ALC-Administrative Rules
Video
Transcript
46 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Members, folks in the gallery, if you'll take your seat, we'll go ahead and get started on it.
I'll call this administrative rules subcommittee meeting to order
Ann Purvis
Unverified
5:39
first item is normally reports from the executive subcommittee but we have no reports this month so we'll proceed with the next item on the agenda to number C letters submitted pursuant to act 893 of 2019 this act allows agencies to submit a letter to this legislative council and only rule only changed the rule is the
replacement of the term regulation with the term rule and after that the agency has filed the updated rule with the Secretary of State's office on or before January 1st 2020 you'll note that we have letters from four agencies in your packet Department of Corrections DHS oil and gas Commission and the plant board and if there are no objections we will review and file those letters seeing none will consider those reviewed and filed moving on to item D rules deferred from the December 18th meeting we have the office of state procurement rules
that were deferred from the last meeting the agency made some recent changes and forwarded those to staff yesterday so due to this late submission you'll have a copy of those revisions before you in your packet will someone with the agency please come up introduce yourself for the record and present your rule Good morning, my name is Ann Purvis.
Ian Purvis
Unverified
7:21
I'm Chief of Staff for the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. Good morning,
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
7:26
my name is Ed Armstrong. I'm the director of State Procurement at the Office of State Procurement in the Department of Transformation and Chaired Services. David Withrow, lead counsel for the Office of State Procurement. Thank you for giving us this
Ian Purvis
Unverified
7:43
opportunity to present our rules this morning. One of the things I do want to point out is they were presented in review yesterday and passed out a review. We did make some some changes and I
apologize for the last-minute changes but we're also trying to do to accommodate concerns that the BLR and certain members of the legislators did bring to our attention and so if you'd like to I could highlight those changes just so in case you all have any questions of those or just just answer any questions whatever is the will of the chair it
might be good if you went ahead and highlighted the
Ian Purvis
Unverified
8:16
changes that were made the first change you'll see in In the section that's highlighted, it's gonna be on page two.
And the change that we made, we had previously identified as medical services. We went back to the statutory language of medical physician and medical fees.
Speaker 20
8:36
The next change that we made to the rules you'll find on page six.
Ian Purvis
Unverified
8:45
And this was to ensure that small procurements competitive bids are managed by designated procurement agents and that have the requisite training that's required
Ian Purvis
Unverified
9:03
remove the as training may be required as so that was clearly understood that completed training is required. We took out a May.
Speaker 20
9:14
The next change that you'll find is on page 12 on the marked version, and
Ian Purvis
Unverified
9:25
once again we changed back to the statutory language of May as opposed to Shell. On
Speaker 20
9:39
page 20 you'll find the next change, or actually 21 in the marked up highlighted version.
This is where we're including language for economic justification to use a cooperative agreement. The next change you'll find is on page 23 of the marked up version. We took out the initial contract amount and so now any change of a contract amount that
that's presented to the legislature, even if it's just a penny over the annual contract amount, will be presented through the prior review process as opposed to reporting. Any change in price on an annual contract would be deemed a material
Ian Purvis
Unverified
10:42
change and presented to the legislature through a review process.
Speaker 20
10:58
The next change has to do with performance-based, and you'll see that on page 26 of the marked up version. The purpose of this change was to be sure that the performance standards were tailored toward the particular contracts, including we struck the language that exempted performance standards for emergencies or sole sources because even if they're simplified performance
standards, we should still have performance standards in those contracts. The next change you'll find also on page 26, we included the language without limitation on solicitation conferences, so the laundry list that we
Ian Purvis
Unverified
11:52
have after that wasn't exclusive. There could be other things added.
Speaker 20
12:01
The final change that was made is on page 27.
This had to do with whether or not that a, when you have a request for information, there's an exemption under the FOI for that information and we had recommended a sunset provision to that. However, our discussion with the Bureau and the legislature, we decided that we would go ahead and strike that. may be a substantive change that we need to visit during the session. So that's no longer part of
Ian Purvis
Unverified
12:36
the rules. And those were the latest changes. I think we'll
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
12:40
be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Members, any questions? Representative Jean, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Speaker 32
13:05
you, Mr. Chairman. How many procurement agents do we have right now throughout this state I think we have about 300 different people who function in some capacity in procurement and so
they are an agent but we only really keep track of the high-level officials so this is going to change we're going to have a better roster of exactly who has a training or who has a procurement role in the
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
13:29
future right now I couldn't tell you well it can explain what kind of
training they're gonna be given to be certified or
Speaker 32
13:38
whatever the terminology you're using right and that's why the training regime is going to help because we're gonna now have to know everybody
who has some role even if it's for small procurements so that we'll know who those individuals are each agency is going to have a duty to report them if they want somebody to purchase on behalf of an agency they're going to report them so we're going to have a roster and then we're going to require them to have at least some amount of training adequate for them to understand how to do small purchases in conformity with the law that previously has not existed
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
14:13
and I have one other follow-up and I've pardon me I can't remember what page it was were we changing if somebody doesn't give further information I guess it's on
page 12 refuses to clarify in writing on a reasonable time that their bid shall be rejected why do we change it back to May if they're not going to be upfront and give us the information that we're asking why do we change it from shall back to May. That was
Speaker 30
14:43
to address a concern that BLR and one of the representatives had had that it didn't hew closely to the statutory language so this just replicates the statutory language. All right thank you.
Thank you Representative Vinnie. Any other questions from the membership?
Ann Purvis
Unverified
15:05
Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Moving on to item E, rules filed pursuant to Arkansas Code 10-3-309. First is Department of Agriculture, Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission. If you will come forward, present your rule, and introduce yourself for the record, please.
Speaker 47
15:42
Wade Hodge Chief Counsel for the Department of
Speaker 48
15:48
Agriculture. Patrick Fist Department of Agriculture Director of Livestock and
Speaker 47
15:54
Poultry. We have we're going to present to you our brucellosis rule that the Livestock and Poultry Commission had four separate brucellosis rules so all we did is combine them into one rule so people if they have to deal with this issue they can go to one place and know that they're finding everything they need to know about brucellosis and we
added a definition section and that's all this does. And we'll be asking for the repeal of those
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
16:29
four other rules as well. On the trichomonosis... We have a
question from a member, hold on just a
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
16:41
second. Senator Reicher, I can ask for a question. Thank you. And
just looking through this, can you tell me if this affects anything such as the 4-H and FFA junior livestock showing?
Does this change anything from their timeline where they have to get vet certification before they show? Can you address that? No, sir. The brucellosis rule is really
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
17:07
not in effect at this time because we are a free, brucellosis free state. The brucellosis rule will come into effect when there
Speaker 49
17:16
is an outbreak. This will not have any effect on 4-H or exhibits or entry. There's nothing in
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
17:23
any of the rules that you know of that would change.
I forget, it's been a long time since my kids showed, but other kids that are doing that, I know it's sometimes somewhat of a hardship for livestock if they were doing it at 90-day and it got changed to 30-day or something like that before, you know, if they had to have additional testing. Nothing that we'll be presenting today. I appreciate you clarifying that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Seeing no other questions,
we'll consider this rule reviewed and approved, and you can move on to the next rule.
Speaker 47
18:01
The next rule is the trichomoniasis rule. This is really just a cleanup of our existing trichomoniasis rule. Once again, we added some definitions that were needed. The existing rule also had some definitions. It defined terms that were not actually used in the rule, so we eliminated those definitions. And then we made a slight change to the time frame in which a bull has to be removed from livestock market that used to be seven days and we extended that time to 14
days be happy to answer any
questions any questions members senator Irvin you were
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
18:47
recognized for a question thank you on page 26 where you said the industry recommend recommended the change to allow someone to pick up animal from the market from 7 to 14 days. Are you talking about sale barns and things like that? Is that the industry that you're referring to there? Yes. Thank
you. Senator Hill you're recognized for a question.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
19:25
Over here. How many confirmed trick test was it last year I do not have that with me it's it's unclear at this time Arkansas does a considerable amount but there are surrounding states that do testing that we do not have knowledge of the only requirements for
surrounding states is to report positives so trichomonosis rules I mean testing is done at the barn with the veterinarian and then that's sent off, but I'm not sure exactly how many at this time. Is there any way you can get that
information for the state of Arkansas? Yes, I can get that information to you. If you could, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Yes, sir. Positives, we generally have around
25 to 30 a year. Yes, sir. Senator Sample, I
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
20:23
believe it is. You recognize for a question. Thank you. I was just noticing here, why were there no public hearings
Speaker 47
20:29
held on these rule changes? Well, of course, as you're aware, the Administrative Procedure Act says that you only have to have a public hearing if you get a request for one from 25 or more people or an organization having 25 or more members.
We did have the 30-day public comment period.
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
20:48
But no one requested a hearing?
No one requested a hearing. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 47
21:04
Seeing no other questions, we'll consider this rule reviewed and approved. You can proceed with your last one. okay the next one is the rule for airborne eradication of feral hogs federal law allows states to issue a permit for this the permit has to be for a demonstrated need this is not for sport
and the the things outlined in the rule come either directly from our law or the federal law or regulations we didn't make anything more restrictive or more permissive than than any of those be happy to answer questions representative vaut you're recognized for a question thank you
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
21:45
mr. chair um i noticed that miss rice had asked you a question about timber and y'all have added timber which i agree timber is a crop but we just don't it's not in the statute that it's a crop
So I don't know how we can change it by rule whenever it's not actually—that needs to be changed in legislation and not just a rule, in other words. So I don't know how we can
add timber there if timber isn't defined in our statute. And you might can answer that for me, Ms. Sutton, on how we're going to add something that's not there by statute. Right. We can ask
Speaker 89
22:25
the staff attorney that reviewed that rule to go down to the table and address that if you'd like.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
22:31
Rebecca? Is that okay, Mr. Chair? Is that something we can do? I just don't want us adding something that by
Speaker 94
22:50
statute isn't already there. But we can't just add it. It's not defined in statute as a crop though, no, but we're just allowing them to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
23:00
add it. It is a crop, I agree, but we need to fix it by statute and not just by rule.
