No. 28193: R156-63. Security Personnel Licensing Act Rules

DAR File No.: 28193
Filed: 09/01/2005, 12:50
Received by: NL

 

NOTICE OF REVIEW AND STATEMENT OF CONTINUATION

Concise explanation of the particular statutory provisions under which the rule is enacted and how these provisions authorize or require the rule:

Title 58, Chapter 63, provides for the licensure of contract security companies, armed private security officers, and unarmed private security officers. Subsection 58-1-106(1)(a) provides that the Division may adopt and enforce rules to administer Title 58. Subsection 58-63-201(3) provides that the Security Services Licensing Board's duties and responsibilities shall be in accordance with Section 58-1-202. Subsection 58-1-202(1)(a) provides that one of the duties of each board is to recommend appropriate rules to the division director. This rule was enacted to clarify the provisions of Title 58, Chapter 63, with respect to contract security companies, armed private security officers, and unarmed private security officers.

 

Summary of written comments received during and since the last five-year review of the rule from interested persons supporting or opposing the rule:

Since this rule was last reviewed in September 2000, it has been amended three times. In September 2001, amendments were filed which deleted references to alarm response runners due to statute changes and also amended the requirements regarding security guard uniforms. A September 20, 2001, rule hearing was conducted. No written comments were received by the Division with respect to this rule filing. However, due to comments made during the rule hearing, a change in proposed rule filing was filed to further amend the uniform requirements. That rule filing was made effective on December 4, 2001. In May 2003, numerous changes were again made to this rule regarding qualifications for licensure, unprofessional conduct, and operating standards for the profession. A May 22, 2003, rule hearing was conducted. The Division received letters from the following persons: a May 2, 2003, letter from Robert C. Anderton, Chairman of the Professional Alliance of Contract Security Companies (PASCO); a May 4, 2003, letter from Greg Valdez, Executive Vice President, CBI Security Services; a May 6, 2003, letter from Mr. Anderton, General Manager, Peak Alarm; and a May 13, 2003, letter from Tom Griffith. Mr. Anderton's letter representing PASCO, agreed with some of the proposed rule changes and suggested some minor modifications to other sections being amended. Mr. Anderton's letter representing Peak Alarm supported proposed changes being made in Section R156-63-610 of the rule regarding vehicle requirements. The letter from Greg Valdez of CBI Security Services had concerned regarding hours of training for armed private security officers and the requirements for security vehicles. As a result of comments made during the rule hearing and the above-identified written comments received by the Division, a change in proposed rule filing was filed wherein two previously proposed amendments (additional training hours for armed private security officers and security guard uniform issues) were deleted. That rule filing was made effective on August 18, 2003. In January 2004, amendments were filed to the rule regarding basic education/training programs, basic firearms training program requirements and additional changes to uniform and vehicle operating standards. A February 4, 2004, rule hearing was conducted with respect to the proposed amendments. As a result of these proposed amendments, the Division received letters from the following persons: a December 22, 2003, letter from Mel Ratz/Securitas Security Services opposing the amendments regarding uniforms; a December 15, 2003, letter from Lorraine Kapp/CBI Security Services opposing the amendments regarding uniforms; a November 19, 2003, letter from Robert C. Anderton/PASCO association addressing the proposed uniform amendments; a January 12, 2004, email from Cory Green/Utah Community Protective Services opposed to the uniform amendments but supporting the proposed firearm training amendments; a January 19, 2004, letter from Joe Chapman/Chapman Security and Investigations opposing the proposed uniform amendments and supporting the basic education program and continuing education amendments; a January 30, 2004, e-mail from Ken Wallentine/Utah Peace Officers Association in which they supported the proposed amendments regarding uniforms and firearm training; and a January 28, 2004, e-mail from Val Shupe/Chiefs of Police Association in which they expressed no concerns regarding the proposed amendments to this rule. The Division and the Security Services Licensing Board reviewed the above-identified letters as well as comments offered during the February 4, 2004, rule hearing and determined that the proposed amendments filed in this rule filing would become effective without further changes and that filing was made effective on March 4, 2004.

 

Reasoned justification for continuation of the rule, including reasons why the agency disagrees with comments in opposition to the rule, if any:

This rule should be continued as it provides a mechanism to inform potential licensees of the requirements for licensure as allowed under statutory authority provided in Title 58, Chapter 63, with respect to contract security companies, armed private security officers and unarmed private security officers. The rule should also be continued as it provides information to ensure applicants for licensure are adequately trained and meet minimum licensure requirements.

 

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Commerce
Occupational and Professional Licensing
HEBER M WELLS BLDG
160 E 300 S
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111-2316

 

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

Clyde Ormond at the above address, by phone at 801-530-6254, by FAX at 801-530-6511, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

 

Authorized by:

J. Craig Jackson, Director