ALC-Administrative Rules

Many of the ministry rules to order. First item on the agenda is reports to the executive subcommittee you have to reports from the executive subcommittee in your packet regarding its approval of emergency rules. Can I get a motion to adopt these reports. I have a motion. The second all those in favor say aye. He opposed no. Thank you those reports are adopted. A moving on to item see reports on administrative director of pursuant to act twelve fifty eight of two thousand fifteen for the quarter ending March thirty one twenty twenty will someone with the agency please come forward and introduce yourself and presenter rule. First we have department of corrections. Mister graves if you will defy yourself a record you are recognized. The morning mist Mister chairman member of members of the subcommittee this morning I'm here to present the quarterly policy report for the division of correction for the divisions with the division of community correction for the first quarter of twenty twenty. B. anyway beginning from the summary document of the following secretarial directives were also issue during the first quarter by of the secretary of corrections S. D. twenty oh one is the department's dress code for non uniformed personnel sector directive twenty oh two is the sector directive on second here on secondary employment. S. D. twenty oh three is the departments policy on training and employee orientation. Going to the division of correction the following administrative directives where I the repealed or issue during the first quarter administrator directive twelve eleven was repealed and replaced by the after mention sector directive on non uniformed personnel. Administrative directed twenty one of was issued this is the division's weapons policy this policy was amended to update the guidelines for the storing of an employee's personal firearm wallowing division property specifically it makes clear that the policy does not prohibit an employee from possessing of their personal firearm wallowing department property however that far on must remain locked in a commercial grade storage container that is bolted to their vehicle and notice of their position must be filed with the facility's warden or center supervisor. Administrative directive twenty oh two is the department I'm sorry the division's policy on emergency furloughs this policy was amended to clarify that one officer must be a full time law enforcement officer wall escorting a and made one emergence on a emergency furlough. Other types of certification shin is allowed for a secondary officer if needed on that escort. And Mr directive nineteen twenty two was repealed Mister director fifteen fourteen was repealed going to the division of community correction administer the directive twenty oh one which is the divisions A policy on posting car serration housing commonly referred to as transitional housing this directive was updated to revise various portions of the licensure and certification process for transitional housing. At eighteen I'm sorry eighty eighteen thirty was repealed along with a D. seventeen twenty five and a D. thirteen oh seven all of which were repealed following the issuance of superseding sector of directives US senator eads that completes the policy report for the division of correction and the division of community correction. Any questions from members. Seeing none without objection this report will be reviewed in file thanks Sir. Next we have the parole board Mister Cummings if you come forward please. If you'll than five yourself for the record please you're recognized. Of brick Cummings executive administrator for the Pro Bowl. For the quarter ending March thirty first the pro board did not have any new or revised administrative directives. Any questions from members. Question. Cochair you're recognized thank you Mr chair of when did we change the rule about parole board members votes being secret are not reported at one time they those votes were recorded and reported but I think now they're confidential or not reported how those members vote I'm parole. Setting parole. that hasn't changed that information should be public how they voted that you for you are reporting it publicly. As far as how they voted if there's an increase yes and then they have their board meetings with the ratify the votes in public only reported publicly if there's an Inquirer. Correct the individual that their wives Malcolm we're not we're recording those. And that public immediately. I don't know that there's a mechanism well there isn't currently a mechanism in place for reporting those immediately okay I like to visit with you later on that house what do we have a report when. One nine when they are paroled is your report for crimes that are committed while they're on parole. Know what someone is rolled they commit a crime in there either brought back or not is there a report that shows that information. I am not aware of such a report I know the pro board does not have that type of report but I could check with the other divisions of the department of corrections and I'd like to visit with you afterwards on that too yes Sir okay thank you thank you thank you Mr chair. Any other questions from the committee. Seeing none thank you thank you. Okay moving on now to item D. Rules file percent Arkansas code annotated ten three three oh nine before we get started on this I want to let the members know that we'll have one presenter participate the as soon for discussion when we get to items nine a nine the secretary keel with the department energy environment will be joining us on soon to participate in that presentation so we'll begin with item number one will someone with the agency please come up and introduce yourself the record and present your rule was starting with the department of agriculture Arkansas livestock and poultry commission. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee white Hodgen counsel for the department. we have our garbage feeding rule that we're going to bring before you. Feeding garbage to swine has has long been allowed but with with what we know now about how diseases are transmitted and especially with the rise of the African swine fever and that is a terrible disease that can affect our swine and it has been traced to garbage feeding the commission decided to banned the feeding of garbage two hogs the commission it actually has had For a long long time a process set up where someone could get a permit if they wanted to feed garbage to all this and that way the commission could track it we haven't issued any permits in years so we don't feel like that banning this will cause any type of impact on anyone if someone still has a a couple of hogs that they want to just keep and then but your for their own consumption they can still feed their own garbage two halls under those circumstances be happy to answer and. Any questions from the members. Representative Wardlaw you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman. Under your description here it says any vegetable waste. Of allow the vegetable farmers when they Your call shoots. They get rid of that through hog farmers and cattle farmers and I know you don't have cattle listed here but that waste wooden carry any of those disease and has no animal product in it is all and and it looks like that your target is you're not wanting to consume any animal carcasses. Why would you include the vegetable waste in that. at this this is Specifically aimed at it specifically says in the second sentence. Any animal or vegetable waste so if you want to rate this back and strike the vegetable out of that that that would be awesome because a lot of these folks depend on that four feet base. And that's that's a lot in south Arkansas whole lot. Okay we'll and if if that would please you a Representative will be happy to take that back and take a look at and and clarify that because I think there may be some confusion over what this is aimed at and and and and I understand that and I I'm not calling that in your presentation but that definition excludes those speed sources and those are. Those are non disease feed sources. So if you don't mind if you could strike that out and bring it back that be awesome we'll be happy to clarify that for you thank you Mr. Thank you senator senator rice you're recognized for a question. That I was just going to ask for for more clarification and and Richmond Wardlaw who is it than that but there's so many times we do things for good intentions in A and we don't question that at all but that really does need to be a clear in that in if there's not a possibility of contamination or. Whatever term that you will use a would greatly appreciate it the expanded thank you. Thank you. Senator hammer you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair issue targeted audience these individuals to go around to the restaurants and pick up the unused food that primarily who you're going after. Well yes primarily it wouldn't be limited to that but that that is a a focus while we're on the subject other than those that were just reference to else are you after or who's the targeted audience that you're trying to eliminate this from well it's not necessarily trying to eliminate it we ought we also want to make sure that if people feet household their own household garbage two halls that would be prohibited however if they do want to send those hogs to market they can't feed those hogs garbage they just have to have that hall golf of garbage feeding for a period of forty five days before that so it would also apply to people who feed their own household garbage that is allowed but there does have to be a period of time where there off of that before they sell those talks to anyone else okay because on the rule that one thing just says allowing persons to feed their own household garbage just one that our pets. So if it's a a pet it's okay but if it's a if it's a hog for consumption is were they would fall back on to the rule then a if it's a hog for consumption by just simply have to wait a forty five day period have it off of the garbage feeding before they sell it to someone else if it's for their own consumption then they can there's no restriction there and is that in these rules or house of the general consumer knows that. It's sections see. Shall not apply to a person who faces on household garbage just wonder considered by consider pets and and that would apply also for their own consumption as well okay and I'm I'm much repetition just again that where if I'm if I'm not raising hogs ins and up through some. Some of my leftover supper out tomb. How does the general person that deals with this know that that's actually a rule and what's the penalties that are applied if they're caught. Well I mean the the commission does have the authority to issue civil penalties up to five thousand dollars they've never done that and and the way that people would be informed of this is of course we did have the thirty day public comment period and we do reach out to all of our industry representatives we get input from people who raise hogs before we adopted this particular rule. Thank you thank you Mr. Representative Dotson you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair already right So in the end I'm not completely convinced that to. Then unless you advertised really publicly very. Very much that there is a thirty day public comment period you probably received much comment from the general public as I doubt very many people had a clue that there was a comment period at the seat was even being considered I guess that the question I have is you just said that there is a up to five thousand dollar potential penalty for this but does it say somewhere in here what the penalty you intend to actually administer is is fifty dollars is at a hundred dollars is there a staggering thing was that just wide open it's just by statute the the statute gives the commission the authority to issue penalties for violation of any of their rules