Speaker 98
23:12
Good morning, Rebecca Miller Rice, staff attorney for the bureau. I did ask the question because timber was not included in the statute. But certainly an agency may interpret the statute and clarify their rule. It would be up to a court to determine whether or not that that was inappropriate. Again, I agree that it
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
23:33
is a crop. I just don't know that we need to be adding something that's not already defined by law, that it is a crop, if that makes sense.
Speaker 47
23:43
And I certainly see your point. I guess our position was that we didn't feel like we were adding anything just because specific individual crops weren't listed. We saw this as more of a clarification since, as you agree, timber is a crop. We just wanted to clarify that that would be covered. But we'll certainly do whatever you think is
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
24:07
appropriate. Mr. Chair, so my worry is that we've just added. I mean, it's word for word except for, I mean, by the statute, it's word for word except for they've added the word timber.
So my worry is if we start allowing agencies to start adding words that's not by statute already there, then I'm worried others will start doing that too. I mean, I agree it's a crop. I just think it needs to be fixed by statute and not just added to the
Speaker 105
24:42
rule. Ms. Sutton can clarify and tell me
Speaker 89
24:47
if I'm wrong. Jessica Sutton, Administrator. If the agency agrees to take that term out, then we could review and approve the rule today with that change.
And it sounds like they might be agreeable
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
24:59
to do that. Am I correct that it needs to be fixed by
Speaker 89
25:03
statute? Well, as Rebecca said, it would be up to a court to determine whether or not that was within the agency's discretion to interpret the statute and clarify or whether they were exceeding their authority. So that would be up to a court to decide. We couldn't really take a position either way. But if the agency does agree to take that out, then that's something that we could still review and approve with that change. Thank you.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:33
Senator Dismang, you're recognized for a question. I would. and really if I can just a discussion on that you know it would be my opinion that it just depends how broadly the law is written if they have the discretion or not on whether they can change that term or add that term and really in my opinion if that's something that's needed
for this program, and we as a legislative body that does give approval says that they are able to add this, then we wouldn't, I mean, in my opinion, that would give the courts a lot of standing on whether or not we allowed for, you know, that authority, you know, for the agency to add the term. At least that would be in my opinion. And so if this is something that is needed for the program, so that would be my question for y'all, if it's needed to be in there for the program um to move forward properly is it needed yeah
Speaker 47
26:41
we certainly feel like it is
feral hogs do a lot of destruction to a lot of grounds and it's not just open pasture land it could be a forest areas as well
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
26:51
and then i guess my question to staff would i be interpret i mean it it's really up to us in some ways and that's the purpose of this committee is to to outline whether or not they have the authority to do something or not do something in regards to rule change or you know new regulation and if we as a body say and then at the full ALC also agrees that they had the ability to do that then I don't see an
issue moving moving forward but again that'll be up for discussion. Senator Johnson you're recognized
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
27:27
for a question. I guess for the attorneys is Is this defined federally different than it is in a state law that would allow standing for timber as a crop?
Speaker 98
27:40
Senator Johnson, if I recall correctly, timber was not included in the federal statute either.
That was what prompted the question. I can say that under authority, the commission is specifically given the authority to make modifying and force rules not inconsistent with the law. Again, that would be a question for a court. as it shall from time to time deem necessary to effectively carry out its functions. So it goes back to the interpretation and clarification. Thank you.
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
28:19
Senator Sample, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. you know i don't want to see anything that will take it and keep the timber from being protected because timber is a very valuable crop and i mean the stages has timber over probably 60 percent or more of it and so i i know what kind of damage the hogs do to timber and i sure don't want anything to happen to take and change
your ability to protect that crop. Thank you, Mr.
Chair
Unverified
28:57
Chair. Thank you, Senator. Senator Irvin, you're
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
29:00
recognized. Thank you to the Attorney. When you just stated that whatever was deemed necessary, could
you repeat that for me? Sure. So, pursuant
Speaker 98
29:09
to statute, the Livestock and Poultry Commission shall have the authority to make, modify, and afford such rules and orders not inconsistent with the law, as it shall from time to time deem necessary to effectively carry out the functions
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
29:25
performable by it. Okay, so would it be, I don't disagree with Representative Vaught. We don't want to add things that are not in the statute. However, it does say if they deem it necessary to perform the functions of what the act is trying to tell them to do they can have the authority to to change that rule it does it does state that the
Speaker 126
29:51
commission shall is what the commission deems necessary to effectively carry
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
29:55
out its duties is it fair to say then that the commission deemed necessary to add timber as a definition of a crop in order to fulfill the intention of the legislation for the eradication of feral hawks absolutely and as she also
Speaker 47
30:10
quoted it says if it's not inconsistent with the statute and since timber is a crop we did not feel like that was inconsistent with the statute okay we felt like we were being consistent with the statute and it is necessary thank you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
30:27
speaker shepherd you're recognized for question thank you mr chairman i guess my question um would be for the staff attorney and looking at the statute and the act
that was passed let's see so there as i understand it crop or crops as used in the statute is not defined
and it's not it is not uh you know it doesn't appear to be capitalized i haven't from looking
at it doesn't appear that there's any definition is that correct can may i have
just one second to look over i'm not seeing a definition okay mr chairman if i could have a little bit of follow-up yes go ahead so I think that maybe what the issue is is that the
statute refers to crops this regulation refers to crops and timber which by using them in the same sentence would indicate that they are different and in it to me it appears the way we solve this issue is that for purposes of regulation we define we add a statement or essentially a definition to say for purposes of regulation, timber is a crop or crops would include timber. That would not, as I read
it from looking at that, that would not violate the statute, but that would provide the ability to, I guess, issue the permits or allow the eradication efforts for purposes of timber, but that would also, to represent Vought's point, that would respect the fact that we're not adding to or that the agency is not adding to the statute because when you use them together as as is drafted now that would seem to be an indication that timber is
not a crop whereas the statute has not stated one way or the other it looks like to me that we just stated for purposes rule and regulation crops would include among other things Tim
Speaker 47
32:50
would would include but not be limited to timber. Representative, if we said crops, comma, including timber, would that solve the issue? I would, I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
32:59
would say, I think it needs to say crops, it would be
including but not limited to timber, and I think that would, that would, I think, put us in a better position than adding to, because right now there could be an Argument that by adding it in this way, you're essentially acknowledging that timber is not a crop Whereas what we really want is timber to be included in that definition So I think that if we handle it that way, I think that would get us Closer to having something that everybody could feel good about Wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 47
33:39
I agree. I think the language that is normally used in statute now is including without limitation Timber Any other questions Representative Vaught you
recognize Again I just want to be on the record
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
33:53
Saying I do believe Timber is a crop and that we do have A major problem with hogs I've been working with y'all constantly About feral hogs and the damage that they do to Arkansas So I agree I just don't want us to get in the habit of changing
Statute by law Thank you We appreciate your comments is the
agency agreeable to make that changes to the rule then it's written now absolutely
okay okay any other questions member seeing none then we'll without objection we'll consider this rule reviewed and approved as amended so thank you I believe that's it for thank
Graham Sloan
Unverified
34:38
you next up Department of Commerce Office of Skills Development if you'll come forward
if you'll identify yourself for the record you are recognized to
Speaker 145
35:03
present your rule thank you mr. chairman members of committee cody waits director for the office of skills development department of commerce over the past six or so months the state apprenticeship Office has been undergoing significant change to streamline our processes. As we look through our
rules and regulations, a lot of the changes and the revisions that you'll see are language to simply repeal old language as it was outdated due to government transformation. So updating a lot of the language, as you'll see today, moving from Department of Career Education to Department of Commerce. We have one significant change on page 14. If you'll turn to page 14, it basically states section a number seven a program we repealed the word must and replaced it with maybe co-sponsored by an lea what we found over the course of doing some analytics was that roughly 15 percent of
funds that were going through leas were being withheld which is a significant amount of money as we're starting to expand apprenticeship across the state i don't know if you know the numbers but over the last four years we've increased the number of apprentices from roughly 3200 to over 6,300 as of today. We've increased the number of programs across the state from 88 up to 132 as of today and so every dollar is critical to the schools and to the programs and to the companies that receive these funds. So that's the one real significant change and with that I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Also we received no public comments during the public comment period and no in opposition. Any questions from
Graham Sloan
Unverified
36:32
the members? Seeing none, we'll consider this rule reviewed and approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, members of the committee. Next, Department of Corrections, Office of
the Secretary please identify yourself for the record and you are recognized to
Speaker 149
36:59
present your rule good morning mr. chair and members of the committee Solomon Graves chief of staff office of the secretary within the Department of Corrections we have three rules before you this morning to our amendments and one request to proceed with a repeal. The first amendment we have is to Administrative Regulation 005, Reporting of Incidents. This rule is being reduced to a statement of general policy, which as we continue to work
through our ARs, is a request that has been made by our governing board. The amendment also ensures documentation within the department's electronic offender management information system commonly referred to as the illness and then finally the amendment also requires that incidents of a significant nature be distributed to management staff being via the department's email distribution list the last two items are already practiced this just ensures that they
are included in the board's governing rules for the reporting of incidents
any questions for the members on
Speaker 149
38:20
this rule if not we'll consider this rule reviewed and approved next up is administrative regulation 217 which is the rule on staff assignments housing and emoluments this rule is being revised
in a way that would make it a joint regulation governing the division of correction and the division of community correction additionally a reporting requirement to the compliance division within the board of correction is being added notification to the board was already standard practice when staff is provided housing this ensures that that practice will remain as staff transition into different roles over time also the rule was updated to include a
a reference to the secretary of the Department of Corrections which consistent with the secretary statutory authority will be responsible for governing the provision of housing to department staff. An amendment also clarifies the department's ability to recoup costs for damages. This was already practiced but it was the advice of our legal division that there needed to be specific language within the rule, providing that the department does have the authority
to recoup the damages, recoup the cost for damages beyond normal wear and tear. Also references to what were commonly referred to as emoluments were removed from the rule. The department ceased the practice of providing staff emoluments about 20 years ago, however the rule was never updated to reflect that change in past practice any questions seeing
none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved and
Speaker 149
40:17
you can continue to find a rule last up is 3c which is a request to repeal administrative regulation 405 which is state police assistance during escapes and other disturbances this repeal is being requested following the issuance of a 2015 executive order governing emergency preparedness coordination between executive branch agencies and a subsequent 2016 memorandum of understanding between the division of correction and the division of the
Arkansas State Police governing how assistance will be provided by ASP this this language was out of out of date and the repeal is overdue this will in no way impact our emergency preparedness response any questions from members
on this rule seeing none we'll consider this rule reviewed and approved that objection thank you sir next we
Ann Purvis
Unverified
41:15
have the Department of Education Division of Elementary and Secondary Education
Graham Sloan
Unverified
41:24
Please identify yourself for record and you are recognized
Speaker 155
41:35
to present your rule. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mary Claire Hyatt with the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. The first rule is a new rule governing data reporting the Arkansas Public School Computer Network and Information Systems. Although it's a new rule, it is actually a combination of four existing rules that are being repealed
at the same time as this is being promulgated. Those rules are processes to ensure the quality, security, validation, timeliness of public school data, rules governing financial accounting and reporting systems, rules governing the issuance of local education agency numbers, and rules governing the final close public school financial records. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the member?
