is difficult to determine the amount of 
the savings to be realized.  The other changes will have no fiscal impact on 
any businesses because the changes do not modify any of the existing 
requirements within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41821.htm

No. 41825 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-351. Graphic Arts.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Several changes were made throughout Rule 
R307-351 as a result of public comments.  These changes include adding a 
compliance schedule for affected sources, adding a definition for medical 
device, adding an exemption for medical devices and their packaging, and 
adding clarifying language throughout the rule.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The 
original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was 
based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on 
page 132.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added 
since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out 
indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and the proposed 
amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable 
should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemption for medical devices and 
their packaging may lead to savings for small businesses; however, it is 
difficult to determine the amount of the savings to be realized.  The other 
changes would not result in additional costs.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes, the added compliance schedule 
for affected sources, added definition for medical device, added exemption 
for medical devices and their packaging, and clarifying language, do not 
result in additional compliance costs because the requirements of the rule 
otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemption for medical devices and their 
packaging may lead to savings for businesses; however, it is difficult to 
determine the amount of the savings to be realized.  The other changes will 
have no fiscal impact on any businesses because the changes do not modify any 
of the existing requirements within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41825.htm

No. 41822 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-352. Metal Container, Closure, and 
Coil Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Several changes were made throughout Rule 
R307-352 as a result of public comments.  These changes include adding a 
compliance schedule for affected sources, adding a definition for Aerosol 
coating product, and adding an exemption for operations that use aerosol 
coating products.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The original proposed amendment upon 
which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was based was published in the July 
1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 138.  Underlining in the 
rule below indicates text that has been added since the publication of the 
proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been 
deleted.  You must view the CPR and the proposed amendment together to 
understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make 
this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The extension of the exemption for aerosol coating 
product may lead to savings to small businesses; however, it is difficult to 
determine the amount of the savings to be realized.  The other changes would 
not result in additional costs or savings because the changes simply clarify 
the purpose of the rule.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes (the added compliance schedule 
for affected sources, added a definition for Aerosol coating product, and 
added exemption for operations that use aerosol coating products) do not 
result in additional compliance costs because the requirements of the rule 
otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The new exemption for aerosol coating product may lead to a 
savings to businesses; however, it is difficult to determine the amount of 
the savings to be realized.  The other changes would not result in additional 
costs because the changes simply clarify the purpose of the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41822.htm

No. 41823 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-353. Plastic Parts Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Several changes were made throughout Rule 
R307-353 as a result of public comments.  These changes include:  adding a 
compliance schedule for affected sources; adding a definition for medical 
device; adding exemptions for aerospace vehicles and components; coating 
products on medical devices up to 800 pounds of VOC per year; and research 
and development, quality control, or performance testing activities.  
(EDITOR'S NOTE:  The original proposed amendment upon which this change in 
proposed rule (CPR) was based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the 
Utah State Bulletin, on page 142.  Underlining in the rule below indicates 
text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned 
above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the 
CPR and the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that 
will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  The new exemptions may lead to savings for small 
businesses; however, it is difficult to determine the amount of the savings 
to be realized.  The other changes would not result in additional costs.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes, the added compliance schedule 
for affected sources; added definition for medical device; added exemptions 
for aerospace vehicles and components, coating products on medical devices up 
to 800 pounds of VOC per year; and research and development, quality control, 
or performance testing activities, do not result in additional compliance 
costs because the requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The new exemptions may lead to savings for businesses; however, 
it is difficult to determine the amount of the savings to be realized.  The 
other changes would not result in additional costs because the changes simply 
clarify the purpose of the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41823.htm

No. 41827 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-354. Automotive Refinishing 
Coatings.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  A compliance schedule for affected sources 
was added to Rule R307-354 as a result of public comments.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  
The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) 
was based was published in the July 1, 2017, issue of the Utah State 
Bulletin, on page 146.  Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has 
been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; 
strike-out indicates text that has been deleted.  You must view the CPR and 
the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be 
enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of this change because the change does not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of this change because the change does not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  This change does not result in additional costs or 
savings to small businesses because the change simply adds compliance 
schedule for affected sources.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by this change because the rule does 
not apply to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of this change.  The change, the added compliance schedule for 
affected sources, does not result in additional compliance costs because 
requirements of the rule otherwise remain unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The change to the proposal will have no fiscal impact on any 
businesses because the change does not modify any of the existing 
requirements within the rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41827.htm