up to five thousand dollars so I mean this this seems to be a pretty substantive change that you're using very broad discretion I mean I looked at the code section that you're using for this and. That I don't see where there's statutory directive to to implement this rule it it's just you've decided to make a change and so I guess without a lot of public comment and debate. I believe I mean this is the first opportunity I think we've seen or heard of it the this probably needs to have a little bit more work and leisure. As I understand it can be pulling it down to two a revisit the vegetative staff but. If you go back and have another thirty day public comment period after you've revisited this please advertise it quite a bit so that people actually have the opportunity to weigh in and provide public comment on it certainly do that thank you thank you. Representative Vaught you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair so how many cases of African swine fever do we have an Arkansas what we do not have any okay and so you're just doing this and precaution to if it was to come here yes all right my next question Mr chair if it's okay a if a restaurant was to keep their cut vegetables that they don't use or fruits or breads whatever as long as it's not meets in a separate container could those still be picked up S. Senator hammer was talking about a minute ago and fed to people swine. Well under would that be a fine bill that under this proposed rule that would be prohibited I would like for you to re look at that if we don't have meet involved in that then there shouldn't be any kind of risk there and a lot of of restaurants look for those people to come pick up those what we would call scraps not garbage but scraps and and to be used in that manner so I would appreciate it if you would re evaluate that also thank you Mr chair. Senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. Thank you thank chair I I I agree with all the vegetable thing but I don't I don't see the problem with animal products. And that's there if these have come through prepared service and been cooped. And this is not a matter of prion's or if it's a if it's a good product is not used by the public. And can you justify this in some way our our say that there's a lot a link to the to the meat product that's been cooked in a restaurant and has transferred that over to a food source and and and came through the digestive process into the into the hall that and this does not make sense to me what would you know to to now a raw product the possibly but a restaurant you know or could product and that that hall will eat the. The a I get the vegetable thing but I mean I'm a flat land I'm not a hog farmer but that is not the old. Does not make sense to me. But we'll be happy to go back and take a look at all the requirements of this rule I I think based upon the comments that I'm hearing we just need to look at the rule from an overall session I did I wouldn't I will know the impact in the twenty two states have adopted this stupid thing if it is if you selected yes. On the cost of the to the producer. Thank you. Senator you're recognized for a question. Just clarification so are you wanting to just pull it down and rework it yes okay thank you. Receipt that make you think that's by the best solution thank. Thank senators or any other questions before we have a move on to. Senator hammer you're recognized thank you when you when somebody brings a hog into a commercial operation or they tested for this particular disease before the hogs slaughtered. Senator I don't know the answer to your question but I can find that out for you I wish you would because I think that might drive the discussion because if they are tested and FOR the number years that we've been doing this there's no problem or that hall gets cut out of the you know cut out the herd whatever but if there haven't been any cases in long period time I wonder about the necessity of this rule if testing shows that it's not a problem hasn't been a problem for a long time or maybe you ought to consider requiring that into it if you're pool rule down and come back with the discussion maybe look at that if you don't mind please thank you thank you. Thank you. Okay moving on to number two department agriculture state plant board. Is thank you Mr chairman weighed hajj counsel for the department this is the point boards rule to provide FOR reciprocity in temporary licensure percent to the twenty nineteen acts The the plant board issues several different licenses and and instead of going through each one of our separate licenses and having a separate rule for that license we just did a reciprocity rule that would cover all of our licenses put it in the different sections just make sure we could clarify if there was any. A specific needs for that section like okay for this you need to test and FOR another when you don't but this is used to comply with the twenty nineteen on that's all it does be happy to answer questions. Any questions from the members. Without objection in this rule is reviewed and approved ida B.. Thank you Mr chairman we have our Lotus safety rule and I do have a couple of members of staff here who can answer some subject matter questions on this for this this Rule is to comply with the food safety modernization act. and incorporates the federal rules that have been adopted by the food and drug administration this is one of those situations we have like we have several in the department of agriculture where the federal government passes a law they have primacy but they give the states the option to enforce that ourselves instead of having a federal government entity and FOR set and so we thought we were in a better position to understand the needs of Arkansas agriculture in Arkansas farms then possibly the food and drug administration would be and so we we opted to. Enforce these federal rules ourselves now here's the rub on on this The federal law here in federal rules will inquire the farm we require the farms that are covered by this rule to have an inspection many of these farms already have to be inspected by the USDA on Very very similar thanks and when I say inspected by the USDA it's inspected under a USDA program. We do that inspection as well so the food safety modernization act and the federal rules that we're going to administer under that act will require another inspection so yes those farms that are already required by the USDA to have an inspection they are going to have to have another inspection. But they will have to have that inspection. Whether we promulgate this rule or not so the only question that we would be answering is would we prefer for that inspection to be done by the food and drug administration or would we prefer for that to be done by your department of agriculture and since we do the other inspection for the USDA we are going to be able to work very closely with the federal agencies to make this process as painless as we possibly can. Be happy to answer questions. Your resolving you're recognized for a question yes can you explained the second part that rule the rule applies to twenty five thousand dollars and then there's a five hundred thousand dollars. How did you come up with those numbers twenty five thousand word of that company. Yes Sir Scott Murray state point more director that came out of the federal rules of the produce safety rules for that that's what they're correct unless it is the the it is a tiered regulated process for the farms and it's based on of income so twenty five thousand below twenty five thousand on for the last three years is not regulated at all and then there is a two year the next here is between twenty five and two fifty and then that the next two years between two fifteen five hundred and then above five hundred so if we are going to take over the federal authority on some things to do those inspections are we open to setting our own threshold higher than twenty five thousand I'm thinking we may have legislation come up in the next year about farm to home products and sales and twenty five thousand dollar cap of three years not much at all. Should we have any leeway to change that in the future if we decide to. I do not think so okay and if this explain what's the five hundred thousand. What is what's that can you explain that to my to read the explanation don't understand I'm sorry. Any form. That has an income of three year average income that exceeds five hundred thousand they are in the highest two year they are fully regulated under the rule. Okay and we don't have it that's a federal law and we have no description Sir that's all okay okay thank you and manager just a little clarification based on our inventory we have I think we had ten farms that exceed that five hundred thousand. We have nine farms that fall into that next range of two fifty but between two fifteen five hundred and then we have thirty three farms that fall into the next tier of between twenty five and two fifty and I don't know I don't have a number how many other funds within five the below the twenty five. Thank you. Other questions from the members Senator hammer you're recognized thank you Mr. If I'm reading this right you're going to operate at the minimum standard as laid out by the feds is that correct yes Sir. And then I read over that. The. It'll it'll the rule expand the department's authority to make. The authority to include regulations abuse treatment tests agricultural water are you using minimum standards in that too and how do you coordinate with the DQ if there's something contested between what you determine what they determine how do you all work with each other far as like runoff water in. I don't know that we have a plan to corner with AT few at this time and basically the I don't know I want to have a plan with AT queue up make sure I just that's why I'm going at how much how much authority do you have in a situation versus eighty Q. coming in an overstepping you and say no we're taking control the situation I don't know how to answer questions or are authority would be based on the federal. Testing element of the water and they still have not iron that out but are authority would be based on those lab analysis strictly for the water that they're using for either irrigation or washing produce on farm. Okay a when you make those rules were you have to come back for us for final approval are you gonna get the authority to do that under passage of this. That should that should occur under passage of this because we're just adopting whatever the federal rules are in now if when they do finalized that rule if they give us some discretion then we can we can iron that out in our rule but for for what we have here we really don't have discretion and we just have to adopt what the federal rules says if we're going to be the ones that are going to be implementing the program. Okay well what I'd like is if it because if it's more stringent than what we have right now you know fits come back in its more stringent than what we have right now or eighty Q. someway steps in to take the floor to over years I'd like to know about that as that plays out if you don't mind thank you. Thank you senator any other questions. Without objection in this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Next we have department of agriculture state board of registration FOR professional soil classifiers. Thank you Mr chairman late Hodges legal counsel for the department at. These rules are all we're doing here with these rules are once again complying with the twenty nineteen acts on military licensure reciprocity and criminal background checks I have with me up a board member in case you happen to have any substantive questions but that's all this rule does. Questions from members. Representative Dotson you're recognized thank you Mr chair Really my question is more regarding one of the pump public comments that was on page eight it says it and it it really goes to the response that you had to the question what is