ALC-Administrative Rules

Good morning members and guests in the audience, just a reminder if you're here to speak for or against the rule, there should be sign up sheets there on one of the tables out in front of the chair, uh, that you can sign up we'll be picking those up momentarily, members, if you would, please make sure that you have keyed into your, uh, position where you're sitting so we can get you up on the board and I asked for a little bit of, um, Patience, mercy and grace Day because this will be my first time sharing with the new system, so, uh, cut me a little slack if you would please and I'd appreciate it. Uh, with that co-chair have any comments? No comments from the co-chair, uh, reports from the executive subcommittee concerning, uh, the emergency rule. I do want to let you know, uh, we will be passing over item D8AD 8A rules governing the governor's higher education transition scholarship, and this is at the, uh, agency's request. All right, moving on to uh be then the reports from the executive subcommittee Concerned Emergency rule. We have one report. From the executive subcommittee concerning the review and approval of the emergency rule, and that appears in your packet. Anybody have any questions? All right then, without objection, this report will be filed, uh, reports from, uh, item C regarding ALC subcommittee concerning the review of rules. We have no reports this month from any of the ALC subcommittees concerning the review of rules. With that, we're moving on to Dee and, uh, as we turn to the agency's rules for the month, I'm gonna ask, uh, the Department of Commerce, Arkansas Economic Development Commission to come forward and those that are representing on this role, and if you would please name and title, uh, for the record. And you may proceed. Good morning, Jake Winley, director of legislative affairs, Arkansas Department of Commerce. Good morning. And you are presenting first on Arkansas Business Technology Accelerator grant program. All right, page one members, go ahead, sir. So what the amended rule does is it enacts legislation from Act 834 of 2023, the rule amended the accelerator grant program to include companies listed under NAICS code 562213, which is companies that operate combustors and incinerators for the disposal of non-hazardous solid waste. Public comment period ran from July 12th to August 11th. Notice was published in the Democratic Gazette from July 14th to the 16th. The hearing was held on July 30th. No members of the public attended and no comments concerning the rule were received. Any questions from members? All right, then without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved and moving on to, uh, rural services block grant program page 3 members. Good morning. Name and title for the record, please. Morning, Becca Caldwell, director of rural services. Good morning. Go ahead and proceed, please. So this rule amends the rural Services block grant program, um, the amendment increased the cap on grant awards from from $75,000 to $100,000 without upping the overall amount of the grant award cumulatively. The reason this was necessary to account for increased material and construction costs due to inflation over the time period, public comment period ran from July 12th, August 11th. Notice was published in the Democratic Gazette from July 14th to 16th. was held on July 24th. No members of the public attended. No comments concerning the role were received. I think one thing I caught on this was some were concerned it would cut down the number of grants being awarded, the rationale is that because of the inflation that we're experiencing currently, uh, that, that's the justification for this. Will it have what kind of impact we'll have overall to the amount of grants that would be able to be awarded. We actually were receiving less applications because people were not able to complete the entire project. So we believe that with this increase, we'll actually be able to award all of the funding. Last year, I think we only had 500,000 in requests. And then the year before that, I think it was just 75,000. So increasing this we'll be able to, um, award the entire project and let communities complete it in entirety. OK, very good, and how much total is there available at this time? Um, right now because we had an excess we have 1.5 million, but annually it will be, um, typically 10 currently is what you have on hand. No, I'm sorry, 1.5 million. 1.5 million. OK, very good. Uh, are there any questions from members? Then without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you all for being here this morning. Have a great day. All right, next we're on to Department of Commerce Office of Skills Development. Mm The Oh Oh, my bad, sorry. Department of Commerce, Arkansas Waterways Commission. Sorry about that. Page 5 members. Thank you. This is on the Arkansas Port Intermodal and Waterway Development program. The rule amends the existing program to extend to expand its eligibility to public ports and intermodal facilities located along the Arkansas River. This is the permanent codification of an emergency rule that was passed in April 24th of this year. It expired August 23rd, um, after grant funding for the cycle had ended. Public comment period ran from July 12th to August 11th. Not published in the Democrat is on July 14th, 16th, hearing was held on July 25th. No members of the public attended and no comments concerning the rule were received. All right. Any questions from members, by the way, unless otherwise indicate nobody signed up to speak for or against it. That's just uh. Blanket coverage case anybody wondered. And then without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. All right. Now I think we're on to Department of Commerce, Office of Skills Development. OK. Thank you. This rule is concerning the OSD's rules for secondary technical centers. Uh, the amended rule is necessary to comply with language and Act 507 of 2021, which is currently codified at Art Code and Section 6-51-303C, which allows a