Seeing none, we'll consider that without objection this rule
Speaker 155
42:33
is reviewed and approved. Please continue. The next rule is an amendment rules governing schools of innovation. This is the changes to reflect Act 815 of 2019. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. any questions
members seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you
Ann Purvis
Unverified
43:01
next Department of Education division of higher education
If you'll identify yourself for the record, you are recognized to
Speaker 161
43:19
present your rules. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Maria Markham, Director of
Speaker 162
43:25
the Division of Higher Education. And we have four rules for review today. I believe the first one on your list is the Advanced Placement Credit Policy. This was not a rule that was a result of a statute. This was an agency promulgated rule that was created with unanimous agreement among our institutions to create some consistency in the way the advanced placement course scores were applied for college credit.
So all of our institutions have agreed for advanced placement test scores of three or above. For all of those courses listed in the table on your handout, college credit is required to be awarded by all of the institutions. So this allows for high school counselors to consistently let students know what their placement, their AP scores will earn them at any institution in the state. We had no public comment on that policy. Any questions, members?
Seeing none, without objection, this rule is reviewed and
Speaker 162
44:24
approved. You may continue. Thank you. The policy on tuition and fees for non-traditional documented immigrants is in response to Act 844. The language of our rule precisely mirrors that language. It allows institutions of higher education to implement policies that will allow for in-state tuition for certain categories of documented immigrant students any
Graham Sloan
Unverified
44:50
members with questions seeing none without objection
Speaker 162
44:54
this rule is reviewed and approved okay we had some changes to the productivity funding model policy for both universities and two-year colleges we have a few changes there that were just technical corrections and cleanup language as a result of transformation and then just some misstatements in the initial rule we had on the university side we did have a substantive change with the research adjustment the previous methodology for applying research it
hadn't happened but it could possibly happen that an institution may have punitive impact of a reduction in federal research dollars to their institution so we adjusted the way we applied research so that could not be punitive it could only be neutral or positive based on research activities and it'll also allowed institutions that weren't previously eligible for research adjustments to then be eligible so we had a as a result of this we had a few institutions that received some positive research adjustment that did not in the past and a few more that will receive that next year any questions from the
members seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and
Speaker 162
46:09
approved similarly we had a couple of changes to our productivity funding policy for our two-year institutions a few of those were technical changes as a result of transformation and then just some errors in the way that was stated we did have some substantive changes to their productivity funding policy as well we adjusted the way we wait some things within our effectiveness category the way that we had scaled a few of our metrics had overemphasized transfer in
in relation to progression and credentials, so we adjusted those weightings to better reflect what we're doing as a state and where those values were. I think that the way that it worked out, we were actually giving four times the credit for a transfer as we did a credential, and of course, that was not the intent, so we did make some adjustments. That was agreed upon by the two-year colleges. It was actually suggested by then, and then the full funding work group reviewed that to be sure that it had the correct impact.
The other issue that we had was much like research. The diseconomies of scale adjustment was adjusted so that potentially it could not be punitive. We had not had that situation occur, but we did not want to penalize an institution for their small size. That was supposed to be a positive adjustment to account for those diseconomies of scale. So we
Members, any questions? Senator Irvin, you are recognized for a question.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
47:39
Thank you. Can you just walk me through the process when you do have these issues that
come up with a productivity formula and how you go about addressing that? Are you working with the two-year colleges, the four-year colleges? Tell me the process. us yes so we have
Speaker 162
47:56
a standing funding work group of both two-year and four-year institutions we have members that have served for about three years and they've helped design all these metrics occasionally it will come from maybe the two-year college association they may have a concern so
they bring it to the full funding work group and they make their their presentation they show us what the problem is and ask us to consider some alternatives so at that point we consider all the thing all the possibilities what the positive and negative impact would be and then that full funding work group works through that and suggests policy changes
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
48:32
to division and then we suggest those to you. And the work group could you tell me who that's comprised of? Yes
Speaker 162
48:40
so we have institutional presidents we have chief financial officers we have people from their institutional
research divisions it's split about 60 40 non-system schools to system schools and it's roughly i would say 50 50 two-year to four-year institutions so there i want to say
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
48:59
there's about 15 people on that work group currently one last question are
there any consumers that are a part of this. I don't want to get away from the idea that there is a productivity that is expected.
I think it's important that we continue to make sure that the productivity that is expected from the two-year colleges and the four-year colleges is never lost in the way that we changed the formula so we're still holding folks accountable for for graduating people out of their institutions thank you any other questions without
objection and this rule is reviewed and approved thank you
dr. Markham next the Ethics Commission If
Graham Sloan
Unverified
50:13
you'll identify yourself with the record, you are recognized
Speaker 176
50:18
to present your rules. Thank you. My name is Graham Sloan. I'm the director of the Arkansas Ethics Commission. As a result
Speaker 179
50:25
of legislation passed during the 2019 session, it was necessary for the Ethics
commissioned to amend six sets of rules, I'm sorry, seven sets of rules. The first set is the rules of practice and procedure. The amendments there, Act 341, it increased the fine range from 50 to 2,000 to 50 to 3,500 and that necessitated a change in section 8.3F. the act 547 provided that if the ethics commission required additional time to
complete an investigation that it could get an additional 60 days by giving notice to the person who's the subject of the investigation that statutory change resulted in a modification or amendment of section 618b and that would be the changes on that set of rules i'd be happy to answer any questions seeing no questions from the
members will without objection this rule
Speaker 179
51:37
is reviewed and approved you may continue all right the next set of rules is the rules on political committees uh the um first was just a minor change act 240 of the statute existing law used the word filing period and that was an inarticulate term it actually should have been reporting period so the um we changed the that word in law and then the section 502a was amended or revised to reflect that change again the act 341 which increased the fine range up to
3500 instead of 2000 that necessitated a change in section 503a packs had been moved over to electronic filing but the affidavit to be a paper filer didn't get included the first go around and so act 1039 had allowed PACs to register via paper if they submit an affidavit that they lack technology and it'd be a substantial hardship that that change in the law necessitated an amendment to
rule or section 501d the act 1039 also added an affidavit requirement and that went along with that paper filing that necessitated amendment or change to section 502 f and g the again just more language that dealt with paper filing of registration and reports necessitated a change to 502 g and h the 1039 also gave the commission authority or power to approve the forms and
instructions used by the Secretary of State's office for electronic filing, and basically that was just to make sure that all the required information, you know, the information required by the law was included on the electronic version of the form that's necessitated to change to 502i, and then the Act 1058 extended the types of persons who have to include a disclaimer on printed campaign materials to include packs and so act section 506 which is a
new section was added to reflect that change in the law as well and that would be a summary of the changes to
that set of rules i'd be happy to answer any questions
Speaker 179
54:17
any questions for members seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved the next one is the rules on lobbyist registration and reporting the increase in the fine range from Act 341 is necessitated an amendment or revision to 507 B1 the there were
additional restrictions placed on members General Assembly types employment they could seek after they left and left office and it that necessitated some changes in 517 in you know those changes just track the statutory changes act 661 again it dealt with two types of jobs that a member former member general assembly can't
take within two years it's the director of an educational cooperative or an area agency on aging those were those changes were necessitated a revision to 517b and that's that's it and i'll be happy to answer questions members any
questions on this one seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed
Speaker 179
55:31
and approved the next set of rules is the rules on independent expenditures again the act 341 increase in the fine range necessitated an amendment of section 705
Act 1039 said that if the Secretary of State does not accept a paper report, that they have to notify the filer within five business days that it wasn't accepted and provide a reason for that. It could be as simple as they hadn't filed the affidavit that would permit them to be a filer, but they have to notify them. That necessitated a change to 702.4C. 702 E3 and 4 were amended again to track the affidavit language that got added to the law
1039 also gave the AEC authority to review and approve the forms just to make sure that they the electronic forms to make sure they contained all the required staturally required information that necessitated an amendment of 702 e6 and 7 and then finally the requirement that printed campaign materials have a paid for by disclaimer was extended to include independent expenditure
committees and so there's a new section that was added to address that and then it also necessitated in addition to the definition of printed campaign materials, and those were sections 704 and 700F, and that would be a summary of those changes, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Sullivan, you recognize your question?
Speaker 183
57:18
Yes, sir. Thank you. You know, we changed a lot of things over to electronic filing from paper filing in this last, you know, several months.
Correct. Would you describe that transition as pretty seamless? Well,
Speaker 176
57:31
we're not the filing office. The Secretary of State's office is.
Speaker 179
57:34
We do get calls from people that aren't familiar with the new system and have questions and then we refer them back over to the Secretary of State's office. So I guess it would just depend on who you talk to, that there are probably some people out there that would not describe it as seamless, but they might not think paper filing was seamless either.