quote a reasonable amount of time and It just seems to me your your Down to the end of that you said once the information is assembled it is cut contemplated that the response could follow the boards next regularly scheduled quarterly meeting but it doesn't say that specifically within the rule would you be willing to amend that to include a specific at. Out of specific languages says that. That the that would be considered so it's not objective the board doesn't have time to. Kick it off. Two or three meetings are for meetings On down the road but it within the rule people are confident that that that will happen at the next board meeting and certainly that would not be able. Thank you that's all I had. Any other questions from the members. then without objection this rule be reviewed and approved with the FOR mention change. Thank you a continuing on the item for then department of agriculture veterinary medical examining board. Thank you Mr chairman White House counsel for the department the have several rules here from the veterinary medical examining board the first one is the the rule on the fees. And really there were just some technical corrections here we did because of some legislation that was passed and in twenty nineteen ninety two include veterinary technicians in the fees rule that we didn't raise any fees and one thing that we did do is waive some application fees for military members. Questions from the membership a senator Irvin you're recognized. Yes I just I had read that the board had waive those renewal fees for active duty military members and I really do appreciate that is that also including their spouses yes perfect I really appreciate that if you'll extend to the board my appreciation I think our appreciation collectively for recognizing that and doing not thank you will do that thank you. Seeing no other questions without objection is rules reviewed and approved ida B.. The continuing education ruled really just. Modernizes other continuing education rule allows for a little bit more classes to be conducted online and and things of that nature I am once again because of the some twenty nineteen legislation over veterinary technology and included them in the continuing education rule happened answer questions. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. I don't see. And as I've mentioned the the twenty nineteen law regarding veterinary technology this is just to implement that particular law and put in a different levels of supervision and what a veterinary technologists can do under that twenty nineteen ACT. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed it I'm sorry your question senator Irvin the you're recognized I can get with you later that back to the I apologize Mr chair but also wanted on the the previous role that you pull down you may also need to check with the department of corrections because they do for me as well so I just wanted to add that thank you senator. Seeing no other questions without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item D.. Item day is done the board's rule to comply with the military licensure the twenty nineteen act and that's all this one does. Questions for members. None without objection this rule is reviewed and approved on to item the old sorry to okay okay go ahead Sir. Thank you the rule on the criminal background checks this once again is to comply with the twenty nineteen ACT. Representative Dotson you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair this is same thing is the last time would you be willing to make that change to include that at the end of or at the next regularly scheduled board meeting that. That would be put into place we'll be happy to do that thank you thank you that's on section twenty eight see I believe thank you. Any other questions from the members. Seeing none this item this rule is reviewed and approved with the aforementioned changes. Item if. And this is the board's rule on a reciprocity in temporary licensure to comply with the twenty nineteen ACT. Any questions from the members. Seeing none this without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item G.. And the rules of the board this is really just just going up it removes the word regulation replaces it with the word ruling clarifies that where the boards offices located. Any questions from the members. Without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thanks Sir right thank you. Moving on to item five department of commerce Arkansas economic development commission. If you identify yourself for the record you are recognized. Thank you Mr chairman Jim Henson general counsel for ADC. With me today is Renee Daddy who's the director legislative fair trade you see as well we have to proposed amended rules today and we have one proposed rule all relate to changes and substantive law from the last regular session the first proposed a minute rule is a proposed amendment to the equity investment Senate back to two thousand seven AS amended by act five thirty seven twenty nineteen the change in this subsection this law was essentially to extend the period during which they holder of a tax credit equity investments in a tax credit could sell that tax credit prior Walt wrist to that to a one year period to be able to sell that and now the holder of that tax credit can sell it until it's exhausted until the credit expires. What your soul when you're recognized for a question. How frequently does that happen. Has not for this particular one we do have other tax credits where they are sold fairly regularly but I don't think we have any history this is you have a request for this me why we're doing this if it hasn't happened why are we doing. Up again that. This was passed legislation last year so we're house amending occur remitting the rule conform with of all the Speaker thank you. Any other questions from the members. And without objection this rule is reviewed and approved on died in the. Similarly we have ACT three sixty seven to twenty nineteen which amended the digital product a motion picture industry development act this made some changes to the incentive for motion pictures and digital products essentially made it more of a discretionary incentive parle all this had a flat twenty percent if someone qualified for the incentive now the incentive would be up to twenty percent which gives the director of ADC the discretion to offer a lesser amount was also very changes that were made to conform to other changes and substance law but the main thing is to make it discretionary incentive at this point. Any questions for the member. Then without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item city finally we have a a amend directions to new rule we don't currently have a real that conforms to act to three of twenty nineteen which amended the statute to allow for a cash donation so that a institution of higher education could purchase machinery the the process the feedback we got was that it was somewhat cumbersome to do an in kind donation or to do a a discounted sort of sale and so the statute was amended last regular session to allow for a cash donation and that's all the rule really does is it facilitates that mimics the statute and has a little bit of a process and ever how one would go about applying for the of the credit as well. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you Mr chairman thank you committee. Item number six department of commerce office of skills development. Please identify yourself for the record and you are recognized to present your rule. Good wage director of skills development Arkansas department of commerce today we bring you the rules for secondary career centers vocational center aid as it relates to ACT one seventy nine of twenty nineteen they went out for public comment we receive no public comment period essentially what the rules do is they create a more efficient and effective process for distributing vocational center aid in the past we were doing roughly three hundred plus payments to your door secondary career centers making this change allows us to reduce that down to around sixty payments per year it allows our centers better budget by knowing exactly what those funding amounts are going to be on a roll on an annual basis and allows us to react more quickly two changes in the work force and allow us to fund programs more closely to what they cost to operate as well as as it relates to high need high skill high wage demands across the state with that 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 Mr chair members of committees. Item seven department of education division of elementary and secondary education. You will then if I yourself the record you are recognized resent your rules will start without a may. Is me. I laid in German I Taylor do you can with the Arkansas department of education division of elementary and secondary education the first rule I have in front of the legislators today is the rule governing homes schools these rules were put out for public comment and we received public comment the changes to these rules are to comply with acts four twenty nine and four thirty of two thousand nineteen I'm here to answer any questions if the members have any questions on this rule. A quick question for the members. Representantes you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair my question is here on seven a See I wrote down here. On page thirty two it's actually. Under a comment made. Comment number four on page thirty two regarding the teacher of record. It says that the teacher of record a look at the rules says the teacher of record should be appropriately licensed or approved for primary instruction question I had is that solely the district's responsibility to provide the teacher of record and I apologize representantes in my numbers might be different of page thirty one it's in the public comment Sir sorry page thirty two of the summary agenda that we have here The. The rule was moved to seven point oh eight. Thank you to this public comment. And have with me thank you Stacey Smith with the department's. The morning thank you spent this is the commissioner and that has to do with a home schooled student taking a course at a district so you and yes and the district were responsible for making sure there thought appropriately licensed teacher for that course okay so it is the district's responsibility so it's not the the current district responsibility okay thank you that's what make sure. Thank you Mr chair reference seen on our handout page twenty seven. Seven a under description about middle of the paragraph. Statement is X. X. for thirty nineteen require public schools to adopt policies that allow private school and home school students general academic courses provided that the Rome it will not create a financial loss for the district how do you go about regulating whether or not it is a financial loss to the district so that that would not be used as a prohibit her from people being able to utilize the benefit of this law who enforces that looks at it to make sure the school district numbers are are accurate. So again that is a local policy local districts to determine the policy for which thanks Alistair except home school students within what we would consider that it would be a cost to the district as if they were having to hire an additional teacher to meet the needs. And so if there if if there was a concern that a state was being denied and that could be submitted to the department we would investigate it then. The second clue areas like special needs of is there any area not covered by that if. No it would include all the areas and it would be local policy that with that that okay thank you. Any other questions for the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved to ida B.. What's next in front of the legislatures today is the rules governing educator licensure the department did have a public comment a hearing on this we did receive public comments What these rules do is the biggest part is ACT six twenty eight of two thousand nineteen that allowed FOR the reinstatement of revoked license itself on if there are any questions I loved entertain questions. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item C.. The next rules that are in front legislatures are the rules governing the code of ethics for Arkansas educators the division also had a public comment hearing and receive public comments on these rules ultimately the main change from this one is from ACT four seventy five that we just want to clarify that if there is an allegation that a teacher has committed a violation of the code of ethics that if they let their license expire the division still has jurisdiction to continue with that investigation and if there was a finding recommended sanction. Cochair resolving you're recognized for a question read through the ethics rules and I don't notice that the the teacher of the educator has an appeal process. At the hearing. Plan to house bill why is that the that's correct it's in the statute so the statute 6-17-428 outlines those. The process for how an ethics complaint is handled and it does not you're correct so. A change in the law to change the that's correct okay it doesn't allow for if there's a conflict of interest in that board there's no allowance for those conflicts of interest to be public so what the public doesn't know if anyone recuse themselves without also require a change in the law that's correct represent cell been so the the board members they do follow the mystery procedures acts as far as recusing themselves if they have a conflict of interest but that's left within that board member themself in so that's correct there's no there's no vehicle far want to know if anyone did recuse themselves that's correct if it's at that subcommittee if it's within the PLS B. because the law allows those to be confidential okay for that requires a change in the law correct Sir thank you thank you Mr chair. Any other questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item D.. The next rules that I have in front of the legislators today is the rules governing financial incentives for professional teaching so the national board certified teaching standards rules these rules were not made from any act from the two thousand nineteen all the changes that were made for clarification. Any questions from the members. Senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. The national board. I'm to your left thank you Sir the cannot be used for for professional development. Why can you not do that in your rules because that's probably. Better than any professional development that that you can provide a teacher that process for national board. Please identify yourself for the record. Carly servicing the assistant commissioner if funds are available yes we do provide professional development while they're going through the process to be national board certified. What I'm saying is. The teacher didn't get credit for professional development whenever they're going through that process they still have to meet the professional development requirements plus that process some are wrong. In our rules. A lot of times that depends on the district's policy on professional development it's thirty six hours to renew A license and then individual districts are sixty hours and currently. I'm going to I've only been back at the department six months so I'm going to ask my coordinator to come up here and I know that it can count for professional development but again that's to each district. Good morning Melissa Jack's program manager educator licensure and so an individual administrator could you give um professional development credit to a teacher for a national board work at this done as it relates to their professional growth plan. What about meeting the qualifications for your required that meets our work qualifications yes that could meet our qualifications is there I mean I know they're specific professional meant that that the department requires our own in that yes the only specific professional development that we require is on that yearly rotation and that's only to a usually of the thirty six hours per year that is specific the rest can be determined between that teacher in that administrator on where they need professional growth and they could certainly use things that I've done and I've done for national board and within our rules we have allowed teachers is especially that last year to use that the entire last year when they are on that for a national board certification to use that for professional development but that's really a an administrator at the district could use that the things that they do within that can the little creature can can the department do some kind of study for districts to see what I mean that that this is something that the teachers said we you know we still got their professional element we done this during the summer and then you know we still got to do this professional development well that some of that professional is mind numbing and they went through this during the summer process can you guys do some kind of study that's what my what I would ask of you to try to encourage the school districts to to. Allow that and and make sure you know the the they were they will want to know that it's okay you know some administrators I'm a let miss answer sini and speak to that about future plans and what we make where we might be going correct. Carly servicing the assistant commissioner we are currently looking at the professional development rules and redoing them at this time so we are we will take that into consideration and put that on our list to do some kind of survey so that we can see the need all right I appreciate it thank you very much thank you. Thanks center Johnson any other questions for the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item E. the next one I have in front of legislators today is the rules governing scoliosis screening and the department did release these for public comment and receive public comment on them pretty much ACT eight forty three transferred these rules from the department of health to the department of education so these near the department of health's rules and we worked in coordination with the department of health with these rules. Senator Irvin you're recognized for a question. Just more of a comment Mr chair if you don't mind Representative Johnson brought this bill and I appreciate his work on the I just want to have a shout out to my mother my mother Evelyn Thomas was president of the plastic county at medical society auxiliary and then the state wide Arkansas medical society auxiliary at the time the medical society had an auxiliary made up of spouses and those spouses are the ones that brought this legislation for scoliosis screenings and those in the schools and my mother led that effort and so I just wanna shout out that to my mom for inspiring me many many years ago but I think it's is pretty cool and because a lot of kids were helps because of the screens and I remember as a young child watching her come up here and advocate for this policy and and then volunteer her time many many many many hours all across the state volunteering to do these Kelly as a screenings for children throughout Arkansas so and I just I just want to say that for the benefit of all of us sitting here and we stand on the shoulders of really great great people and today it's my mom so thanks for let me say that Mr chair. Thank you senator any other questions. In none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item F. unless I haven't from the legislators they are the rules governing background checks these rules did go out for public comment we receive public comment and our to comply with act the axe from two thousand nineteen. You questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you. Item G.. Please identify yourself for the record Merrick clear high an attorney with the division of elementary and secondary education. These rules are the. Rules governing the documents prestigious school district an education service cooperative site requirements We were a man of all of the information that was kind of duplicative of the personal policy in salary schedule laws out of these rules and made this a rule that has all of the website requirements FOR school districts and co ops in one place throughout the Arkansas code there's tons of website requirements and they were all in one place they also incorporate provisions of ACT ten thirty nine eight sixty seven of twenty seventeen and acts one ninety eighty three six seventy six and seven fifty seven of twenty nineteen I'm additionally changes were made to reflect requirements of the new standards for accreditation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item H.. These are the new rules governing ACT twelve forty waivers these are promulgated pursuant to Arkansas code six fifteen one of three and to incorporate changes to that law made by acts six forty one and a fifteen of twenty nineteen this new role explains how traditional public school districts can obtain waivers of Arkansas code standards and division rules chair that are granted to open enrollment charter schools I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item I. Good morning Laurie free no division of elementary and secondary education these proposed rules incorporate ACT two fifty one of twenty nineteen which expanded the eligibility for the teacher of the year program to any licensed educator who is engaged in student contact for seventy percent or more of the time specifically prior to this change in law guidance counselors and library media specialist were not eligible but now they are assuming they have that seventy percent and I'll be happy to answer any. Questions for members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item J.. These are the rules governing kindergarten through twelfth grade immunization requirements in Arkansas public schools changes were made to reflect changes in law made by ACT six seventy six of twenty nineteen did we consult with the department of health before they went out for public comment and they were reviewed by the state board of health at the boards April meeting happy to answer any questions. Any questions. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item Katy. This proposed rules repeal is result of act one ninety of twenty nineteen which repealed the public school services act and wholly replaced it with the school counseling improvement act the the law did not allow for specific rulemaking authority but the division has provide has developed numerous guidance is for counselors. Any questions. The nun without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you. I am L.. Good morning Courtney solace Ford the division of elementary and secondary education and these are the rules governing student special needs funding which were amended to incorporate acts from the twenty seventeen twenty eighteen and twenty nineteen session primarily to change the term of national school lunch state funding to enhance student achievement funding as well as provide a sunset date for the current list of allowable expenditures and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Members any questions. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item in. These rules are the succeed scholarship program rules and they were amended to again incorporate acts from the twenty nineteen session to expand eligibility not only for students but also for and private schools and provide additional clarification for the process of administration of the scholarship be happy to answer any questions. Representative Dotson you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair. so my question is on section five point oh four point three. It says it was added this is Added to the list the information on eligible private school that must provide in order to participate in the program so. The student test results that you reference in here how are those not personally identifiable. SO this was required by the statute and we worked with B. L. R. to the school this the private schools would send the information to the department we would then assign a random number to it or at least correlated to at a random number that the school had assigned to it and then provide that information to be L. R. entity identified format in these these are so only for program participants this is not for all of the students within a a private school or something correct only those receiving a scholarship okay thank you. Thank you any other questions. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you. Item eight is anyone from the department of higher education here. Sorry I forgot and they have been delayed and asked if we could push there's to the and place thank you thank you. Okay moving on to item nine department it energy environment division environmental quality. And we're gonna take up items A and B. together on this and we've got several people signed up to speak so if somebody from the department will come forward to present this rule. Good morning Michael Gruppe department of environment. Good morning trying coring. I know I work with several you in my role as deputy director and general counsel and gas commission over the past few years you're so ago secretary QS made also service the chief counsel for the department of energy and environment what you all know now consists of the oil and gas commission the division of environmental quality the police control and ecology commission Arkansas Geological Survey and the liquefied petroleum gas board so I'm here today wearing I guess my chief counsel hat for the presentation of the pollution control and ecology rules five and six specifically. And given this is my first experience with the outside of owned gas commission is it's been a learning experience and I know secretary Keogh is here as well has some opening comments I believe that she's available the ism at this point madam secretary welcome to the share your comments. Good morning can you hear me all right on this ma'am. Technology. Okay what thank you again for allowing me to be a part of this discussion and I appreciate the opportunity. This technology to the to join you today it's important and in many ways as we work you know on on important issues and I did want to be available to the committee to provide some comments but also to you questions as you have them but as identified making here secretary of the Arkansas department of energy environment but also carry out an important dual role as I continue to direct the division of environmental quality. And I'm proud to report to you as a committee and of those that are lessening that across all the entities of our department our employees continue to be innovative. Cation and compassion is the working across the state is in your local come. During that nine our offices have maintained should stay in productivity while protecting public health and and that includes actions that are necessary to meet that in general laws and programs that we implement that and all this we strive and we continue to drive the to find an appropriate balance in our work to support every and protect public health but also address our state you know Bernice and so under mental though to those divisions those decisions and minor correction of the department of the division it is a is respect first. Two on all individuals but also at their ideas but also regulatory support for opportunities while balancing those proper controls that mean age all risk as it pertains to protecting public health and prevention of wasting resources which is critical to a let and number are entities that brings me to the rules today I want to is it directly with you about as a. Our chief counsel Shane curry just mentioned we have actually three rules before you. rolls five six and twenty seven and I know that there are people there in the room to help provide you specific information but these rules five and six we're presenting at first and I'll present though somewhat collectively in these opening comments of these rules results from petitions that I made as a director of the division of environmental quality and and followed specifically the direction of current rules and statutes. That were approved by this very General Assembly in in this body but rules five and six are important for us to me and also from the president public participation and many are cancels as I can ten you unnecessary protections in are necessary in our national treasure buffalo watershed while allowing Ernestine farming opportunities to continue and I want to stress that also certain revisions are made in rule six. Work and federally delegated an PDS programmer at that but these are necessary to assure that the state remains consistent with our law and retains the full delegation of federal environmental programs and I know others across this state industry in cities of all communicated the importance of maintaining state delegation of that program. I just wanted to mention the buffalo national river at someone and these comments are not necessarily have to be stated they've been started many time but I want to re emphasize you know this is our nation's first national river and it's an extraordinary resource that warrant. protection as does the federal law besides the historical significance of this national treasure the river itself along with its watershed though presents a unique technical challenge as is made up of. Areas and highly bearable geological features including a karst topography. And this has the potential to allow rapid transport of land laden with waste from a large facilities anywhere nearby tributaries and whatever and this was a key factor in order to limit the size of swine operations and single locations within the watershed. The proposed rule is consistent purposes federal laws regulations governing buffalo river additionally it's important to note it does not place a need for regulations on existing farms or other future farming opportunity that would include smaller but still quite sizeable. Rather it continue only continues the prohibition for future medium and large swine operations those large ones also are subject to federal regulations so I just wanted to thank so I know that in the public health community be seen a present and scientific studies that were important to the decisions and I want to thank them for their efforts and also those who are not at the. Amendment I work on the buffalo river I also. Partners. Or did our staff with abundant data collection as well as our own unscientific the. Experts within the department all the studies combined have are providing greater any increased understanding and knowledge for all of us two years and I hope we will and FOR lasting preservation or national river the decision was made by the commission to continue to protect the rules that are currently in effect for acceptable risk management purposes this is also particularly important now as we see investments being made our local state and federal partners that benefit the watershed and the local communities and also provide an affecting state led model add to the EPA for sharing water quality and servants and keep or those bills are persons like we also were impressed with these conservation efforts about that are going forward as we seek to continue to enjoy the river and its watershed for both recreation and is a true resource to state and local community we are also helpful that is it's these actions on a balanced approach that this rule offers that will satisfy EPA that's the state in our local entities will bring the river watershed into full compliance with water quality standards on our own without their intervention. So with that I would like to go ahead and turn it over to Shane curry in his capacity as our energy and environment department chief counsel present these rules separately on behalf of the PC my commission who ARE but not them and the PC make each commission is an entity of our department after that I believe Michael repairs there in will present rule twenty seven so thank you I will and go back on mute and will be available for questions after their testimony thank you so much. You're recognized thank you and and I did hear previously that your comment organ here both of these together so I'll try to consolidate my my comments to to both five and six as we as we move through both of these I'll start with a couple of housekeeping items on each of the two rules that are fairly simple and straightforward changes from the department of arm in a quality to what is now obviously the division of environmental quality changing the term regulation to rule throughout these rules to be consistent with current state law of rule six has some also saw some updates based on some changes to the federal regulations that are adopted by the federal in PDS program an incorporated herein to rules I have people here that they can answer specifics about that if it's needed but there are a lot of additional changes in rule six that are required by some of those federal changes obviously the the I guess most significant items that that you are probably interested in is the moratorium both of these rules were amended in two thousand fifteen to add a moratorium against medium and large size swine K. foes in the buffalo river watershed area this is a specific moratorium for any sign K. foes in this buffalo river watershed area for an operation that would have seven hundred and fifty or more large size so line could K. foes four three thousand excuse me seven fifty or more swine K. foes where those swine way seven hundred fifty pound highway fifty five pounds or more or three thousand or more so line where there under fifty five pounds they're both of these rules have a current requirement In those rules that the director is complying with and these proposed rules or an attempt to make sure that the they moratorium is clear. by proposing to lead the paragraph the required her to do something within that five years these. Neither of there are no existing operations that have either one of these permits in the buffalo river watershed areas so there are no impacts on any any existing operations it does not apply to small K. foes does not apply to Kate those of any other types of animals and does not apply outside of the buffalo river watershed area it only applies within the specific area and only specifically to these medium and large size wine K. foes. Procedurally speaking I think these of and FOR thoroughly vetted publicly by secretary Keogh in her role as the department of our the division fireman quality director and the pollution control and ecology commission there are multiple comment periods there was the initial public comment period thirty day public comment period that occurred last August and September at the PCD commission October there was a motion that passed unanimously to extend that based on the release of that be credit report for an additional ninety days so we had a total of a hundred twenty day public comment period we received over seventeen hundred comments during that period of time seventy percent of those are in favor of the moratorium in the proposed rule making also a few weeks ago when we had the pollution control and ecology commission. Where you could attend remotely or pre send in comments we received an additional sixty two comments sixty one of those were in favour three persons also showed up at that hearing expressing their support for the rule and the commission voted unanimously with one refusal to approve both the proposed rule makings in five and six that's why we're here today to ask you for a review and approval and the these proposed rules. Okay questions from the members. Representative Wardlaw recognized thank you Mr. I had I had a couple questions Mister if you give me a little bit lead way how many times of these rules been before public health in the last six months. Up to my knowledge they were in public health