secondary technical center to use vocational center aid funding from the division of Career and technical Education public school fund account for management, maintenance and operations of a secondary vocational center. The existing version of the rule did not allow for the use of those funds in that manner. Public comment period ran from July 12th to August 11th. Notice published in the Democrats on July 14th, 16th. Hearing was held on July 23rd. No members of the public attended and no comments concerning the rule were received. Any questions from members? Alright, the question I have is the rule is almost verbatim to what's in the Act itself with the exception that you've left out division of career and technical education, public school. Fund account. I'm just curious, what was the rationale for leaving that identifying agency out of the rule. I would need to pull up the bow itself, sir. Otherwise, it's almost verbatim, was curious if there was a reason. Now, can you point me to the specific subsection, sir? Uh, in It's 4 operations A1. I mean, just to be point blank, I want to make sure that because that wasn't included in the rule that this isn't a way to skirt around what the intent of the legislation is. That's the point blank question. I do not believe that would, we would not do that, but I can take a look at the markup version of the rule and get you an answer by the end of the day. That's fine. I have it by in the morning before we present the report if that'd be great if I can get it by in the morning, please. I can do that. OK. And would you give it, well, just send it to me. We'll send it out to everybody, but I want to make sure Representative Lanny fight and I at least get it, OK? Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Members have any uh Yes, my question was that when you look at the. When you look at the rule, And you look at The language that's in the act. Unless I'm looking at it wrong, the rule is almost verbatim. Except they left out. From the division of career in technical Education public school fund account. And so my question is, if everything else is almost verbatim, why was it left out as far as identifying the funding source? And I just want to make sure it's not an end around to do anything that would cut off the funding because that's not in the rule. OK. And, and that's why I need to answer to, if you would, please. I can get that to you. OK, thank you, sir. All right, um, Any other questions from members? Then without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you, sir. Have a good day and we're on to number 4, which is Department of Commerce, State Insurance Department, State Board of Evolmenters, funeral directors. Cemeteries and burial service on page 7 members. And good morning. Name and title for the record, please. Need to push that button there. There you go. Thank you. Sorry about that. Good morning. My name is Tasha Tidwell. I'm the attorney for the board. Here to present a rule 6, it's not a new rule, it's an amended rule, um. Pertaining to the governance of burial associations, the public comment period ended July 16th where there was a public hearing. We did have one comment um from a. Professional funeral director, uh. But it was not related to the amendments um. And these amendments were done pursuant to Act 81 and 82 of the regular session of 2023. A 81 clarifies the terms of benefits of membership and minimum percentage payables to substitute service providing funeral homes based on membership data and proximity to the contract funeral home at 82 of 2023 changes the requirements for semi-annual financial reporting for the burial associations to annual reporting for the burial association. Um. The key points, uh. To the changes where uh the the language implementing Act 81. Uh, begins in section 12 entitled Certificate of Benefits where it lines out, um, how much is paid to the substitute funeral homes based on when those certificates were issued and um yes, that's it and then uh the language implemented 82 begins in section 10 entitled Annual Reports wherever. Sequent changes were needed to change um the language in the rule from semi-annual reporting would change to annual reporting there were uh um there was a subsection in Section 38 of deleted, uh. They're related to new business guarantee fund that was um a one time assessment that was completed pursuant to an act um issued in 1987 for the establishment of the fund, so it's no longer applicable, um. That was done and then section 39 use of new business surplus funds, the time was extended from 30 days to 60 days. There was another section 46 pertaining to annual license fees, membership fees have been reduced from 25 cents per member to 20 cents per member. Sections 47 and 48 were added to the rule to set deadlines for burial associations to submit plans for mergers, acquisitions, and dissolutions. That's about all of the changes that were made. I'm happy to answer any questions. All right, members, you've heard the explanation, uh, presentation, any questions from members? Then without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. OK, thank you so much. Thank you. Have a great day. You too. All right, on to number 5, Department of Corrections, Arkansas Sentencing Commission. On page 9, your packet members. And good morning. If you would name and title for the record, please. Good morning, Tony Roll, legal counsel of the Department of Corrections. Um, we have two rules on the agenda today, and they're both resulting from the Protect Arkansas Act. The first is the rule for transfer for eligibility for transfer to post-release supervision. So the Protect Act set out, um, new release eligibility thresholds at 25, 50, 85, and 100% of sentences as they're sentenced by the court. Um, the 85s and hundreds were set out in statute, but, um, as was kind of previously the process, um, a bulk of that determination was left to administrative rulemaking to the Sentencing commission. Um, the, so the first rule you have in front of you sets out which of those