Speaker 183
57:57
Sure. And maybe this is Secretary of State's office. I might need to meet with him afterwards, but was there a pretty substantial process we went through in notifying people about the transition to make sure everyone was aware and that it happened in a timely manner? we send out
Speaker 179
58:15
reminder notices of the various reports that are due and when mandatory the ethics commission does and when uh online filing became mandatory we started including language to that effect in our reminder notices that you know you have i think october was the first month that
electronic filing was mandatory so that very first october monthly report reminder notice that we sent out would have included language uh you know
Speaker 190
58:39
that fyi it's now and so but we've i think now it's not new we've taken that language back
out okay thank you sure any other questions seeing none then without objection this rule is reviewed
Speaker 179
58:57
and approved the next one is the rule on campaign contribution limit pursuant to
act 1280 of 2015 the Ethics Commission was tasked with every two years with looking at some federal oh they're not cost-of-living numbers I forget the exact name of them but the inflation
Speaker 190
59:19
numbers and then to look at to adjust the $2,700 campaign contribution limit and
Speaker 179
59:26
if it and then round it to the nearest hundred and so 2019 was the first year that when you rounded it to
the nearest hundred it it would have gone up to 2,800 and so the change here was the campaign contribution limit the twenty seven hundred dollar figure was replaced with twenty eight hundred dollars and
Speaker 190
59:48
that's section 101 of those rules that was the only change be happy to answer any questions any
Graham Sloan
Unverified
59:59
questions members seeing none without objection this rule
Speaker 179
1:00:03
is reviewed and approved the The next set of rules are the Ethics Commission's Rules on Conflicts, and the only two changes
to this set of rules were the result of Act 315, which had basically stripped the word regulation out of any agency rules, and so there were two places in that set of rules where really, in keeping with the statute, it said regulation, but when that got removed from the code then these rules were amended to reflect to omit that word as well that's the
Speaker 190
1:00:33
only change not seeing any questions so without objection this
rule is reviewed and approved all right the final set of
Speaker 179
1:00:48
rules is the rules on campaign finance and disclosure this is one of the oldest sets rules that the Commission has it is there were more visions to this set of rules I'll be glad to go through them the existing law prior to 2019 had basically said that a permissible contributor couldn't make an excessive contribution but it didn't say
that an impermissible was prohibited from making an excessive contribution and and And so just to clarify that any contributor, whether a permissible contributor or impermissible contributor, it's a violation to make an excessive contribution. And that's pretty straightforward, but that resulted in an amendment of Section 203B. One of the big changes this session to the campaign finance laws was we're going to have March primaries in presidential election years,
and then we're going to revert back to May primaries in non-presidential election years and so forth. And then in a non-presidential election year, the monthly reporting is going to begin in January. In a presidential election year, it starts in October, but for the fact that monthly starts in January, which is in keeping with what the law always was that's 236 b2 um the uh there were three changes
made to the there's a separate reporting statute for state and district candidates there's one for county municipal and school board and then um i take that back uh township municipal school board and then there's county there's there's three different reporting statutes but the the law always was if you run for office you have to file at least one report and that would be a final report and there were some changes to the campaign finance laws that had kind of created a question of hey if you're unopposed would you still have to file a final report and so the law it was
clarified that yes if you run for office even if you're unopposed you still have to file a final report and so that act 240 language was added three places it was added in section 236 which is state and district 239 for school district township municipal and then 242b for candidates for county office so that's just the same change basically made three times the law says candidates
can start raising money two years before an election but it reserved the right for a municipality to create a shorter time frame and the um there was in the newspaper some of you may read about the city of little rock had a shorter time frame and then they felt like candidates were violating that shorter time frame and they wanted us to enforce their ordinance and the commission had determined that while cities had the right to create a shorter time frame that
they would be the ones to enforce their own ordinance not the Ethics Commission and if the Ethics Commission were made the enforcement agency there's 500 different cities they could all have a different time frame so it would essentially have us enforcing you know potentially hundreds of municipal ordinances so the law was changed to clarify that while they do have the authority to create a shorter time frame or limit they would be responsible for enforcing their own restriction that amendment was section 204c there was a
change made by Act 845 to carryover funds prior to this change a candidate would could it was permissible to use carryover funds to reimburse yourself travel related to the office but you wouldn't wouldn't have paid those expenses in the first instance with carryover funds and that's just the way the law was written the law was changed to say that to change that where instead of just using them to reimburse yourself that you could pay those expenses directly out of the carryover account and then let's just say you were a state
district official and then the state reimbursed you for that travel then you could replace that money in your carryover account so that necessitated amendment that change in practice necessitated amendment to 227 H the act 879 clarified that carryover funds can't be taken as personal income I think everybody knows campaign funds can't be taken as personal income but just for whatever reason it was seen fit to clarify that you can't use carryover funds for personal use
either that necessitated amendment to 208 a2 879 says that you can't take campaign funds or carry over funds as personal income after you lose the election or leave office and so you know the prohibition lasts after the election or the term of office that necessitated an amendment to 226g the um act 879 had created uh increased or enhanced penalties for personal use of campaign
funds the um heretofore it was a misdemeanor now it's varying degrees of felony uh that we wouldn't be the enforcement agency on that it would be the prosecuting attorneys but uh just for clarity and for somebody that was looking at the rules we did reference in Section 208G, those new increased or enhanced penalties. Act 898 created a prohibition on somebody seeking constitutional office after they had
been convicted of a public trust crime. necessitated an amendment to section 200 e to add a definition of constitutional office which was in the statute and then the prohibition itself on seeking office after you've been convicted of a public trust crime necessitated a amendment or an addition of a section 200 y and then um the 253 is actually where the prohibition is 200 y was just a definition of public trust crime so
we defined two terms and added that prohibition in the rules and
Speaker 180
1:07:56
that would be a summary of those changes and I'd be happy to answer any questions
any questions from the members seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you
Thank y'all very much. Next, Department of Health, Center for Health Protection, Infectious Disease.
If you'll identify yourself for the record, you are recognized to present your
Speaker 200
1:08:43
rule. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Laura Shue. I'm General Counsel for the
Speaker 201
1:08:46
Department of Health, and with the Chair's permission, I brought with me Terry Paul, branch chief for environmental, to answer any questions on the next rule on number eight with body art, and also Jeff Stone, the director of our engineering section, to answer any questions on public water systems, which is number nine on your agenda.
looking first at number seven and the rules pertaining to communicable diseases tuberculosis this is a rule that was brought to our attention not by legislation but by one of the staff members at the department of health dr. Naveen Patil is the medical director for the infectious disease program and he and Tiffany Vance the branch chief helped draft these rules and bring them to you today. The proposed revisions reflect the new Center for Disease Control guidelines
for screening and testing health care workers for TB. These proposed revisions actually remove yearly requirements of screening for certain health care workers, inmates, employees of correctional facilities, employees of homeless shelters, and employees of child and adult daycare centers. This will actually be a cost savings which will result from these changes and the amendments don't have a financial impact, a negative financial impact to the state, but actually will decrease cost to health
care institutions, state government, and county government by reducing the materials and the time expended on TB testing. I'm happy to take any questions.
Graham Sloan
Unverified
1:10:17
Any questions members? Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. You
Speaker 201
1:10:27
may continue. The next rule that we have before you on number eight on the agenda is the rules pertaining to body art establishments. This rule is brought before you pursuant to red tape reduction acts that were
passed in the 2019 legislative session. We also added language pertaining to artist trainers and hours for artists in training due to the Transformation Act 910 of 2019. We added changes to reflect for the military licensure pursuant to Act 820 of 2019 and also Act 426, Act 1011 regarding the temporary and reciprocal licensure and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions?
Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved.
Speaker 201
1:11:18
Moving on to number nine, this is the rules pertaining to public water systems. This is pursuant to Act 788 of 2019, which was effective in July of 2019. There was approval by the Arkansas Drinking Water Advisory and Operator Licensing Committee in July. This was approved by the Board of Health in August, and we received subsequent approval by the governor's office to go forward with this rule. And we are happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Any questions members? Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Next Department of Human Services Division of Medical Services. if
you'll identify yourself for the record you are recognized to present your rule thank
Speaker 207
1:12:22
you mr. chairman mark white department of human services
Speaker 208
1:12:24
we have two medicaid rules for you today the first rule relates our changes related tobacco cessation treatment excuse me these changes include adding some language to our medicaid provider manuals that recognize changes have been made to scope of practice for pharmacists and this includes the ability of pharmacists to initiate therapy and administer nicotine replacement therapy products it also includes the ability of pharmacists to administer vaccines
and immunizations to children who are seven or older under a general written protocol as opposed to a specific prescription. We're also clarifying some language to provide that no prior authorization is necessary for tobacco cessation products. And we're adding some language to make explicit the ability of providers to provide tobacco cessation counseling to Medicaid clients and also provide that counseling to parents when their children are Medicaid clients.
Speaker 209
1:13:26
We received no comments on this rule and I'd
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:13:33
be happy to answer any questions. Representative
Dotson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Under the questions you received, question number
one, it says that, is this required by statute or was it a policy decision, and your response was this was a policy decision. I'm just wondering what statutory authority you have to make this policy decision.
Speaker 208
1:13:59
sure and and i do think our answer is probably worded a little bit confusingly in hindsight but providers already have the ability to provide tobacco cessation counseling it's just that it's in it's implied but also it's if it's medically necessary and so we thought it would just be helpful to go ahead and make that explicit in the rules so it's it's in one sense it's not changing anything that providers don't already have the ability to do which will make that more explicit and more clear in the manuals. Okay thank you. Thank you
representative. Any other questions? Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and
Speaker 208
1:14:41
approved. You may continue. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ms. Harrelson is joining me for this next one I'll I
Speaker 220
1:14:54
may allow her to introduce herself. Yes my name is Tamara Harrelson. Can you hit the button please? Is that better?
