Administrative Rules Review Committee

             MINUTES OF THE
         ADMINISTRATIVE RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE
             Monday, July 6, 1998 - 9:30 a.m. - Room 305 State Capitol         

Members Present:
    Sen. Howard A. Stephenson, Cochair
    Rep. Martin R. Stephens, Cochair
    Sen. David L. Buhler
    Sen. Mike Dmitrich
    Rep. John B. Arrington
    Rep. James R. Gowans
    Rep. David Ure

presentation. He then explained what had taken place since the May 18 meeting and the rational used. He then commented on the proposed changes.

    Chair Stephenson expressed his concerns regarding some of the changes made to the rule. He said the rule seems to address the issues that were raised at the previous meeting, but raises a question in his mind as to whether someone who is driving through the campus with a weapon is in compliance with the law. Committee discussion and public comment followed.

     MOTION:    Rep. Stephens moved to have staff draft a letter to the Judiciary Interim Committee asking the committee to look at statutory conflicts raised by the weapons rule.

    Mr. Craig Bunker, Legal Counsel, Department of Human Services, said Section 62A-12- 224 is a unique trespass statute dealing with the grounds of the Utah State Hospital and also mental health authorities. After more discussion, Rep. Stephens withdrew his motion.

    Chair Stephenson said it is the committee's understanding that there will be some modifying language to this proposed rule to make certain it is understood that when individuals have a weapon in their vehicle that is secured, out of sight, or leave the weapon in their locker, they are not in violation.

4.     Division of Child and Family Services Letter: "right to challenge a substantiated finding of child abuse and neglect" (Rep. Ure) _ Rep. Ure introduced this agenda item.

    Ms. Kathryn Cooney, Director, Policy, Evaluation, and Planning, Division of Child and Family Services, discussed the implementation of S.B.168, "Child Abuse Database Amendments" sponsored by Sen. Peterson. She said in implementing S.B.168 the division chose to notify those individuals that were substantiated between 1988 and 1993 by certified letter. They were informed of the substantiation and informed of their right to request a hearing. She explained why the word "substantiated" was used. Ms. Cooney mentioned that the division's definition of substantiation is that they have a reasonable basis to conclude that the abuse or neglect took place.

    Rep. Ure discussed his deep concern with the wording of the letter and the negative reaction recipients of the letters have expressed. He added that the division defines "substantiated" differently than the courts, leading to potential problems if any cases end up in court later. He also indicated that the Legislature did not think through the consequences of S.B. 168 carefully enough.

    Mr. Scott Clark, Board of Child and Family Services, explained the definition of substantiated. He mentioned several statements given by Ms. Cooney and indicated that he did not concur. The emergency rule and its intent were explained by Ms. Cooney. Mr. Clark

suggested the committee address this issue. She then commented on the statute of limitations and the expungement rule. Ms. Cooney said the Legislative Oversight Panel was created as a result of child welfare reform that oversees specifically the Division of Child and Family Services. She informed committee members that all of the issues mentioned at this meeting have were previously presented to the panel.
    
     MOTION: Rep. Arrington moved to send a letter to the Legislative Child Welfare Oversight Panel urging them to follow through on this issue and to see its resolution based on the input given to the committee. He later withdrew the motion.

    Chair Stephenson suggested a letter be prepared for the committee to review. He asked staff to draft a letter prior to the next meeting. Rep. Ure and Sen. Buhler will review the letter for suggested modifications and direct it to the committee. Scott Clark agreed to supply staff with a written explanation of his concerns.

    Rep. Ure mentioned the need for the department to provide a definition of "neglect," along with a plan for how they will use the definition throughout the state.

5.    R307-309 Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, Ogden City and Any Non-     attainment Area for PM 10: Fugitive Dust Emissions and Fugitive Dust _

    Sen. Buhler presented this agenda item. He asked the division for an update on the rule's implantation. His concern is with the impact on businesses in Salt Lake, Davis, Utah County and Ogden City. He commented on the rule analysis, which stated that the agency is unsure how many people will be affected.                    

    Mr. Dave McNeill, Manager of the Planning Branch, Division of Air Quality, commented on the reason the division originally proposed this rule. Handouts were given to committee members prior to the meeting. He said one of the main complaints from citizens is how much dust, which contains harmful particulates, is floating across the valley. He explained the changes this rule proposes and to whom it would apply to.

    Mr. Marvin Maxell, Manager, Air Standards Branch, Division of Air Quality, commented on what is required and what is being done by the division to reduce dust. The rule's goal is to prevent dust from impacting citizens.

    Mr. Eldon Bingham, Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) commented on the concern with using the word "prevent."
    
    Mr. John Bourne, Deputy Director, UDOT I-I5 project, expressed his concerns and emphasized that there are still many concerns in complying with air quality standards.

    Mr. Paul W. Campbell, Associated Equipment Distributors and Mr. Sterling Stoddard, Associated General Contractors, addressed the committee. Handouts were distributed from which they gave their presentation. Mr. Campbell highlighted each document contained in the packet of handouts. He then referred to a series of letters referring to Section R307-309-4. (1) Construction and Demolition Activities. Mr. Campbell explained how his business would be negatively affected by the rule. He feels the intent should be to have construction projects use certain methods of preventing fugitive dust to the best of their ability.

    Ms. Ursula Trueman, Director, Division of Air Quality, said feedback to the division is that the preventive language is going too far. The division wants to take the best public comments and look at what kind of language is used that would give the division more control than they currently have. The division could then successfully modify the rule.

    Rep. Buhler urged the division to take into consideration comments that have been received and come up with something reasonable that will balance public and business needs.

6.    April 15, 1998 Utah State bulletin Analysis - Mr. Hunsaker said only two substantive issues surfaced from the staff analysis One issue could not be scheduled. The other was R657- 33-10, which governs the use of spotlights when hunting. If a hunter's spotlight exposes a protected animal in a protected area, even if the hunter was hunting a nonprotected animal, it is considered prima facie evidence that the hunter was hunting a protected animal.

    Mr. John Kimball, Director, Division of Wildlife Resources, informed committee members that years ago spotlighting generally was allowed. He presented background information on the changes that have been made through the years. In 1993, the Legislature passed a law allowing counties to establish ordinances which allowed spotlighting. Mr. Kimball said this particular rule governs taking bear, and similar language for other animals can be found in other places in their rules. Committee discussion followed.

    Rep. Stephens recommended that Mr. Kimball draft an amendment to clarify the emergency rule, and Chair Stephenson requested the item be placed on the next agenda.

7.    Committee Business -     The following meeting dates were proposed:
     Tuesday, August 4, 9:00 a.m., Room 305; and Monday, August 17, 9:00 a.m., Room 305
        
8.    The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.    
F:\USERS\ADMRULES\7-6-98.MN