the laws governing the agency; any appendix to a rule; * * * any internal management rule [and] any amendment or rescission of a rule.” While Ohio Adm.Code 4901:2-5-02(A) may be a rule under this definition, it is not the rule at issue in the present case. Instead, the rules which are at issue are the FMCSRs as adopted by the PUCO as Ohio Administrative Rules. The FMCSRs as adopted by the PUCO fit squarely within the definition of “rule” contained in R.C. 111.15(A)(1). The PUCO adopted the FMCSRs under the authority of its enabling statutes, and the FMCSRs have “general and uniform operation” for motor carriers operating in Ohio. See Ohio Assn. of Cty. Bds. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. (1990), 61 Ohio Misc.2d 836, 842, 585 N.E.2d 597 (<HOLDING>). It is clear that the PUCO was applying the
recognizing rule holding that a rule has general and uniform operation for purposes of rc 11115a1 if it is uniformly applied by the promulgating agency to those affected by the rule recognizing general rule holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection as rule was uniformly applied not arbitrary and rationally related to legitimate government interest recognizing this as the general rule