offenses are required to serve 50% and which are required to serve 25% of their sentence. There are 24 that are required to serve 50 and 383 at 25. Um, They basically fell along the same lines as the old transfer eligibility rules with a few exceptions, most notably sexual assault in the second degree, which was previously required to only serve one-sixth of its sentence and is now required to serve 50%. Um, public comment ran from April 19th to May 20th, um, after it was adopted by the commission in February. There was one public comment. It was to correct a typo that has been considered and addressed in the role that you have in front of you. And as required in the Protect Arkansas Act, this was approved by the Joint Judiciary committee meeting in August and I'll take any questions. Any questions for members? Well We're on 6, I'm sorry, we're on 5A, which is the eligibility one is the only one we're taking right now. On the next one. OK, good deal. All right. Any questions from members? Then without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved, and we're on to 6A prison rape Elimination Act, on page 11 members. OK, go ahead. Thank you. So the Protect Arkansas Act also required that the department promulgate rules that limited the ability of male correctional officers to observe female inmates in states of undress. Um, that's what this rule does, um, a lot of the same information. It does add a little bit of, um, extra information that kind of deals with our PRIA compliance as a state, um, requiring review of policies, um, staff training and then staff reporting when these incidents occur. Um, and specifically sets out that we can't retaliate against somebody for making a pre allegation, so I can take any questions on that one as well. Senator Hickey, you want to push a button and we'll recognize you. Well, hang on, we're Try to do our end. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair, of course, I voted on this legislation and should have asked it there, but I want to make sure of something and I'm just looking at the front page. So we had another issue on, on some legislation we passed as far as locker rooms and, uh, you know, members of the opposite sex, you know, being there. the And the way this reads, it says in limited inspections by male correction officers in areas. So, are they never allowed in there or is it just at certain times or, uh, Because here's what I'm looking at. If, if there's not somebody in a state of undress, uh, can, uh, a male plumber going in the, into the shower area or whatever to fix it. I'm just wanting to make sure that we haven't limited that far enough within this that that couldn't, that they couldn't do that. Um so this language, um, is pretty substantially similar to language that's used in the PRA standards, and we haven't noticed that that's been an issue, um, PRA standards have been. Around since 2013. So I, I don't see that being a problem. Um, it is when they're physically in the area and in a state of undress. Um, and also it does provide that extigent circumstances language, because we do have sometimes security reasons why we would have to allow that. It just has to be reported and that, well, and that was my next question. So in the event that we had, and I'm not for sure exactly how that's set up, but if you had a bunch of inmates in a, and I'm just keep using shower area and you can correct me if I'm wrong. So if you had a bunch of female areas and female inmates in a shower type area and a huge fight broke out. We're not limiting ourselves then, although they might be in that state, some of them might be in a state of undress that we couldn't address that, are we? Correct. So we could, we could address that. It would just need to be reported. That's great. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Any other questions from members? Uh, Senator Gilmore, hang on, we'll get you going there. All right, there you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and to Senator Hickey, a great, great question. I just would point you to page 12 that sort of outlines, I think, pretty, pretty clearly, um, what that looks like, um, where, where it talks about the greatest extent practical. Um, and being consistent with, um, you know, safety and order. I think that's sort of covered and gives some exceptions where needed to make sure that we're accounting for safety. Thank you. All right, any other questions, member? And without objection, this rule will be reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. You too. All right, Department of Education division in elementary and secondary education, please. Members while they're coming, um, in consultation with co-chair and double checking with the staff to make sure. This is acceptable and uh I want to draw your attention to item E on the agenda. That's the long list of the reports that are to be given by those agencies having not met the, uh, requirement of the act that is mentioned in your packet, uh, what we'd like to do when we get down to E is if a member wants to call somebody up, we'll call that entity up, otherwise, we will not for the sake of time or lack of interest on members' part to want to hear. So if you want to be kind of Looking over and see if any of those agencies are ones you're gonna want to have them brought up in order to give an explanation for their tardiness on getting the rule before us, uh, you can go ahead and be doing that. And in the meantime, we're on number 7, Department of Education. And, uh, Courtney, you're ready to. Identify yourself and present. Good morning, Courtney Solis Ford, chief of staff of the Department of Education. The first rules that we have are rules governing community service and diploma requirements. These are new rules that were drafted to implement a portion of Act 237, which requires high school students starting with this year's freshman class to complete 75 hours of community service before graduating. We held two public comment, uh, periods on these received lots of. Public comment, um, responded