Defined important commonly used terms, and modified the use of interchangeable and ambiguous terminology. Rewording of Section R392-103-1 for clarity. Section R392-103-2 is a new section recently added to specify the statute under which this rule is authorized. In Section R392-103-3, added definitions for: Certificate, Cross Contact, Cross Contamination, Double Handwash, Food Handler Applicant, Food Establishment, Local Health Department, and Person in Charge. Also amended the definitions for: food handler to include those working in food trucks, and approved Food Handler Training Provider to be simply "Training Provider". In Section R392-103-4, nonsubstantive changes include the rewording and restructuring of this section to clarify the intent to be more in line with the authorizing statute and the Rulewriting Manual for Utah. Requirements concerning when and how soon food handlers must receive a permit/certificate have not changed. The substantive changes include: addressing replacement of lost permits; only issued by local health departments who may charge a fee. Instead of five days, providers now have seven days to submit food handler applicant data to the local health department. Transmission of this information shall be emailed and accepted by the local health department. Transmission of this information shall be on a form approved by the Department. No one may make changes to what is required in the form unless approved by the Department. Applicants may have their permits mailed to the address of their choosing instead of to their home residence. In Section R392-103-5, no substantive changes made to this section. In Section R392-103-6, nonsubstantive changes include rewording and restructuring of this section. This reformatting makes clear that training needs to be in-line with the currently adopted food code. The four content sections have also been reworded for clarity. The content required has not changed, but this new language is less ambiguous and makes clear what is expected to be taught. These changes in no way proscribe how the content should be taught, but merely make it more clear what should be in a training program. A few items have been moved to different content sections, such as those items concerning unapproved source, to where they fit better. These content sections have been retitled for brevity and still are aligned with the CDC risk factors. Substantive changes include: adding a requirement to: define and give examples of the major food allergens, describe symptoms major food allergens may cause in an individual having an allergic reaction, identify steps to prevent contaminating food and food contact surfaces when handling items recognized as sources of major food allergens. Requiring instructors to have education in food safety equivalent to that of a food safety manager certification. This equivalency can be determined at the local health department for local classes, or by the Department for classes affecting students statewide. A representative of an online course must show the same equivalency. In Section R392-103-7, nonsubstantive changes include rewording for clarity. Substantive changes include: requiring training providers to inform students at the beginning of the course that permits are good for three years statewide and how to get a replacement permit; and being specific on how to prevent duplication of certificates. In Section R392-103-8, a statement has been added to state that currently approved providers have until three years after these changes become effective to come into full compliance. Subsection R392-103-8(2) has been removed as it is no longer relevant. A more descriptive list of items to be included with initial applications for approval has been added.