No. 41830 (Change in Proposed Rule): R307-355. Aerospace Manufacture and 
Rework Facilities.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE OR CHANGE:  Several changes were made throughout Rule 
R307-355 as a result of public comments.  These changes include adding a 
compliance schedule for affected sources, adding definitions, retaining 
language that was proposed to be removed, and adding clarifying language 
throughout the rule.  (EDITOR'S NOTE:  The original proposed amendment upon 
which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was based was published in the July 
1, 2017, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 150.  Underlining in the 
rule below indicates text that has been added since the publication of the 
proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been 
deleted.  You must view the CPR and the proposed amendment together to 
understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make 
this rule effective.)
ANTICIPATED COST OR SAVINGS TO:
- THE STATE BUDGET:  There is no cost or savings to the state budget as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not change the way the rule 
impacts the state.
- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:  There is no cost or savings to local governments as a 
result of these changes because the changes do not affect the way the rule 
impacts local governments.
- SMALL BUSINESSES:  There will not be a fiscal impact on small businesses 
because the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) could not identify a single small 
business that meets the applicability threshold of the rule.
- PERSONS OTHER THAN SMALL BUSINESSES, BUSINESSES, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL 
ENTITIES: Persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local 
government entities will not be impacted by these changes because the rule 
does not apple to them.
COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR AFFECTED PERSONS:  There will be no added compliance 
costs because of these changes.  The changes, the added compliance schedule 
for affected sources, added definitions, retained language that was proposed 
to be removed, and added clarifying language, do not result in additional 
compliance costs because the requirements of the rule otherwise remain 
unchanged.
COMMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD ON THE FISCAL IMPACT THE RULE MAY HAVE ON 
BUSINESSES:  The changes will have no fiscal impact on any businesses because 
the changes do not modify any of the existing requirements within in the 
rule.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Mat Carlile by phone at 801-536-4116, by FAX at 801-536-4136, or by 
Internet E-mail at mcarlile@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/2017/20171101/41830.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.


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
No. 42202 (5-year Review): R13-3. Americans with Disabilities Act Grievance 
Procedures.
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 required by federal regulation and is necessary to provide for 
the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action 
prohibited by the ADA and related federal regulations.  Therefore, this rule 
should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Kenneth Hansen by phone at 801-538-3777, by FAX at 801-538-3844, or by 
Internet E-mail at khansen@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/10/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42202.htm



HEALTH
FAMILY HEALTH AND PREPAREDNESS, PRIMARY CARE AND RURAL HEALTH
No. 42205 (5-year Review): R434-30. Primary Care Grant Program.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
The rule as currently stated, adequately implements it's enabling statutes 
and the needs of the Primary Care Grant Program and must be continued in 
order to continue publicizing, reviewing, and awarding primary care grants.  
Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Matt McCullough by phone at 801-273-6619, or by Internet E-mail at 
mmccullough@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/12/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42205.htm



HUMAN SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LICENSING
No. 42189 (5-year Review): R501-1. General Provisions for Licensing.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42189.htm

No. 42190 (5-year Review): R501-2. Core Rules.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42190.htm

No. 42191 (5-year Review): R501-7. Child Placing Adoption Agencies.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42191.htm

No. 42192 (5-year Review): R501-8. Outdoor Youth Programs.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42192.htm

No. 42193 (5-year Review): R501-11. Social Detoxification Programs.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42193.htm

No. 42194 (5-year Review): R501-12. Foster Care Services.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection for children in foster and proctor homes.  Therefore, this rule 
should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42194.htm

No. 42195 (5-year Review): R501-13. Adult Day Care.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42195.htm

No. 42196 (5-year Review): R501-16. Intermediate Secure Treatment Programs 
for Minors.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE RULE, INCLUDING REASONS 
WHY THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE RULE, IF ANY:  
Sections 62A-2-101 through 62A-2-122 provide for the issuance of a license 
for human service programs.  This rule provides guidance to those programs 
throughout the process of obtaining licenses, and annually during license 
renewals.  This rule allows the office to enforce and ensure the human 
service programs are maintaining best practices for consumer safety and 
protection.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Diane Moore by phone at 801-538-4235, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at dmoore@utah.gov
- Janice Weinman by phone at 385-321-5586, by FAX at 801-538-4553, or by 
Internet E-mail at jweinman@utah.gov
- Julene Robbins by phone at 801-538-4521, by FAX at 801-538-3942, or by 
Internet E-mail at jhjonesrobbins@utah.gov
- Samantha Hanson by phone at 801-538-4041, or by Internet E-mail at 
samanthahanson@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42196.htm



INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION
No. 42230 (5-year Review): R590-266. Utah Essential Health Benefits Package.
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 must be continued for Utah to maintain self-governance of its 
health insurance market.  One provision of the Affordable Care Act allows 
each state to designate the essential health benefits that must be included 
in the small employer group and individual market health care plans; if the 
state does not designate such benefits, the federal government will enforce 
federal standards.
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:  10/16/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42230.htm



LABOR COMMISSION
ADJUDICATION
No. 42188 (5-year Review): R602-3. Procedure and Standards for Approval of 
Assignment of Benefits.
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 remains necessary to establish the procedural and substantive 
requirements for Commission approval of any request for transfer of workers' 
compensation payment rights.  Therefore, this rule should be continued.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Christopher Hill by phone at 801-530-6113, by FAX at 801-530-6390, or by 
Internet E-mail at chill@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/04/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42188.htm




NOTICES OF FIVE-YEAR EXPIRATIONS

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).  The Office of 
Administrative Rules (Office) is required to notify agencies of rules due for 
review at least 180 days prior to the anniversary date.  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 Extension (Extension) 
with the Office.  However, if the agency fails to file either the Five-Year 
Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation or the Extension by the date 
provide by the Office, the rule expires.

