Office of Administrative Rules

News and information directly from the Office of Administrative Rules.

To get notified via email on new versions of the Utah State Bulletin or Utah State Digest, visit Subscriptions.

April 19, 2004

Rules to Review in 2004

Utah Code 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
April 19, 2004

2004 Legislation Explicitly Affecting Agency Rulemaking

As a result of actions taken during the 2004 General Session, 370 bills will become law. Of these, at least 89 (affecting 161 separate statutory sections) modify explicit rulemaking authorizations. The Division of Administrative Rules has prepared this list of bills to facilitate state agency compliance with legal rulemaking requirements. This list should not be considered exhaustive or conclusive. It
April 8, 2004

Rulemaking Process Seminars Scheduled for 2004

The Division of Administrative Rules has scheduled rulemaking process seminars for 2004. These seminars are intended to give anyone involved in the rulemaking process the basic information needed to understand rulemaking in Utah. Anyone interested in learning more about how the process works is welcome. The seminars will be held in room 4112 of the State Office Building: Thursday, May
April 8, 2004

Don’t Use the Back Button

eRules (the Division’s application that agency rulewriters use to file rules) is programmed with navigation buttons and links on each screen. A rulewriter should never, ever (did I emphasize that enough?) NEVER use the BROWSER navigation buttons (e.g., the back button at the top of the browser usually labeled with an arrow) to navigate within eRules. Using the browser navigation
April 1, 2004

ARRC Scheduled to Meet April 6, 2004

The Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee (ARRC) has scheduled its first meeting after the 2004 General Session for Tuesday, April 6, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in room 305 of the State Capitol. The agenda is available online at Information about the committee is available at — Ken Hansen
March 3, 2004

S.B. 22 Passes; All Administrative Rules Reauthorized

The House of Representatives passed S.B. 22, by a vote of 65 to 5 with 5 absent or not voting, reauthorizing all administrative rules. The bill, which passed by two-thirds, goes into effect on May 1, 2004, as provided by Section 63-46a-11.5. — Ken Hansen
March 2, 2004

S.B. 22 Amended; Passed by the Senate

At approximately 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday March 2, the Senate amended S.B. 22, “Administrative Rules Reauthorization.” The amendment modified the bill so that “all [administrative] rules of the state are reauthorized.” As indicated on February 10th, the introduced version of the bill proposed to not reauthorize the scope of practice section from DOPL’s Chiropractic Physician Practice Act Rules, and a
February 26, 2004

Updated Rulemaking Time Frames Available

The Division has posted an updated copy of the Rulemaking Time Frames on its website. This edition starts with the filing window that opens March 1, 2004. A PDF copy is also available.
February 26, 2004

From the ARRC Agenda to Legislation

It appears that the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Review Committee (ARRC) has had a significant impact on legislation considered during the 2004 General Session. The ARRC is created by statute and is charged with the responsibility to “exercise continuous oversight of the process of rulemaking.” (UT Code Subsection 63-46a-11(3)) During the past two years, the ARRC has grappled with a number
February 25, 2004

H.B. 91 Tabled in Senate Committee

Late this afternoon (February 24, 2004), the Senate Government Operations Standing Committee heard H.B. 91, Administrative Rulemaking Act Amendments. During his presentation, Rep. Harper requested that an amendment, recommended by Legislative Research and General Counsel, be made to the bill. In essence, the amendment provided that failure to comply with the notification requirements of Subsection 63-46a-4(3) and (8), as found