Speaker 208
1:15:01
Yes. Tamara Harrelson I'm Chief Counselor for the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General. This next rule is the DHS rule regarding excluded providers. For DHS we provide a list of individuals and entities
who've been excluded from participating in DHS programs. This means they're not able to contract with us they're not able to enroll as providers whether medicaid or any other program and we exclude people for a variety of reasons the most common are they have a criminal conviction they have been found guilty of abusing a client or perhaps they've defrauded the program are some examples of that what we're doing in this rule is we have worked with the office of medicaid inspector general to make some clarification changes to the rule we're providing more clarity
about who this rule applies to we're also providing some language to provide more explanation and clarity about when an exclusion applies to another person who is a family member or related party of that excluded provider and we're also making explicit that if a provider has been excluded by the federal government or by another state that we will automatically exclude that provider as well and then lastly there is some legislation that was passed in the last session that allows
individuals to be paid by medicaid as peer
Speaker 209
1:16:20
support specialists even if they have a criminal conviction and we're afraid there might be some confusion if we didn't reference that so we went and added some language of referencing that act just so there's no confusion we have a we were
Speaker 208
1:16:32
as i said work closely with office of medicaid inspector general on this i believe it's fair to say they're in support of these changes and we received no public comments we'd be happy to answer any questions
any questions from the members representative dots you
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:16:51
recognize for a question thank you mr. chair kind
of along the same lines is the last question I had on the last one
under question one those definitions exclusion expungement participation related party pulled those up and it looks like you've you've defined them fairly well within this rule but I just want to echo and
see if I can get a more thorough response from you the question number one there what statutory authority specifically did you have to
expand and create those definitions or did you pull them from
Speaker 220
1:17:37
some other part of the code. We have the broad authority under 2077-2506 in order to actually draft and create the rules for the exclusions. In this particular case, DHS originally drafted these and I reviewed them and agreed with them the exclusion language was not pulled from any specific
other statutory more what we did was look at the federal rules look at our rules look at the experience that we've had with exclusions and went ahead and framed it through that so it was not draft it wasn't pulled from anywhere else in particular okay so so it there there isn't this is
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:18:20
a unique definition for these these terms within your
rule there they're nowhere else within code currently I believe that's fair to say I believe it's not it's certainly not in
Speaker 208
1:18:36
the rules now I don't believe it is in statute I believe statute addresses that definition okay would you be willing to work with me to try
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:18:43
to define that in statute for the next session certainly we'll be happy to
work with you on that thank you thank you representative any other questions seeing none then with objection this rule
Speaker 209
1:19:04
is reviewed and approved thank you mr. chairman for the final rule I asked Mary Franklin to join me
from the division of county operations
if you'll please identify yourself for the
Speaker 230
1:19:27
record you may continue good morning mary franklin with the department of human services director of division of county operations we are presenting a rule today that affects the snap policy the supplemental nutrition
Assistance Program. We have made significant changes to SNAP 1000 Household Information Section, adding the cooperation with child support requirement, and this is to comply with Act 1043 of the 2019 legislative session. The act mandates that custodial and non-custodial parents must cooperate with the Office of Child Support Enforcement as a requirement of eligibility. Custodial and non-custodial parents who fail to meet the requirement will ineligible to participate in SNAP and the Office of Child Support Enforcement
will determine whether or not the custodial or non-custodial parents have met the requirement and the Department of Human Services Division of County Operations will determine whether or not there is good cause for the non cooperation in addition to this change we have removed business processes throughout the section of this policy so that the rule the rules are clear and we've removed processes and instructions for caseworkers to a business process
manual. I'll be glad to take any questions at this time. Senator Bledsoe
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
1:20:55
you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make it clear that the children though continue getting benefits correct. Yes ma'am that is correct. All right
thank you very much. Thank you Senator. Any other questions? Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you Mr.
Chairman. Thank you members. Next is the Department of Public Safety Division of Arkansas State Police.
Please identify yourself for the record and you're welcome to present your rule.
Mary Claire
Unverified
1:21:47
My name is Mary Claire McLaurin. I'm a staff attorney with the Arkansas State
Speaker 236
1:21:53
State Police Division of the Department of Public Safety. I'm here to present nine sets of rules to you today. These are rules that we found necessary to promulgate or amend following the 2019 regular session. All nine sets of rules were filed with the Secretary of State and the Bureau of Legislative
research on October 25th. They were published for three days in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette from October 26th to October 28th. We did hold a public hearing for the purpose of taking oral comment on November 20th. We had no attendees at that hearing and no one made any public comments. we did hold a 30-day public comment period for each set of these rules all
running at the same time it lasted until November 25th of 2019 we received no comments written oral or otherwise on any of the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:23:00
sets of rules I will go through each one individually we have
Speaker 236
1:23:08
the used motor vehicle dealer service and handling fees the only changes to this set of rules were that the term
department was replaced with the word division throughout the rules item B we have the used motor vehicle dealers licensing rules the changes to this rule this set of rules is that again that the term department was replaced with the word division we omitted any reference to regulation the term regulation in accordance with Act 315 of 2019 and we added rules 5.1 and 5.3 to permit
reciprocal and temporary licensing in accordance with Act 426 of 2019
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:24:01
and I don't know if you want to okay we have the PI security the
Speaker 236
1:24:10
private investigators and security agencies licensing rules that we amended it's item C again we replaced the term department with the word division. We omitted any reference
to the term regulation in accordance with Act 315. We revised rule 2.4 to permit reciprocal and temporary licensing again in accordance with Act 426 of 2019. We revised rule 2.10 to add one additional disqualifying offense of class a misdemeanor offenses against a person for licensure we added rule 2.16 to establish a process for pre licensure criminal background review
in accordance with Act 990 of 2019 and we added rule or we revised rules 9.0 and 9.1 to add an organization that is authorized to provide alarm systems training which which enables the citizens of Arkansas to have additional venues at which they can obtain necessary training to receive that license item D is the revisions to the driver's license testing fraud rules the
only change to that set of rules is that the term department was replaced with the word division. Item E are the commercial driver's license testing rules. The again the only change was the replacement of the term department with the word division. Item F is the third party driver's license CDL testing rules we replace the term department with the word division we also replace
the term federal highway administration with the federal motor carrier safety administration throughout the rules as that is the appropriate entity to be listed there we revised the item G we revised the municipal police patrols of of controlled access facilities. We replaced the term department with the term division.
We have the concealed carry licensing rules. We replaced the term department with the term division. Rule 7.2 and Rule 7.4 were revised to correspond with the changes to Arkansas Code Annotated 573.306, enacted by act 431 of 2019 and the last set is the blue light lens sale rules we
replaced the term department with the term division and we omitted any reference to the term regulation and that is
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:27:24
all I have I did neglect at the outset to introduce um my colleague
Speaker 236
1:27:32
lieutenant michael moyer he is here um because he has been the past administrator of the private security and security or private investigators and security agency section and he has a more in-depth knowledge of those licenses that we issue
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:27:47
and i'm prepared to take any questions
anyone may have representative dodson
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:27:56
you're recognized for question thank you mr. chair on the item
F the changes you made referencing a different federal agency there the FMCSA versus the FHWA yeah it looks like this
hasn't been an issue for 20 years why are we jumping into this now and does it I'm concerned, I guess, about the undetended consequences of it possibly. Does it open us up to more random inspections without any prior notice than we had before? What's
Speaker 238
1:28:39
the substance behind this change effectively? Well, essentially, no
Speaker 236
1:28:44
one in Highway Patrol was even sure why the Federal Highway,
the FHWA was ever mentioned in the rules and they said that it should have always referred to the FMCSA. The rules were originally promulgated in 1996 but the FMCSA was not founded until 2000 and so our best guess is that the duties that were originally carried out by the FHWA had been transferred at some time to the FMCSA. And so it's the same entity.
There's no additional duties or responsibilities or anything like that. It's just the FHWA no longer performs those duties or those checks that are referred to in the rules. And both are subdivisions of the Federal Department of Transportation. so for the last 20 years
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:29:39
though you the highway department's actually been um i
guess reporting to the fmcsa for this compliance i mean have they i can't speak for the highway department or the
Speaker 240
1:29:55
highway highway patrol i guess is who we're
Speaker 236
1:30:00
talking about here sorry highway patrol administers the cdl testing and so they are the ones who you know do the testing and do the third party testing for we we authorize the third party testers to train the cdl testing and so um they are in charge of administering this program but the um the CDL the commercial drivers or drivers are
they're liable to follow all federal regulations when they're on the highways and so these are the appropriate agencies and entities that they report to I
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:30:45
guess what I'm asking though is the highway patrol has been reporting to this agency that we're now
going to be referencing for the last 20 years I'm can you
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:30:55
is there a certain rule you're looking at item F the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:31:01
the rule that you're no I meant I'm sorry I'm talking
Speaker 236
1:31:05
about the in the actual markup for for the in anybody's memory that I spoke with in highway patrol when it speaks to requirements for third-party testers item 4 rule 4 7 on the second page of
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:31:30
the markup the FMCSA is the entity that conducts random examinations inspections and audits of the
operating facilities and records so they have been
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:31:41
doing that yes they have that's been doing it for the last 20 years and it's just haven't been referring to them correctly
Speaker 246
1:31:47
in our rules yes and I wouldn't put a time limit on it because nobody was sure when that that change was made but that's when
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:31:55
they were created it was 20 years ago yes okay thank you thank you
Ann Purvis
Unverified
1:32:02
representative any other questions seeing none without objection we'll consider these rules
reviewed and approved thank you thank you next Department of Public Safety Arkansas State Police Commission Sarah Farris
Speaker 248
1:32:35
and I'm here on behalf of the Arkansas State Police Commission we
have just about three small changes we're changing department to division on the first page in accordance with transformation and on page 7 we are repealing an obsolete date reference I'm happy to take any questions any questions from
the members seeing none we'll consider this rule without objection
reviewed and approved thank you next Pulaski County Regional Solid Waste Management District Please identify
yourself for the record, and you are recognized to present your rule.
