In response to public comments, certain revisions on the proposed rule language were deemed reasonable and appropriate. More specifically, the following changes were made: 1) Subsection R305-7-101(2)(a) was revised to clarify that thid rule applies to all adjudications before the entire Department of Environmental Quality (Department); 2) Section R305-7-104 was not revised despite comments on this provision. The commentor took the position that the Department should allow for the initiation of adjudicative proceedings via email or other electronic filing. The current rule requires that a signed, paper copy must be received by the applicable Director as of the due date. The Administration's position is that the current rule, as has been judicially interpreted, requires that a paper copy of an appeal be received as of the due date. The present amendments do not represent any change to the substance of the present rule. Rather, the present amendment is intended to clarify the existing rule. The Department has determined that the initiation of an adjudicative proceeding requires a procedural trigger as appeal deadlines are jurisdictional. It is reasonable for the Department to require that a physical, signed, hard-copy of any appeal be received by the due date so as to assure that the Director actually receives notice of the appeal and can initiate the internal procedures to trigger an adjudication. Initiation of new adjudications via email is not desirable. Utah state courts require a case intake process to initiate new actions. This requires a court clerk to review the filing and accept it. This rule, as amended, was found to be reasonable and in the interests of due process; 3) Section R305-7-114, regarding dismissal for failure to prosecute, was changed to provide a putative party (such as a permittee or licensee) the right to file a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute; 4) Subsection R305-7-200(2) was amended in response to comments about potential unfairness of the retroactive application of the 2018 amendments. Retroactivity does not apply if there is good cause to apply a former version of this rule in a given situation; 5) Subsection R305-7-302(4), regarding service, was amended to reduce the number of days a Director has to serve a notice from seven to three days. This is reasonable. The automatic extension still applies for each day in excess of three days. It is the normal practice of Directors to serve notices promptly. Three days is consistent with current practices; 6) Subsection R305-7-306(4) was re-written so as to encourage parties to meet and confer and submit a Joint Status Report. Only if the parties are unable to do so do the other procedures apply � that the Director would submit a status report, followed by an opportunity for the opposing party to respond. This revision was found to be more consistent with the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and the normal practice of persons appearing in adjudicative proceedings; 7) Subsection R305-7-306(5) was amended so as to provide a good-cause exception to the rule that responses are not due until the administrative law judge (ALJ) has issued a Notice of Further Proceedings; and 8) Section R305-7-310 was amended to: a) add a provision regarding the use of standard protective orders to address confidentiality issues; and b) delete the proposed provision regarding the application of GRAMA to document discovery. This was the most controversial provision of these proposed rule changes. Based on comments received, it was decided that the most appropriate way to achieve the policy goals of GRAMA as to the protection of certain information is to use a protective order such as is commonly done in federal and state courts. Subsection (2)(b) was amended to provide for the staged service of initial disclosures, making this amendment more consistent with the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. (EDITOR'S NOTE: The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was based was published in the May 1, 2018, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 40. Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike-out indicates text that has been deleted. You must view the CPR and the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)