in March and I believe there was some confusion about whether or not the paperwork out there in time so the whole job is to confusion was me I made the motion in March okay because we have rate five in place at the moment correct. That's the permit you would have to apply for if you want to put on a hog farm in buffalo watershed right. One of them correct right so no one's ever been issued a wreck five have. Yes Sir. A simple it is not. And the reason they won issue direct five is because a soul tie in because all the scientific reasons so therefore why do you need a moratorium if you have a regulation and pot in process right now that prohibits a hog farm rebuilt and buffalo water river watershed and I believe that the the answer to your question is that that there was an application for WREG five permit that that result in a very costly appeal through the commission but and what was the result. Well they were not. What that thank you Mr they were denied that's correct but the appeal was settled so I think the commission's position is that this would be a way to avoid any costly litigation going forward if someone else for to make a similar type application. Senator hammer recognized for a question. Taking on to that what term on the rig five. Does that prohibit anybody from making application in your position is that without these rules it would prohibit anybody for making application which would potentially run into an expense of litigation process for the agency it is that a fair characterization. If I understood that correctly yes Sir that that this would give the department or the division now environmental quality clear authority to deny any permit quests simply for one of the size operations in the buffalo river watershed areas without any further justification requirements and have you had any attempt sense the experience of the scene H. hog farm for anybody to apply for one no Sir. A and when it comes to the size farms that we're talking about and it seems like you. Called off some different weight sizes of the hogs and I apologize for that it is specifically four seven hundred or fifty or more swine's weighing over fifty five pounds and over or three thousand or more swine weighing under fifty five pounds that's the smallest threshold for a definition of a medium K. fo so it's basically anything starting with the median K. photo and up so hopefully that clarifies my my earlier comments and everybody under that would be able to apply for a permit. That's correct. Okay and then. The watershed the maps from looking at the right map it's I mean it's a pretty big area that we're talking about if we the end this is all designed just to this one geographical area is that correct yes Sir only to this this buffalo river watershed area okay we have a lot of other watersheds in the state so what I'm a little concerned is how can it be limited to just one part of the state and not be used as a as a reference to issue policy moving forward FOR other parts of the state if the rationale is that it's getting into the water supply system and the same could be advanced just across the state just didn't smaller step since their one big sweeping step yeah and I do understand that that sentiment and I would say that anyone could obviously asked the commission that would have to go through the commission it have to be approved by the pollution control and ecology commission as a third party third party rule making requests late have to pass that threshold they would have to be another public comment period and ultimately would subject to the the legislature for review and approval so I would say that anybody can always ask but but this is not what we're proposing today this is the only one that's been in place the with the one we're talking about today is the one that's been in place for five years for just the specific area and costs to litigate that you're referencing that is driving while you feel that you need this rule how much of that litigation costs was to the fact that scene H. was an already existing hog farm verses what would be the cost to litigate if you do not somebody a permit that would want to try to apply for it now no I think it we obviously have to recognize that that there was the scene H. issue that drove a lot of that litigation But I honestly feel that if anybody was in a similar position and wanted to start a new one we would have the same type of appeal C. H. obviously was in our in operation when that litigation started so. That doesn't mean there would be future litigation costs an appeal cost of someone were to request one of these permits in this area going forward okay last question so if somebody plied right now and you did not in the permit on the basis of what you've got on the books to work with how much would you anticipate the litigation costs would be if they appealed you do nine them the permit what would you estimate costs to be. I don't know that I have a clear answer I'm sure that back and go back and look to see how much staff and time for spin on it I'd be happy to get back with you. The other thing is there still a moratorium in place now so I think that as of right now someone implied that we could still deny it clearly under the current rules and how long the moratorium last. Well as a technically the moratorium the language in the moratorium specifically says that in the existing rules right now requires the director of the division of arm the quality to propose rulemaking initiate rulemaking to either delete one specific paragraph that said in five years she shall do this or to proposed deletion the moratorium and her discretion so. Arguably The moratorium exists as low end till it's changed by the PC any commission or some other action so if no changes are made the moratorium stays in place what we need to have this with that still logic if if they just choose to just sure letter rock along the way it is there's really no need to do anything because the concern is already addressed by what's already in place. Now in my in my right or wrong is somewhat if if if nothing would happen today than come September which is the five year date than the director has to propose. Whichever option she proposes again so we would have to go through the same exercise again and and coming up in September if the rule isn't changed her thank you Mr. Senator rice recognized for a question. Thank you Sir the. Commission you referred to voting at the it was P. C. in a is that correct yes Sir I believe I read in the paper where there was no discussion. Did you have no we there did you have to watch that. There was I don't recall whether there was any somebody if stay in bed that's correct there was one refusal OR one extension in each of the two arts a lot so I'll be there was vote with no discussion I think they're pretty much harder. We do that what I what Senator hammer just related to is concerned I said in the meeting last night at the. In my district wrote back and then back here late. And there's a lot of concern out there in the public. About lack of due process. We're having executive orders we have an executive moratorium what I would call. right now on this that you just described. What caused the problem in a previous administration corrective I'm wrong was it not that is the process that allowed CNH was under rule six. With that writer the rule that. That was changed no longer in places temporary rule that allowed that at yes Sir and let me start by saying you are much more familiar with the process but from what I've read I think the scene eight regionally obtained a general permit under rake six that was ultimately not renewed and they made application then under rule five a rake five a that point time and all that was appeal you say in fairness probably rule six. Shouldn't have been approved. For that project. That's my understanding from other people review so so the state made a mistake. And therefore. Legislators and legislative intent. Because there was never a violation. From CNH although they went through more scrutiny than any industry that I've seen in recent times. Of. The route with they were never found guilty or or or. That I know of. Of anything in so legislative intent was. Two to draw all that thing to close in and use. Of state taxpayer money to settle of situation. I think I can. State. Very soundly that there is no one. Going to invest millions of dollars to put in a medium are logged large twine operation. In the buffalo river. The thing that this will have. Is a chilling effect on agriculture. In a bone. What I'm calling the next generation who I have children under. Forty years but but young farmers and thirties and forties. When when something like this passes in you say it's just in this put print although to large footprint two and a half percent of the state occurred. And is already been sided. In in you have to do is look in other states it's this next step down that say and what they did it over the buffalo river let's do it here let's do it here let's do it here. When there is not a. Logical understanding that there is going to be. Another one of those operations up there. The thing that that is happening is we all will. Clean water. You have a truism growth up there that is may not be this year. But has been and will be again. Huge. And that's a that's a big impact plus for the state justice farming AS. So you know is there you know of anything that's going on right now that is going to limit. The over tourism part of that up there. Are the part that you have up river from feral hogs and a oak and other things that to cause problems in a river I never can get to answer for that. I'm I'm not sure I understood this the specific question and I'll be happy to try to get you an answer but are there any other either the concerns of what's happening to the river other than a potential that's not going to happen again. I think the answer and and I'll be happy to get you a better answer but I think the concern here and and the thought from the police control and ecology commission is that yes there may be multiple thing as affecting water quality but this is a prudent step to ensure that there are are none of these medium to large size K. foes that would also contributed to any degradation of water quality standards or public health concerns. But if even if one I'm also age crazy enough. To apply there would be so many hoops to go through. And such an outcry. It it would never happen again but the just the fact that you would do this or this legislation would do this will reach every corner of the state. Because of the potential that's what we're dealing with tears potentials because of the potential chilling effect on Niagara would you do you see that concern well I'll tell you that that's not the intent the intent is not to have it you'll see if you see the concern I do understand your concern can sure you the legislature does lots of things that that we try but we don't always see the intent and that in the total outcome some of some people can speculating and we can heads things off with you move one thing and three other things mess up sometimes we had come back and fix them so that's what I'm trying to look at it just it's not just this simple move the checker and it's a good move I'm not saying that and again it's not that we don't want clean water is just your your the the outcome of this is going to be detrimental to the next generation and and they're already under such a strain right now you're going to have some some young farmers threw up their hands and go do some males thank you Mr. I thank senator members we got quite a few backing up in the queue here so please try to be succinct your questions Representative Vaught you're recognized thank you Mr chair and so you alluded several times that someone applied for rex six in that water I mean a wreck five in that watershed and why did they apply for a raid five. I once again that I don't claim to be an expert on the history but my understanding is they initially obtained what's called a general