and made appropriate changes and are now asking for final approval of these rules. Members have any questions? All right, so here's a question I've got for you, um. We all, I tell you what, I'll yield and we're gonna go with Senator Irving first. Thank you. Just on the, um, I, I, I appreciate the changes that were made after the public comment period, um. I just wanted to ask, it says expanding extenuate extenuating circumstances waivers. Including allowing a public school board to consider paid employment and work-based service as community service. Would that just be counted as community service versus a waiver from the requirement, that would be up to the local school district. We just wanted to let them know that they have the flexibility to address that in their local policy, whether they wanted to count it towards it or allow it as a waiver. That would be up to the local school board. OK, well, I, I mean, I think it's a great thing. And so I, I would hope that they would consider it not to be a waiver from community service that counted towards community service and I'm not sure just because I don't, I don't want that person, that student, to have that stigma that I got, I was able to get a waiver from doing community service and then have to explain that down the road. We would agree, um, that we would encourage all. Students to participate to the extent that they can, but if for some reason, um, even counting it led to that student not being able to obtain the 75 hours we didn't want to restrict the local board from being allowed to grant a waiver if they felt it was necessary. Well, I hope we can communicate to the school boards, you know, we would prefer them just to go ahead and count that as community service versus saying that they get a waiver from it, so, um, however y'all can do that, I think would be great, but. I, I appreciate the changes to allow that. I think that was really an important key. Thanks. And just for the sake of having it stated in public format and to hear your answer, um. So we're letting the school boards individually, if y'all could keep the chatter down a little bit, please. We're letting the individual school boards determine who gets a waiver, but also we're letting the individual school boards. Define what constitutes, um, community service. Is that correct? That is correct. We've set forth certain parameters and requirements in the rules that align with the law, but they have a great amount of flexibility to determine everything that would count as community service. Just a scenario that plays out because this was presented to me. You got a student that comes from one district that has one set of standards, transfers into another district that has a different set of standards and all of a sudden he thinks or she thinks she's got. 50 Irish community service, but under the new standards, now they're They're all gonna get credit for 25. How, how is that resolved as far as district to district we have addressed in the rules that if a student transfers in, um, from any other school, then it starts counting from that period. So, again, our hope would be that the new school district would count those hours from the previous school district, but if they did want to hold that student to the new standard at the new school district than the number of hours that they had to obtain would be reduced by depending on what grade that they're in. OK, was there anything in the public comment I I read through him quickly. Was there anything on that subject matter that that was addressed? There was some comments about transfer students and if they came from another state or somewhere that didn't require community service but nothing specific to the scenario that you described. the safety net would be the school could give a waiver if it's such a unique situation in that. child's in that student's situation, they could do that. OK. All right. Thank you. Any other members have any other questions? Uh, uh, she represented McClure. Thank you. Is there any limit to the number of waivers a school can issue. There is not a limit because of course that's going to depend on the individual population of that school district. Um, I do believe as we're monitoring this, if we see an exceptionally high number with any particular school that's gonna prompt us to ask questions and work with that school district to see if we can identify why they're granting so many waivers, um, but there's nothing in law that would restrict that number. I'm sorry follow up now, just keep going. So a school board, should they choose? If they deem transportation is an issue that affects all their students, could provide a waiver for all of their students. Legally they could, um, again, because community service is not something that's required to be done away from school or outside of school hours. We don't feel like that would be a valid or justifiable waiver because they could be making opportunities available during the school day on the school campus. Um, but there's nothing legally that would prohibit them from granting those waivers. And my question tagged down to that one would be is there's no punitive action against the school in that scenario then, other than the. Just draw the Attention of the department. Correct. OK. All right. Any other members? Although we want to honor the intent of what the legislation is supposed to do, and that is we want kids out doing their part in the community and being a good community contributors. And if I can add on to that, you know, the law does say that the waivers are to be for extenuating circumstances, so I go back to, um, you know, it would be incumbent upon that district to try to explain why that was extenuating circumstances that no student could do community service hours during the school day or on the school campus. And so, um, while it doesn't outright prohibit that number of ways. It definitely would draw the attention. But with the attention it would just be a communication. There again, there is no punitive action. OK, Senator