Upon expiration of the rule, the Office files a Notice of Five-Year 
Expiration (Expiration) to document the action.  The Office is required to 
remove the rule from the Utah Administrative Code.  The agency may no longer 
enforce the rule and it must follow regular rulemaking procedures to replace 
the rule if it is still needed.

The Office has filed Expirations for each of the rules listed below which 
were not reviewed in accordance with Section 63G-3-305.  These rules have 
expired and have been removed from the Utah Administrative Code.

The expiration of administrative rules for failure to comply with the five-
year review requirement is governed by Subsection 63G-3-305(8).


REGENTS (BOARD OF)
COLLEGE OF EASTERN UTAH
No. 42187 (Expired): R767-1. Government Records Access and Management Act.
SUMMARY:  The agency no longer exists so the rule expired as of 10/03/2017 
and will be removed from the Administrative Code.
DIRECT QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS RULE TO:
- Nancy Lancaster by phone at 801-538-3218, by FAX at 801-537-9240, or by 
Internet E-mail at nllancaster@utah.gov
EFFECTIVE:  10/03/2017
FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT, VISIT:
https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2017/20171101/42187.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.


ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
PURCHASING AND GENERAL SERVICES
No. 41799  (AMD): R33-26.State Surplus Property
Published:  07/01/2017
Effective:  10/03/2017



COMMERCE
OCCUPATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING
No. 41999  (AMD): R156-5a.Podiatric Physician Licensing Act Rule
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017

No. 42018  (AMD): R156-11a.Barber, Cosmetologist/Barber, Esthetician, 
Electrologist, and Nail Technician Licensing Act Rule
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017



EDUCATION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 42026  (AMD): R277-113-6.Required LEA Fiscal Policies
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017

No. 42028  (AMD): R277-703.Centennial Scholarship for Early Graduation
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017



ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RADIATION CONTROL, RADIATION
No. 41991  (AMD): R313-12.General Provisions
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/13/2017

No. 41992  (AMD): R313-19.Requirements of General Applicability to Licensing 
of Radioactive Material
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/13/2017

No. 41993  (AMD): R313-21.General Licenses
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/13/2017

No. 41994  (AMD): R313-22.Specific Licenses
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/13/2017



GOVERNOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
No. 42029  (AMD): R357-11.Technology Commercialization and Innovation Program 
(TCIP)
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/13/2017



HEALTH
FAMILY HEALTH AND PREPAREDNESS, LICENSING
No. 41969  (AMD): R432-2.General Licensing Provisions
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/06/2017

No. 41966  (AMD): R432-150.Nursing Care Facility
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/06/2017

No. 41970  (AMD): R432-270.Assisted Living Facilities
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/06/2017

No. 41959  (AMD): R432-650.End Stage Renal Disease Facility Rules
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/06/2017

No. 41965  (AMD): R432-750.Hospice Rule
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/06/2017



HUMAN SERVICES
SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
No. 41802  (AMD): R539-10.Short-Term Limited Waiting List Services
Published:  07/01/2017
Effective:  10/11/2017



INSURANCE
ADMINISTRATION
No. 41955  (REP): R590-205.Privacy of Consumer Information Compliance 
Deadline
Published:  08/15/2017
Effective:  10/06/2017



PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATION
No. 41644  (CPR): R746-360-4.Application of Fund Surcharges to Customer 
Billings
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/11/2017

No. 41644  (AMD): R746-360-4.Application of Fund Surcharges to Customer 
Billings
Published:  06/01/2017
Effective:  10/11/2017



TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR CARRIER
No. 42010  (AMD): R909-2.Utah Size and Weight Rule
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017


OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY
No. 42012  (NEW): R920-30.State Safety Oversight
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017

No. 42011  (AMD): R920-50.Ropeway Operation Safety
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017

No. 42008  (REP): R920-51.Safety Regulations for Railroads
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017


PRECONSTRUCTION
No. 42009  (AMD): R930-3.Highway Noise Abatement
Published:  09/01/2017
Effective:  10/10/2017




14.  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/ .


<<end of file>>


----------------------------