permit under red. Now rule six I'm in a can you please answer that question for maint wanted they apply FOR wreck five I'll try to be succinct with my answer I apologize that makes the rule six was not renewed and therefore they applied for a rec five that's better so they were told that they could not apply for a break six because the rex six was no longer available to be applied for that is the correct answer in my right. Thank you Mr great pay so the litigation came about because we forced them to apply for a break five instead of A rex six am I correct Mr group I. Excuse me yes let me clarify something the the way the rules work if a general permit was no longer available in any frame aren't they can apply for an individual permit thank of applied under real fun or real six just be right specific but it's an individual permit I think is what you're referencing so I just want to declare one pretty sure I said and on several meetings for the eight per told us they could not apply for rate six anymore and I think other with several of us in the room that we're legislators at the same time and we could all attest to the fact that they were told they could no longer apply for rate six can you tell me how many acres of land would be in scope to into this moratorium. Anybody any of the three. If you don't identify yourself for the record please. Again Michael Gruppe department of environment. I'm not sure the exact at eight thousand five hundred and seventy thousand acres think that's two point five percent of Arkansas can you tell me how many how much of Arkansas is in scope to in a watershed of some sort. I cannot it's all of Arkansas there's not hardly any of Arkansas that is not in some top of water shed so to senator rice's point a minute ago this is kind of lack is this the beginning of an and FOR all farming in Arkansas before you answer that I will say that I do know that the group who went after the buffalo watershed has now looked at two different watersheds in Arkansas that they would like to see shut down. So a lot of the litigation that you had to go through was due to something that maybe we as a state forced upon a farmer within a shed in which they did not necessarily ask for themselves would you agree with that. Can you repeat that question I'm sorry I don't think I do understand your concern to understand that that there are groups that want a a larger area than that is being proposed here today it that's not what we're here proposing today and as far as I know there is no consideration from from the secretary or the PCT commission to expand it beyond the buffalo river water do you not say that this is just the beginning of that. I mean we are a farming state do you know that were that that is our number one industry in our state is farming yes ma'am. So I'm with that Mr chair I'd like to make a motion for immediate consideration. The represented we've got several people that have signed up to speak so I'm gonna go ahead and okay wait on that motion thank you. Representative Ladyman you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair I appreciate you let me speak I'm not part of the committee an alternate so I appreciate that very much but you know we've been talking about the history here and what went on and I think that problem has been solved with this more torn that's been in effect for sometime I am more concerned about the future. And the question was asked while ago how many times this became before public health I chaired many meetings where this came up I don't know the exact number I do know last week both of these proposals were unanimous leave defeated with immediate question. So it I have no doubt that the majority of this legislature that is presented as those represented here as opposed to these rules I have no doubt about that and I think the concern that's been raised here and was raised in public health numbers times is looking forward we have two competing industries here we've got the recreational understood we've got farming number one number two in our state so it's a very big question. But my concern is that we're promulgating law based on the type of business the size of business not on scientific information and and Mister chairman I apologize for not asking the question but I think this is information people used and I'll. The data that was presented to us. Showed that the quality of the samples taken in buffalo river we're twenty percent of the drinking water standards that's what I was told I didn't see the raw data. But why am I concerned. When the water that I'm baiting in and fishing and swimming in is one fifth of what the water that I drink why am I requiring that to be better. And I think that's what we're looking at here so if we're going down a slippery slope here when we promulgate law on the size of the business. And the type of a business and set of scientific data. And that is detrimental to farmers entrepreneurs in our state and as Representative Vaught said you know there are many many rivers and walk and in Arkansas water is one of our major resources and about anywhere you live you're in a river basin in this could be spread throughout our state and be very detrimental. Do business here. Would you agree with me or not. I do agree with your concerns I also would would like to say once again this is. Proposed by the commission and it's only for specifically in this watershed and specifically for these medium and large sized swine K. foes and the same moratorium that that is in existence and has been existent cents twenty fifteen. Senator been you're recognized for a question. Thank you gentlemen thank you for your work and do appreciate all the work that you do and and represent at I'm sorry secretary Keogh. thank you for your work we we really do appreciate the work that AT Q. does I want to say that One at one thing. I would just respectfully ask that if a Representative or senator asks a question to you by name that that person answer them please. That's just a matter of respect to the elected officials that are sitting here today so yes this well if if if it is directed towards a specific person and they are asked specifically to answer that question by name I think it's really important that anybody presented to us show that respect to answer that question specific this map is this produced by you all with the supplied by you. This handout with the supplied by you. I don't recognize that handout I can't see it clearly I don't recognize it you don't recognize the stand out I don't think so now I'm not sure who this is from but it was referenced as a map of the watershed. The top one was is that correct or not correct. Because I I don't read that as a map of the watershed we do actually do have maps of the watershed okay was supplied by a priest somebody who wants to comment okay thank you for that clarification so that map of the caves of Arkansas which I think does contribute obviously to the water said that that was just a point of clarification for for me. One of the things I have questions about. And of the people that commented do you know how many resided in this area. From that county is I mean if we go off of this gentleman's map that he supplied us no independence county is our county stone county Baxter county Marion County Searcy county you've got them beer and you've got Fulton and sharp Randolph Florence. You've got Newton then Carol Madison Washington Benton Johnson Crawford and hope is what it looks like do you know how many people from all those different counties are ones that that reside in this area commented on these rules are rex process no ma'am we do not don't know where the okay we we might could pull that together but I don't have any citizen okay showing that this is just a quick question and then you know. And and right now do you have the ability to deny a permit based on current language in rules five and six. Do you have the ability to deny a permit. If it's a permit for a live medium or large size wind cave in the road I don't care who applies for a a technical denial so you have the ability to deny a permit yes. Okay so it doesn't matter who have I don't care who is applying for it you do have the ability to deny the permit as it is currently based if they do not meet the requirements that's correct correct. How much in litigation in the past have you had from people that you've deny permits to. I don't know that I I I would be happy to get that information for you but not being involved with the D. E. Q. long term I I don't know what that department was getting antiphonal gas side but that's probably not helpful in this from yes so I can you know several of us have been here a long a while and have worked through a lot of these issues of eighty Q. before any of you all came to a DQ so we have a little bit of history here with not just this issue but other issues on and how things were and. Administered at eighty Q. and there's been problems I am in the past and so you know I think it's clear leased to everybody that a permit should never have been issued but we've dealt with that and that's all been discussed what I want to talk about if you don't mind Mr chair I live in this area right I I live here we are cattle farmers. We have a lot of poultry we have a lot of Turkey. We have hawks with wind we have all of that so very agricultural area. I believe that the buffalo river conservation committee after we had meetings up there with the state people that live there that are impacted by the buffalo river on a daily basis. That is really become a very good thing and and we've had great work And I just wanna highlights a couple things just to contribute to the conversation because it's important when you're just concerning the buffalo river watershed at I was at the buffalo river Saturday. The buffalo river conservation committee has done a lot of work and I'm gonna say this and I said this during the committee meeting. When we designated the buffalo national river. It landed in our laps and we did nothing. Both federal or state to actually deal with that there is no intentional usage of the buffalo national river for tourism there there is nothing. There is no infrastructure if you think of a state park when we have a state park we have in the structure that we have built that directs where people park where people walk where people use restaurants where people use sidewalks which we can mitigate the damage to the area because we are intentional about providing an infrastructure for the usage of that park that never happens with the buffalo national river. And we are reaping the consequences of that. And the fact of the matter is when you're talking about the best lute national river. The tourism is by far ten times more. Didn't even last year I was there in an important area in the part of a section of the river I saw forty five people forty five inches one section of the river forty five people in kayaks and canoes the and I was on the section between Willimon Baker Ford which is actually a section that has less travel on it less traffic if you got a taller been down the Gilbert there's a lot of traffic. But I can tell you the roads getting two Baker Ford and William access are horrible the horrendous are unpaved roads that are horrible. There is a ditch it's not even low water bridge at the ditch that literally has concrete blocks lining this road the you have to drive over there sections that are so narrow you can't even get through and without the farmers that had the pastors along where these access points are that opens their fields for people to park at. We you there was no place to park in fact we had to leave bank affording go to will and because there was no place to park the reason why there's no place to park is because of liability issues for the people that are have the canoe outfitters. So buffalo river outfitters they put in about two hundred and nine votes. Add day to her nine a day while bills puts in about three hundred and two a day. Just so you know that's just too so because the liability