With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on May 4, 1992. The Commission, however, denied the petition in a final order dated June 3, 1992. The Harper Companies filed a petition for review of agency action with this court on July 1, 1992, claiming that the Commission erred in assessing sales taxes that were based solely on a good faith error in an accounting procedure. We first address the standard of review. The Commission’s decision raises questions of law. “We grant the Commission no deference concerning its conclusions of law, applying a correetion-of-error standard, unless there is an explicit grant of discretion contained in a statute at issue before the appellate court.” Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-610(l)(b) (Supp.1993); see also Board of Equalization v. State Tax Comm’n ex rel. Benchmark, Inc., 864 P.2d 882, 884 (1993) (<HOLDING>). The statutes at issue do not grant the

A: holding that section 591610 applies to actions commenced before its effective date
B: holding that the act applies prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date
C: holding that the date of discrimination is the date on which a decision not to hire a plaintiff becomes effective
D: holding that in general aedpas provisions apply to cases filed after its effective date
A.