RulesNews

Well, . . . no. No matter what the Division of Administrative Rules’ rule says, seven days is not the same as eight days. During the 2006 General Session, the Legislature passed H.B. 316. Among other things, H.B. 316 inserted a comment consideration period between the end of the public comment period and the first possible effective date. Based on

Subsection 63-46a-3(7) permits an agency to incorporate different types of materials by reference in rules. These materials include: (i) all or any part of another code, rule, or regulation that has been adopted by a federal agency, an agency or political subdivision of this state, an agency of another state, or by a nationally recognized organization or association; (ii) state

A rule-filing agency is responsible for its rules. None of the critical steps in the rulemaking process are automatic including designating the effective date of a rule. After the end of the public comment period that the agency designated on the rule analysis, the agency must notify the Division of Administrative Rules of the rule’s effective date. The effective date

The past six months have brought a significant amount of turnover to state agencies and their rulemaking staff. Since January 1, the Division has recorded more than 90 changes to personnel involved in rulemaking. This equates to nearly a quarter of all state personnel involved in rulemaking in the state. Changes happen. When they do, agencies must contact the Division

In 2003, the Legislature amended the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act adding Section 63-46a-3.5. In essence, this section states that if an agency wishes to enforce the provisions of a written document, then that document must go through rulemaking. On July 6, 2006, the Administrative Rules Review Committee discussed “criteria and procedures” written by a state agency in response to a

On recommendation of counsel, the Division of Administrative Rules contacted Archives last year and requested a change to the General Retention Schedule. The Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act expects an agency to maintain an Administrative Record. The act defines "Administrative Record" as: information an agency relies upon when making a rule under this chapter including: (a) the proposed rule, change in

On May 17, 2006, Governor Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. announced the appointment of Richard Ellis as Executive Director of the Department of Administrative Services. As Executive Director, he will oversee divisions of state government that share the common function of providing service to other government agencies. Mr. Ellis replaces Ms. D’Arcy Dixion Pignanelli who was appointed as a Tax Commissioner.

At its meeting on April 11, 2006, the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee asked staff to prepare a review of the Department of Transportation’s existing rules. This marks the first time since 1993 that the committee has embarked on a review of an agency’s existing rules. In 1989, under the direction of Chairpersons Sen. LeRay L. McAllister and Rep. Byron

March 14, 2006, marked the 70th anniversary of the Federal Register. In 1935, Congress passed the Federal Register Act (44 USC Chapter 15; July 26, 1935, ch. 417, 49 Stat. 500). This act creates the opportunity for citizens to be well informed about the actions and decisions of government. In a resolution recognizing the anniversary, Administrative Codes and Registers (ACR),

Section 63-46a-9 requires each agency to review its rules within five years of each rule’s original enactment or last five-year review, and then within five-year intervals. To comply with the review requirement, the agency must submit a “Five-Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation” for each of its rules listed below. Otherwise, the rules will expire. Reviews may be