Craig Douglas
Unverified
1:33:19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Craig Douglas. I'm Executive Director of the Pelassie County Regional Solid Waste Management District. Our rule changed. First of all, the rules of the district in what you have before you, They are mostly grammatical changes and changes due to the revisions caused by state agency reorganization. The substantive change is on page 11, section 4A, which reads,
there is a fixed and levied a solid waste volume based fee of 60 cents per ton of solid waste disposed of at all permitted landfill facilities within the district's boundaries that 60 cents is an increase from 30 cents what which was instituted in 1992 this is the first increase in that per ton fee. The contiguous districts surrounding the Pulaski district charge an average of $1.31 per ton. This rule changes so where Pulaski district will
charge 60 cents per ton for waste that is generated and disposed of within the district. Be happy to answer any questions. Senator
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
1:34:44
Bledsoe, you recognize for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair. Did I hear you say that this is for the tipping fee? Tipping fee yes. Is
Craig Douglas
Unverified
1:34:54
that used only for recycling? No ma'am that is you well it is used for recycling as well as other duties of the district. The statute that allows the 19 solid waste management districts to
charge a tipping fee up to two dollars per ton is used for various administrative as well as recycling and disposal services, and contract administration. And
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
1:35:17
what was the reason for raising it from, I realize it's $2. You could do it to $2, but tell me why you went from $0.30
Craig Douglas
Unverified
1:35:29
to $0.60. Our district, in addition to all of the other districts in the state, have began, the grants provided to the district by DEQ have been reduced.
For instance, in our district, our revenue loss beginning this year, this fiscal year, e-waste grant of $250,000, other generated fees from other districts depositing solid waste in our district, we have a revenue reduction of $90,000, and we also have administrative reductions in grants of an additional $90,000. So we have cut cost at our district. This will generate additional revenue from the landfills that will replace the grant loss from the state.
All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Seeing none without objection, we'll consider this rule reviewed and approved. Thank you. Next, Saline County Regional Solid
Waste Management District. if you'll identify yourself for the record you are recognized to present your rule
Speaker 255
1:36:50
mr. chairman members of the committee i'm sam gibson i'm the attorney for the saline county Regional Solid Waste Management District. We're here today with our rule regulating the licensing and of solid waste haulers and permitting of solid waste hauling trucks within the district. We're required by ACA 86721 to regulate the hauling and disposal of solid waste within the boundaries of our district
and we're guided by DPC and E-Rule 22 on the parameters of the regulation and permitting. Our rule has been in place for a number of years, and these revisions that we have today, of course, we had a public comment period of about 60 days and a public hearing, neither of which produced any formal input from the public, But the changes that we have are based almost totally on feedback that we've gotten from our regulated haulers within the district and our staff so that the changes that we're making here today include only changes in the way we do vehicle inspections.
Instead of inspecting every vehicle during one week at the beginning of each year, we're now spreading the inspections over all of the year. We still inspect all the vehicles that haul within the district for compliance. and we are also allowing the haulers under this this change to transfer a permit from one permitted vehicle to a vehicle that is replacing it when the vehicle is taken out of service and paying a much reduced fee over what the
permitting fee is for the full year and then the rule is reorganized the language is not changed but it's reorganized to make subject matters fit together a little better and be more understandable by the consuming public. Subject to your questions that's our presentation. Any questions from the members? Seeing
none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you. Members our
Ann Purvis
Unverified
1:39:18
final item on our agenda will include updates from the
various agencies who have not completed their rulemaking in accordance with Act 517 of 2019. As you recall that Act required the final version of any new rulemaking when required by newly enacted law from the 2019 session to be filed with the Secretary of State on or before January 1st 2020. Under this law the agencies were required to file the rules with Legislative Council sufficiently in advance of this date so that the Legislative Council may consider the rule for approval before the January 1st date. The act further
requires the executive head of the agency or his or her designee to appear before the administrative rules subcommittee to answer questions concerning the agency's failure to comply with this act and status of the rulemaking. The agencies have to appear monthly until their final rules are filed with the Secretary of State's office. In reviewing 2019 legislation Bureau staff was able to identify specific legislation which appeared to require rulemaking which the subcommittee have not yet reviewed and approved those act numbers are listed beside each of the named agencies this
list was not meant to be exhaustive as there may be other acts that do not contain explicit language but may indirectly require a change to an agency's rules also I do want to inform the membership that agencies are required by executive order to obtain review and approval by the governor's office prior to submitting it to our subcommittee that step has to occur before the agency starts the process and the under the Administrative Procedures Act some of these rules are in that process so what we're going to do is ask each agency to come to the table and explain why they have been able to comply with Act 517
and give us an update as to when we may expect to see their rulemaking first up we have the Department of Agriculture Bureau of
Standards If you'll identify yourself for the committee
Speaker 47
1:41:21
please. Wade Hodge, Chief Counsel of the Department of Agriculture.
Act 501, if you may be familiar with, is what was called the Truth in Labeling Law. Two days before it went into effect, a lawsuit was filed in federal court to prohibit the enforcement of that act. In consultation with the Attorney General's Office, it was felt that the Attorney General's Office would be able to make an argument that the plaintiffs had not been harmed, nor was there even any threat of harm if we were not in the process of promulgating rules to enforce
this act and then on December the 11th of 2019 the federal court entered a preliminary injunction which prohibits several provisions of this act from being enforced during the pendency of that lawsuit and so that's where we are. Any questions for the members on this? If not we'll continue or are
you going to present the next one as well
or yes okay you may
Speaker 47
1:42:40
proceed this is another act this
is glad to see representative vault back in this is the veterinary technologist act the the veterinary board met several times has a version of the act worked with the Attorney General's office to to get that act or that rule in the proper form that it should be and we're in the process of complying with all of the approval processes for that rule. Any questions from the members?
Seeing none thank you. Thank you. Next Department of Commerce State Insurance Department. please identify yourself
Speaker 260
1:43:44
for the record good morning I'm Alan Kerr the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner
Speaker 265
1:43:58
department Ryan James Arkansas Insurance Department good morning we've got three rules here I'm going to let the attorney, managing attorney, explain the rules briefly to you. Sure. And then we'll go into
Speaker 266
1:44:12
where they are. Members, you've identified three rules that required rules before the first of this year. Act 500 of 2019 required verification of insurance coverage, prepaid funeral benefits law.
That rule has been drafted. It has been sent to the governor's office. This will be Rule 105, and it is awaiting approval from the governor's office. All of the rule drafts have been done, all the legislative filings have been done. The second one you've identified is over Act 698 of 2019 on travel insurance. AID has drafted this rule and all the necessary legislative filings. This will be called Rule 112. It is awaiting on approval from the governor's office. The third one is Act 23 of 2019 related to the Firefighters Cancer Relief Fund.
AID has drafted this rule and all necessary filings we have numbered the rule 116 we are waiting on approval from the governor's office be glad to answer any
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
1:45:08
questions. Senator Bledsoe you're recognized for a question. Thank you. When do you expect this to come
Speaker 265
1:45:15
all of these to come from the governor's office? Well the governor's office has quite a backlog and we haven't been given any indication of when we hope very soon. We've got hearings set up for these as required by by law on the on the rules and hopefully we'll
get those released and we can we can rock and roll
from there all right thank you thank you senator any other
questions don't see any others thank you next Department of Corrections Arkansas Correctional School oops I'm sorry I missed one here Department
Graham Sloan
Unverified
1:45:53
of Commerce, Division of Workforce Services Act. I apologize.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:46:21
please identify yourself for the record good morning sharice childers
Speaker 271
1:46:30
director of the division of workforce services
Speaker 272
1:46:35
don denton general counsel division of
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:46:42
workforce services you may proceed good morning members of the committee we appreciate your time here today and appreciate your consideration of Act 373 and the process that we took
in order to comply with the rules policy. In the 2019 legislative session, Act 373 established a criminal background check policy for the Department of Workforce Services, and the Department of Workforce Services shall establish a criminal background policy for the department. We consider this a policy internal to the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services.
It is our contention that this personnel policy is internal to DWS only, that it does not meet the definition of a rule as contemplated by the Administrative Procedures Act, but rather meets the definition of the exclusion. As such, the policy was developed by DWS and adopted by then Director Bassett on May 29th of 2019, which in turn did not need to be approved by the legislature nor filed for adoption by the Secretary of State. We have that policy is in place and is being
utilized policy number three four five six dash three four six four policy title criminal background checks for employees and positions that access or view federal tax information or applications for such positions so after meeting with the bureau of legislative research we made our argument to them and it was decided that that the agenda would include this item but that we would need to present to you our justification for not doing a rule for act 373 so I
appreciate your consideration and we're here for any questions any
questions from the members representative Dotson you're recognized thank
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:48:47
you mr. chair I just pulled up the act and and kind of going through it but does it does it actually require you to write a rule within the act I haven't seen that yet If
I may, on, I'm sorry, I don't have that right in front of me. At the very outset of the
Speaker 271
1:49:09
act, it does, it's in the first section, it says shall develop a policy.
So, I mean, it's not a rule, it says policy, and that's a personnel policy. Okay. It doesn't use the
Speaker 215
1:49:21
word rule. It doesn't require you to write a rule, so. Under the definition of a
rule, no, sir. okay thank you thank you representative are there any other questions seeing none at this time then without objection then we can just remove this from the list going forward
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:49:45
so thank you thank you thank you very much
thank you members of the committee now Department of Corrections Arkansas Correctional
Unknown speaker
1:49:53
School Please identify yourself for the record and you're recognized.
Speaker 283
1:50:31
Department of Corrections. Bill Glover, Superintendent
Speaker 285
1:50:35
of the Arkansas Correctional School District. Charles Allen, Chief
Speaker 149
1:50:41
Administrative Officer, Correctional School System. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, the school system worked with Senator Elliott and Representative Scott to craft what became Act 1088 during this past legislative session. Following up to our work with members, we began stakeholder meetings in February 2019,
which included work with our local educational co-op down in southeast Arkansas and also with the Department of Education. One of the issues we immediately ran into, and Drs. Glover and Allen can provide details on this is the difficulty in obtaining resources specific to the adult ed population which we service. Most of the resources that are available for dyslexia intervention and implementing the science of reading model are understandably tailored to a K-12 population.