Irving. Yeah, and this is 75 hours over 4 years. Correct. Yeah. So very doable. OK, thank you. OK. Any other questions from members? Without any then this rule is reviewed and approved. OK. We're going on to B, which is governing governor's school, um, amendments were made to the rules governing Arkansas governor's school to align with current process and provide greater accountability for the program. Uh, we did hold a public comment period and a public comment hearing. We received comments and made, um, non-substantive changes. The intent of the changes to these rules, um, while not legislatively driven were to create greater. Specificity for um selection of students and faculty by committee, um, to make specific requirements for faculty professional development, um, and to an establish a procedure for annual evaluation of the school. And so again, just to create that greater accountability of the program. And so I'm, uh, available to answer any questions. Any questions from members? Without any this rule is reviewed and approved onto um see rules governing Arkansas fiscal assessment Accountability Program page 19. Amendments were made to these rules, um, to implement sections of Act 237 specifically to remove references to the teacher fare Dismissal Act, um, as well as make a few other technical changes, public comment period was held. Public comments were received and non-sensitive changes made, um, again, just mainly technical corrections to remove those references, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions, members? And without any objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. The rules governing math intervention, page 20. This is a new rule promulgated to implement sections of Act 237 that requires each public school to develop and implement math intervention plans for students in 3rd through 8th grade who are not performing at or above grade level. Um, we did hold a public comment period, receive public comments, and make non-substantive changes. Um, this is again, a new requirement under the Learns Act to ensure that we are addressing the needs of any students that are not performing at grade level in math. And I'm happy to answer any questions. members Without any questions and this rule is approved, uh, reviewed and approved, and governing Arkansas Educational Support Accountability Act page 23 members. Amendments to these rules were made to implement, um, sections of Acts 793-242 654237744, and 633. Um, this is the state's overall accountability and assessment system for all public school districts, so there were several acts from the prior two sessions that made changes that needed to be updated. Again, public comment period was held, comments received and non-substantive changes made, um, mostly just technical corrections and things to update. the new, um, statutory language, but happy to answer any questions. Any questions, members? without any questions this rule will be reviewed and approved. Chair wants to exercise a moment of latitude, go back up to A, I know it's out of here, but I wanted to get something on the public record as well. That's 75 hours is a requirement to graduate though, is that not correct? That is correct. So there is some back pressure for the school boards and the schools along with the students and the parents that is contingency to address to uh to be able to graduate. OK, thank you. All right, uh, we're on to, uh, Department of Edge division. higher education rule A was pulled at the agency's requests were down to B, which is governing, uh, productivity-based funding for state supported institutions, higher education, page 29 members. Go ahead, Courtney. So these rules are governing the productivity-based funding model, which is the funding structure that determines the amount of funding that each institution receives. Amendments were made to these rules to, um, protect institution from funding cuts of more than 5% over a consecutive five-year period assessing. This funding decrease on a rolling basis and will allow institutions time to correct negative trends but also continue to allow involvement from institutions in the process. Public comment period was held, public comments received, um, and if you have any additional questions, I have a representative from higher ed here who'd be happy to answer them. Members have any questions? All right then, see no questions and without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved, and we're down to see rules governing the Arkansas Future grant program, page 30 members. Amendments were made to these rules to implement Act 413, um, of 2023 to allow students to receive grant funding for summer terms. This was a change that, um, is required to be made to all of our scholarship programs and so that's the change was made to each of them just to allow that allowance for summer terms. Happy to answer any questions. Members have any questions? All right then, see no questions and without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you for being here today. Hope you have a great rest of the day. Thank you. All right, on to 9, which is on page 31, Department of Health, State Board of Health. That's the role pertaining to dental hygienist serving underserved areas. And good morning, ladies, if y'all would please name and title for the record. Good morning. I'm Laura Shu. I'm general counsel for the Department of Health. Doctor, excuse me, Doctor Rachel Sizemore, director of the Office of Oral Health. Good morning. Go ahead and present, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we're here to present the rules pertaining to dental hygienists serving underserved areas. We did have a public comment period, uh, back in the summer, uh, the public comment period expired in June. Uh, we've received no public comments. We did receive some interest from Representative Springer and Senator Irvin, and we did meet with them to go over their concerns. Uh, we also received Some, uh, comments and, uh, questions from the attorneys with the Bureau of Legislative Research, and