We were able to finalize the rule in November and it was approved by our governing board, board of correction which has a dual role as the board of correctional education in December and forwarded to the governor's office. We received it back from the governor's office late last week and filed it with the bureau on Monday. The public comment period will run through February 18th so it will miss the deadline for March and it should be on your April agenda for a
review. Any questions from the members? I don't see any, so thank you very much for the update. Next we have Department of Commerce Office of Skills Development. Please identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 145
1:52:43
Cody Waits, Director, Office of Skills Development, Department of Commerce. Act 179 required us to promulgate rules for establishing a tiered structure of funding for vocational center aid for secondary career centers, as well as establishing a distribution method for that funding. Our first board meeting post-transformation where we took this up was in September. We took it that time to give information to our board around why the changes were being made, obviously, to understand the complexities of the old funding model and why we were We're transitioning to the new funding model.
So we provided all this information to them as information items at that September board meeting. At the December board meeting, we provided that in terms of an action item which they approved to move forward. So we are now finalizing that as of this week and it will be to the governor's office to move forward. With that, I'll be
Speaker 183
1:53:34
happy to answer any questions. Member, anyone have any questions? Seeing no questions, this is reviewed, thank you. Thank you, sir, thank you, members. Next we have the Department of Education, Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. Would you please come to the table
and introduce yourself and you
Speaker 290
1:53:51
may present. Thank you, Lori Freno, General Counsel for the Division of Elementary and Secondary Education. There are three acts for which we have drafted rules. Those are Acts 536 concerning background checks, Act 640 concerning student discipline, and Act 843 concerning scoliosis screening in schools. Again, we have drafted these rules and they are in the promulgation process
because mostly they mirror the law. We don't expect that there is going to be much controversy, so we're hoping that these will be moving pretty quickly. So those have been submitted to the governor's office, am I correct? Yes,
Speaker 185
1:54:29
sir, they have. Members, any questions? Seeing none, it's reviewed, thank you.
Speaker 183
1:54:33
Thank you. And the Department of Education, division of higher ed my name is Nick Fuller I'm the deputy director at the
Nick Fuller
Unverified
1:54:58
division of higher education we had three rules that are on the list here
today act 456 is for the implementation of the concurrent challenge scholarship the public comment period on that ended yesterday so that hopefully that should appear on next month's agenda for you all. The Act 549 the second one is for the amending the eligibility for Academy Challenge Scholarship to include an ACT super score of 19 that is at the governor's office still for review so as soon as we hear back that will get put out for public comment and the last one
is Act 844 for the tuition policy for certain documented immigrants which you heard today thank you members anyone
Speaker 183
1:55:40
have any questions if not thank you for the update department of energy and environment pollution control and ecology Commission if you would please come to the table and introduce yourself and you may present. Michael Grappay,
Speaker 298
1:56:03
Department of Energy and Environment. Michael McAllister,
Speaker 300
1:56:09
Deputy Chief Counsel, Department of Energy and Environment. We're here on behalf today of the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The Pollution Control and Ecology Commission is one of the few agencies that, except for the legislative review portion of the APA or exempt from the APA, they have their own rulemaking process and procedure.
The commission, of course, does not have its own technical and programmatic staff. It relies on the Division of Environmental Quality Staff to develop the technical and programmatic rules to propose to that body for it to follow its rulemaking procedure. Act 1067 changed significantly some of the existing programmatic law
having to do with solid waste enforcement, illegal dump control, and it also added some new programmatic aspects to tire dump control and enforcement officer citations for those kinds of things to enable the local communities, counties, et cetera,
to more effectively police these problems in their areas. So DEQ, programmatic and technical staff, worked hard to develop the rule pursuant to the act. It was reviewed by legal in conjunction with that. it went to the governor's office for the necessary review and approval. That process took longer than anticipated, but it is teed up to begin the commission's rulemaking process.
The draft proposed rule and the petition to initiate rulemaking were filed with the commission on the 9th of this month there is a docket open it is on the agenda for the next commission meeting to initiate that rulemaking process that meeting is on january 24th there is already a that will you know there will be a public notice period public comment period there is a public hearing
scheduled for March 9th on the rulemaking. Once that process is complete, that rule will come back for legislative review as required before it goes back to the commission for final approval and promulgation. We anticipate that could happen as early as the April commission meeting, assuming everything goes as well as possible any questions for the members
seeing none thank you next Department of Finance Administration alcoholic beverage control division please identify yourself
for the record and you're welcome to proceed
Speaker 302
1:59:57
norley chandler i'm the director of the alcoholic beverage control division of the
department of finance and administration today we have before you act 691 which establishes a hard cider manufacturing permit that is currently in public comment and set for a public hearing on january 22nd next wednesday and after that is completed it will be back before you the next act is act 989 it was a ban on certain medical marijuana food and drinks products this act was to provide legislative support for a rule that was already in existence
we already had in our abc rules governing the manufacturing processing and distribution of medical marijuana restrictions against those products that were enticing to children including the infusion of cannabinoid extracts into commercially readily available products and so that rule was actually proposed March 2nd and 17 and adopted on July 19th of 2017 and so it's our belief that there's no need
to do any additional promulgation of rules. Any questions
from the members? Seeing none, thank you for the update.
Graham Sloan
Unverified
2:01:26
Department of Finance Administration Director. please identify yourself for the record
Charlie Collins
Unverified
2:01:40
my name is Charlie Collins I'm the commissioner of revenue at the department of finance and administration secretary Walther would like to be here today but he's actually in Washington DC testifying in
Speaker 304
2:01:57
front of Congress. Paul Gehring, excuse me, Assistant Revenue Commissioner, Policy and Legal for the Department of Finance Administration. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, there were two rules subject to DFA to report today as to the status.
Initially Act 422 pertaining to design services contracts, this this act was passed by the General Assembly prior to Act 910, the transformation bill, so I do see that on the agenda the discussion of Act 422 has been also indicated for the Department of Transformation and Shared Services, so I anticipate that members of their staff will be presenting as to the status of Act 422's rules promulgation. The other act that we are here to discuss is Act 822
This was a tax reform bill that emerged from the Tax Reform and Relief Task Force. It had a number of tax changes affecting businesses in Arkansas. One portion of this act was the new car wash water usage fees. That was a new fee enacted by the General Assembly that went into effect on October 1st. It also changed the sales and use tax exemption for certain car washes in Arkansas.
This was a new fee that we did receive some questions regarding the implementation of that act, that the department provided some written guidance in advance of the effective date of the car wash water usage fee so that businesses would be aware of the change as well as what would be required in terms of reporting. We did receive a number of questions from the business community for purposes of compliance that we responded to in the form of a legal opinion to those businesses that had questions.
We have drafted our rules, and we brought in all of those questions that we received from the business community into those rules, and we wanted to have the most comprehensive and helpful rules available to the business community once we are finalizing the promulgation process. The next step for DFA is going to be to transmit those rules over to the governor's office for the governor's office to review and approve and provide any feedback. We hope that sometime this spring that we will be able to have the governor's office approve our draft rules and then commence the promulgation and public comment period.
Speaker 305
2:04:35
We'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the
Ann Purvis
Unverified
2:04:54
members? Seeing none, thank you for your update. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Members, we're going to skip over number 12. The board has not been created yet, so we'll be moving that one forward in the agenda. Number 13, Department of Health.
Speaker 201
2:05:08
Laura Hsu, General Counsel for the Department of Health, and I have with me Chuck Thompson, Managing Attorney at the Department of Health. We wanted to update you on the status of our rules. After review of all the acts in 2019, we found that approximately 10% of all of the acts were health-related.
We provided a 10-page summary of approximately 125 acts to our center directors and boards and commissions. We found that of the 125 health-related acts, that approximately 27 of our current rules required amendments. We promulgated those rules through the Board of Health. We had 17 rules go through our August 1st Board of Health meeting, and we had 10 rules go through our October 1st meeting.
Of the ones that are on your list today, Act 216 of 2019 establishes rules for human breast milk standards. We had our center directors and the Center for Health Advancement and Public Health Lab develop proposed standards utilizing the Milk Bank of North America guidelines. and this was presented to our board on August 1st and approved we had a preliminary public comment period in October and a public hearing on October
7th where stakeholders actually we had a national business fly-in some representatives to give some public comments those public comments are going to be posted on our website and responses to those are going to be provided we did take into account some of the comments made by the stakeholders and we are revising our rules in response to those comments and we feel like it is a material change that will have to go back before the board we're
hoping to have those presented to the Board of Health this spring we did notify the sponsor representative Pilkington of the status of these rules and I'm happy to take any specific questions about that With regard to Act 556 dealing with female genital mutilation, we made an executive decision in March pursuant to the emergency clause that we determined that this did not require a rule and we pursued enforcement internally.
We developed the policies and procedures internally and have an MOU instead of rules under the Administrative Procedure Act. We prepared a PowerPoint for general audiences and health related professionals. We have a fact sheet that was approved this summer. We have various educational materials that have been provided for health care professionals and providing these to our partners like DHS and the Department of Education. All of these items can be found on our website and we notify the
sponsors of our efforts. With regard to Act 708, in improvement districts, back in April of 2019, the department reached out to the sponsor, Representative Kelly, to discuss the intent regarding the rule. We hosted a meeting with stakeholders, including the Association of Counties and the Municipal League and the legislators, back in May. We drafted the rules pursuant to the meeting and other stakeholder input, and it was circulated back in May.
we did receive comments and we have the responses to those comments and that rule is currently pending approval with regard to Act 811 the home health and private care rules that act required the formulation of a committee for review and revision of the rules that committee was formed and met five times between July 17th and September 11th of 2019 the committee formed a consensus and revisions were formulated into our drafts of the home health and private rules. The revised drafts were presented to the Board of Health on October 24th of
2019 and the Board of Health authorized the department to proceed with the administrative rules process. The committee report was forwarded to the governor's office and to ALC in October and those rules are currently pending and I'm happy to take any questions. Representative Dodson
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:09:50
you're recognized for a question. Thank You Mr. Chair I was just going through, I guess it was
Act 556, and you said it didn't require, does it require you to, did the statute itself require you to create a rule?
Speaker 201
2:10:05
The magic word rule was not utilized in the act. It did require the department to develop policies and procedures. We made an executive decision back in March because this had an emergency clause that we needed to go ahead and move forward with our community outreach. we felt like this did not apply to the definition of rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Thank
you. Thank you Representative. Any other questions? No other questions? Thank you.
Next Department of Health Division of Health-Related Boards and Commissions.
Chair
Unverified
2:11:03
if you'll identify yourself for the record please matt gilmore department of health boards and commissions so the department uh the division of boards and commissions has three uh different uh acts
before you today the first one is for the uh chiropractic board the board started drafting these rules related to the preceptor bill that was passed back in April, met with various stakeholders, met with associations, came up with various drafts. They also included other revisions to their rules that needed to be done related to other acts as well. So those rules have been passed around by various groups and internally with the board
itself. They've approved these, passed them on to the Department of Health. we reviewed them and they're pending on those rules the next rule shown there on our on the agenda is for the Board of Nursing and this is on the DACA act the board immediately started drafting these rules as well sent those over to the department for us to review we've reviewed them and those are pending as well on that act and then the last act shown here this is for the board of
podiatric medicine this is on related to their ability for podiatrists to prescribe and dispense schedule two narcotics the board started drafting these back in May had several more meetings to review these and make other changes as well to their rules met with various stakeholders had several I think special meetings as well to review these and make further changes pass them on to us back in September we've reviewed them and they're pending as well
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:12:54
any questions from members representative Dodson you recognize for question thank you mr. chair when you say they're pending at what part in
Chair
Unverified
2:13:08
the process are they pending we're seeking further approval to the governor's office governor's
office okay thank you seeing no other questions thank you thank you next the Highway Commission
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:13:26
if you'll identify yourself for the record
Speaker 314
2:13:45
you may proceed thank you mr. chair members of the committee gill rogers with the arkansas department of transportation act 468 is the autonomous vehicles law that was passed during the session in 2019. Following that, we began the
process of rule promulgation, scheduled meetings with stakeholders, including associations, agencies, and industry leaders. This has to do with driverless vehicles, and it's an area that's continually growing and changing, and in fact, Secretary of United States Department of Transportation issued additional guidance as recently as last Thursday for rules the federal government has taken its time on drafting or coming up with policies and procedures for this
so for the time being it's left to the states we plan to have a set of rules submitted to the Arkansas Highway Commission on February 5th at its next meeting thereafter it will go through the process for the Administrative Procedures Act any questions from the members seeing none thank
you thank you arkansas military department up next
Speaker 316
2:15:10
if you'll identify yourself with the
Speaker 317
2:15:19
record please Scott Stanger, Chief of Staff, Department of the Military Colonel Jeff Wood, Staff Judge Advocate, Arkansas National Guard Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee Act 148 deals with the removal of commissioned officers from the Arkansas National Guard for such things as positive drug use, AWOL, certain types of misconduct
So the regulation had language for us to promulgate a regulation. And so what we've done internally, we've come up with a state regulation that mirrors the federal process for federally withdrawing a soldier's recognition for the same type of behavior. So it's the agency's position that this is an internal rule. It only involves commissioned officers that are in the Arkansas National Guard. So we're talking about around 1,000 individuals. So it doesn't have an application for the public. So we would respectfully request this be removed from the list.
Senator Bledsoe, you're recognized for a
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
2:16:19
question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just out of curiosity, when you're talking about removing people from the Guard who are on drugs, are you including marijuana? Yes, ma'am. That is still,
Speaker 317
2:16:31
for the military, that is still considered a prohibited drug. And actually last session, if you remember, we put in there in the regulations that, you know, if you're in the guard, you can't even possess a card as a caregiver because under federal laws, we're not allowed to use or possess marijuana.
All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions for
the members? Seeing none, then we'll just remove that going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ann Purvis
Unverified
2:17:06
Thank you. uh members we're going to skip over
number 19 again just like this one like number 12 the board has not been created yet so number 20 commission for parent council
Brian Welch
Unverified
2:17:30
you'll identify yourself please Good morning. My name is Brian Welch. I'm the Executive Director of the Arkansas Commission for Parent Counsel, and I'm here today regarding Act 333. We have not filed anything regarding this act for a couple of reasons. One, it's not new. This has been the process that's been used since 2007 to develop the contracts for our contracted attorneys.
And two, we don't feel that it falls under the definition of a rule because it does not affect the public and it's an internal mechanism that we use to create our contracts. The reason this language appeared in this act is because this is part of a very convoluted bunch of moving parts.
We were moved out of the administrative office of the courts in the 2017 legislature. At the time, Senator Hutchinson drafted the previous act that this act amended and put in language that required us to develop a per hour and a per case fee, which is not feasible for the way that our contracts work. That's the way it was done prior to 2007, and they would run out of money at the end
of the fiscal year, and it ended up getting sued through the Arkansas Claims Commission by one of the attorneys that they failed to pay when they ran out of money. So the contract system was developed. It's what we've used since then. The language was amended. It was my recommendation that we just remove that paragraph altogether because the funding formula that we use is an internal mechanism. And, again, it does not affect the public in any way, shape, or form. And I'll be glad to take
questions. Representative Eubanks, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:19:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. it's a question for staff do this BLR agree with their assessment well we
Speaker 89
2:19:43
can't take a position either way I will say that we erred on the side of inclusion if we saw something that could be interpreted as a rule under the APA even though the legislation did not use the word rule we sent a letter so that they could come to the table and make that position that it could be an internal policy and we saw that earlier with some policies and procedures that
were referenced so if the committee is satisfied with that we could take it off of the
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
2:20:16
rotation representative Dodson you recognize for a question sorry that that was basically my
question any other questions from the committee seeing none without objection then we'll remove this from the thanks for your
Graham Sloan
Unverified
2:20:35
time. Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism is up next if you'll identify
Speaker 324
2:20:41
yourself for the record please. I'm David Bell and I'm with the Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism and I'm here to talk about Act 818 of the regular session of 2019. The purpose was to designate Washington Arkansas as the birthplace to the Bowie Knife and is an Arkansas heritage site. The rule strengthens the Arkansas registry by adding geographic identity or area as a
category to choose from. The Bowie Knife is a great example of this because there are no buildings or sites that you can actually go to today to actually see where it was made, but we know the general location of where it was made. we're actually coming out of the public comment period today and so our anticipation and we don't expect any public comments and we've not received any so our expectation would be that we'd be in front of the committee next month to present our rule any questions from the members
seeing none thank you thank you last one department of transformation and shared services office of
Ian Purvis
Unverified
2:22:03
state procurement good morning my name is Ian Purvis chief of staff for TSS I believe with your first item on your agenda we've taken care of 17 18 19 20 and 21 but I'll do a detailed crosswalk to make sure that
we've got everything covered and if not I'll be back 422 was something that was caught between DF&A and also TSS, so we are working on that. It is a little bit confusing because it kind of creates design professionals is what it talks about, but it has to do with capital improvement projects, and some of the language within that act pulls in the institution of higher education. And so as I studied this act over and talked with interested parties, we really need to
work with the institutions because currently within state government we only have about 300 capital improvement projects a year the universities the institution of higher eds have about 3 000 so we don't want to create a rule that has unintended consequences because they have not been part of this capital improvement section in the code since 2001 now what the division of building authority has done is they have worked with the association of general contractors to come up with a definition for a material breach. I'm currently circulating that definition
within the institutions of higher education, and I will convene a meeting, and we'll work through all those stakeholder discussions to make sure we come up with something that works. And in particular, one of the appeals goes to the Office of State Procurement with, however, capital improvement projects are exempted from the Arkansas State Procurement law that uh mr armstrong normally has jurisdiction over so there's a little bit of things that we need to work through and we will probably come back during the next session and maybe look at this again but anyway we are working on it i anticipate that i would like to probably
get something in place within 90 to 120 days any questions
from the members seeing none thank you for your update members thank you for attention your attention today I appreciate this is a long meeting seeing nothing else on the agenda we are adjourned
Agenda
A. Call to Order.
C. Letters Submitted Pursuant to Act 893 of 2019.
D. Rules Deferred from the December 18, 2019 Meeting of the Administrative Rules Subcommittee.
E. Rules Filed Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 10-3-309.
F. Agency Updates on Delinquent Rulemaking under Act 517 of 2019
G. Adjournment.
Documents
Speakers
Senator Lance Eads Chair
Unverified
Ann Purvis
Unverified
Ian Purvis
Unverified
Ed Armstrong
Unverified
Speaker 20
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 30
Speaker 47
Speaker 48
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 49
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Senator Bill Sample
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 89
Speaker 94
Speaker 98
Speaker 105
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 126
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Graham Sloan
Unverified
Speaker 145
Speaker 149
Speaker 155
Speaker 161
Speaker 162
Speaker 170
Speaker 176
Speaker 179
Speaker 183
Speaker 190
Speaker 180
Speaker 200
Speaker 201
Speaker 207
Speaker 208
Speaker 209
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 220
Speaker 230
Senator Cecile Bledsoe
Unverified
Mary Claire
Unverified
Speaker 236
Speaker 238
Speaker 240
Speaker 246
Speaker 248
Craig Douglas
Unverified
Speaker 255
Speaker 260
Speaker 263
Speaker 265
Speaker 266
Speaker 271
Speaker 272
Speaker 215
Speaker 148
Speaker 283
Speaker 285
Speaker 290
Speaker 185
Nick Fuller
Unverified
Speaker 298
Speaker 300
Speaker 302
Charlie Collins
Unverified
Speaker 304
Speaker 305
Speaker 314
Speaker 316
Speaker 317
Brian Welch
Unverified
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 324