they pointed out to, um, errors in our rule, and we made sure that those were corrected to get the language up to date with the more recent acts, um, we, uh, do not have a financial impact on this rule and our authority is under Title 17 and we're happy to take any questions. Any questions from members? All right then, see no questions members with objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you all for being here this morning. Thank you. All right, members, uh, we're on to E, which is agency updates on status of outstanding rulemaking from the 2023 regular session, as I mentioned a while ago, uh, in communications with co-chair and making sure that the chair has the latitude to do this and I do, uh, what I'd like to propose, what we'd like to propose is that unless you want to call each one of these ones in agencies up individually. And have them give their explanation, uh, we would defer to give you the latitude that if there's any that you want called up, let us know, uh, we'll go down the list and you say you want them called up, we'll call them up, but if not, we'll move on and, um. Without any objection we'll proceed that way. Anybody have any objection to that method? All right, noting no objection then, uh, would anybody like the Department of Corrections to come up? Oh, sorry, off the wrong list, skipped one over sorry about that. Department of Abody wants the Department of VA to come up. Anybody wants the Department of Commerce, Arkansas Economic Development Commission to come up. Holler if you do. I may not see your light. Department of Commerce, State Board of Malms, funeral directors, uh, cemeteries, burial services, anybody? Department of Commerce State Insurance Department, Department of Corrections. Department of Education. Department of Energy and Environment. I see somebody's hand. I got somebody down there. Represented Springer, which one would you like to? All right, let's get, uh, education to the board for representative Springer, if you would go ahead and, uh, Bring her micke online, please. Thank you. And Courtney wants, again, would you please identify yourself for the record, please. Courtney Solis Ford, Department of Education. Representative Springer, you recognized to ask. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to know, uh, you all were working on rules with respect to the uh. I guess Let me see if I can. Uh, use the proper wording. The gentlemen were here a few uh Months ago to discuss it. It's called um I guess I I'm, I'm having a blank here was it learning tree or Solution tree? Yeah. Um, so those, anything that would be applicable to them would be included in our rules governing professional development, um, which are, have already been promulgated and passed. They're not outstanding. OK. And then I guess the other one had to do with indoctrination then? Mhm. Uh, those rules. We delayed because of litigation. Um, I don't have that information in front of me, but I can check on that and get back with you. I don't see those on the list, um, but so I can check on that and get back with you. I'll be OK. Thank you. Thank you. All right. How many, how many, uh, rules have you got left to promulgate there in your list? Oh goodness, um. We have 26 on the list identified from BLR um identified internally about 50. OK, um. Making progress, let's just put it that way. Yes sir, we are working as fast as we can to get through them all. All right. Anybody else have any questions for the department of bid? I see one over there. Represent Banker. OK, you recognizesent B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can we get a list of all the rules from these agencies, how many roles are outstanding? Yes, we will do that and we can send that to the entire membership of, of each one of them. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair. OK, thank you. All right, I'm on department vet. Anybody else have any questions for Department of E? All right. Thank you. Thank you. You mind hanging around a minute just in case, uh, Department of Energy and Environment. Anybody want them to the table? Department of Finance Administration Regulatory division. Anybody? Uh, Department of Finance Administration, revenue division. Department of Health Department Inspector General Tax Appeals commissions. I have a question about that one. On that one. And on which one, OK, uh, let's get the Department Inspector General of Tax Appeals and Senator Irving, you recognized after they come to the table and state their name and title for the record, please. And good morning. Name and title for the record, please. Samantha Blossing Game, Chief counsel, Department of Inspector General. Thank you. I, I think that we had some pretty lengthy discussion about, uh, this at a previous meeting, um, as to why the rules are not promulgated for the Tax Appeal commission. Can you give us an update about that? Sure, um, that has all been resolved and I'm pleased to report to you this morning that, um, The Tax Appeals Commission has submitted the final version of its proposed revised procedural rules to BLR, um, that was on September 10th, so it will all be before the committee, um, in October for a vote. That's perfect. Thank you. OK. Any other questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Um, let's see, Department of Labor and Licensing. Anybody? And Department of Public Safety. Anybody? And then Secretary of State, anybody? OK, last call. Does anybody want any of these, uh, agencies to come up and give explanation. We'll get the entire list submitted out to the committee member at the request of the representative and everybody will have that before the next meeting. And we'll expect him back in front of us next time around so we can do that. All right. Agency monthly written updates Act 595 2021 concerning rulemaking from the fiscal session, um, Any questions about that? Nope. OK, then the objection, we will file the September monthly written update and see no other business before us, correct? See no other business before us, we are adjourned.