because the coveted they're not transporting people in their vans or their buses you have to park and then provide a taste car so I'm mansion the parking right now at the buffalo over it is horrible horrible these roads these access points have no infrastructure all of that settlement is sliding down into the river I have pictures on my phone. So it just for the purpose of of of what we have failed we absolutely have failed we have to have partnerships with the National Park Service we have to have dialogue with our national partners and our federal delegation we have to and we have to let them know that the National Park Service has to have more resources we have to mitigate and provide an infrastructure for people to safely use this river at one point there was a huge tree that had fallen and because of the lack of resources of our National Park Service marked house is a great job. But literally I saw a woman come over and get swept into this huge tree and almost drown. That happened in there there's no resources that we're providing so I say this to say yes we have a lot of work to do and I will say on the pay for its program I fought like hell to get that funded at three hundred thousand dollars a year for the entire state we looked at four and paved road programs. Projects in this area that total six hundred thousand dollars to fix just sections of it there is the road between woman Baker Ford literally is right along the river there is part of that right along the river and so I'm just telling you all there's there's so much more to be done here. This is not the problem. It really in my opinion is not the problem and and I I respect I really respect the process I respect. Everything that your doing I respect the work that you do trust me you're in a very difficult situation but there's a lot of work that we have to do you know to to fix the situation with the buffalo national river absolutely I I just if I believe in my heart that this was the mitigating factor then I would I would absolutely vote for this. But I don't believe that because I've experienced it A lived it I know it and I see what's happening and we as a state have got to step up we've got to fix the infrastructure because we're just going to have more more people come there and that's okay and that's great but we've got to deal with that so thank you for the latitude Mr chair I do appreciate all the work on this clearly stating that this never should have been permitted in the first place. And that was under previous administration. And none of these folks had anything to do with that. And I understand that. Thank you for your work. Was just just for your information we are on item nine and there are twenty seven items and we have another committee coming in here at eleven o'clock so please try to be succinct with your comments Senator Hendren you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman and I'll try to be quick but I'm right here to hear you laugh so You would not permit and operation it's going to allow I would assume that their scientific evidence that's going to allow run off to contaminate the river correct. Yes I believe that would be the position in the queue. So if the EQ is doing things correctly and only issuing permits in situations where there will be no contamination of the river why would there be a need for a moratorium. Well at. I'm not trying to departs word to I guess my answer is that the there is a moratorium in place now by rule and that rule requires the director to propose something within that five year time period so this is what she chose to propose and the commission approved to to basically make clear that this moratorium in this limited area. For this specific type of medium to large size swine K. focus is is clear to the public okay and you know this is reminiscent of the biggest fight that I had in the first session I tended here in nineteen ninety five when interstate forty nine was built between Bentonville effective bill and there is a desire by Senate bill to put a green zone along the interstate so that no one could build anything back on all three four hundred feet from the from the right of way on their property. And it and the farm bureau was involved in us with with us back then and and it really sparked a fight about property rights and whether not what authority the state has to impinge upon the rights of property owners and I'm sure you've heard this before but I think for the benefit of all all I I didn't know this until this might occur the right the Arkansas dietician says the right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction and private property shall not be taken appropriated or damage for public use without just compensation there for so there's no question that the state and has the ability to to limit regulate damage private property but there's also in in needs of public safety health police powers of the state but there is also no question that the state has a duty to compensate property owners when they do that so that brings me to the question in my understanding of property rights is there like a bundle every time the government puts one regulation on it renews some of the value of that property has there been any consideration to do any she did to see an agent to some of these private property owners to see what the compensation what the damage to the property owners would be over this however many hundred thousand acres it is I'm sure would probably be significant but I don't know how you determine that I guess that's my question is is there any thought that we are by nature of putting this limitation on what people can do to their property in order to comply with our constitutional responsibilities considering any kind of compensation program. So I think legally speaking yes you're right there property rights and and they're restrictions in any time the state uses a regulatory requirement that is a a use and hopefully a valid use of the police powers and in that case. There is not compensation required but to answer your specific question I'm not aware of any discussion of what they compensation look like should that be a direction that the state chose to go. Sir so basically we're doing or saying we're not going to compensate anybody well I think technically speaking when it's a valid use of police power no compensation is is required under our in there to please Paris exercise we system which that first by D. E. Q. to make sure that nothing was permitted that would require that would contaminate the river so that's the police power aspect of it now we're doing I would say more of a preference similar to the green zone but anyway I just wanna see if I've been given to that not that I'm aware of. Senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. Over here yes Sir so what you're saying is the Fifth Amendment of the constitution is not a plow whenever you're using your police powers of the state is that what you just said. Saying that there are limited examples for looks let's take oil and gas that's obviously my background when you integrate someone's interest and you force lease them everyone's a lot of people I should say everyone there a lot of people that said that's a taking and and therefore should be subject to a compensation as a taking and what the Supreme Court in Arkansas said there is when it's a valid use of the police power then necessarily taking is not now if that's different than eminent domain in which there would be a compensation requirements so I think it depends on how much you impact that right in that property. I don't care what the Supreme Court is a higher Supreme Court and then there's a thorny beyond that. But if you that the the the the The Supreme Court United States and when it involves economic situations has required the compensation. Is that not correct when you take someone's property that is correct when you take it to the extent and I really think it gets into an analysis of how much you're taking in what use they still have depends on whether or not compensation and how much compensation is required is this police action the by limiting the possibilities that property owners the. At five hundred and ninety nine hogs and above. Is that is that is that not the when every limit that to the compensation at at at five hundred and ninety eight and below is okay but you can't make money at above that I think you're going to have a real issue if it goes beyond maybe the state spring quarter and I think honestly speaking at to and I I messed up the numbers but that seven hundred fifty mark for those larger sign there says seven forty nine seven fifty to take your example I'm sure that that is an actionable case that someone could bring as an eminent domain taking I I think that we would believe piecing the commission believes this is a valid use of the police power in a reasonable and prudent way but someone always does have that option to the challenges yes. Can I say no the thing chair. The water is the US has been fought back. And and it change it'll change the name and it'll be back in five to ten years. And there's gonna be a point where the people. And my musical have enough and whenever whenever whenever those regulator show up at the work to wrong place is going to make make news and it's happened in the past and got. I know is enough. You know. Let the people make a living and and. And that that they they're the people that fetus and this thing was this river where this. Was preserved as a national it's Esther river and now we're going beyond just the river and and a pretty place and and and and we're going out I think it hall what farmers five or eight miles out sad that river in this basin. Ten miles okay. Well I tell you what. That's that's that's S. as the state land from corny. And and if you go tell me a whole crap and at the state line. Five hundred ninety nine of all. Is going to come to Corning. There's gonna be a point where people have had enough I appreciate you guys in an eight two but this is this gets it's gets down down to earth with may I I knew form I appreciate you and and as long as Astor Rav. five. Thank you. Thank you okay let last question we have Senator hammer you're recognized and I've got several people signed up to speak thank you Mr chair I want to focus on something you just said a minute ago want clarification you said if the director secretary proposes the rule. And then what happens from there determines moving forward so you've proposed the rule again today in this committee has been proposed in public health rejected. But the rule being proposed today and then if we kill it today then automatically the moratorium continues until the director secretary decides to try to bring the rule back up again is that a fair interpretation. I think that's an interesting discussion and and I just want to say I appreciate all your comments in the debate and to answer your specific question the rule specifically says and I can pull it up something along the lines of within five years of the effective date of this moratorium and that was in September of twenty fifteen. If this rule making does not go through if this rule may making is in line with yours we your prerogative to not review and approve and this doesn't go through then I think there is a legitimate question whether or not the rule requires or imposes a duty on the director to re propose it at that five year mark when it was proposed originally the year or so ago and I really was involved in the process the thought was. If it was passed then it would negate that requirement to do it in September of twenty twenty which is currently in the rule now. So I guess the real question would be whether or not secretary Keogh after looking at it the lease she has fulfilled her duty to propose a rule making and whether or not that. Time constraint has been met by this proposal here today will based on your answers in which said awhile ago and if the chair chooses to have direct keel weigh in on this to me that the solution is we kill it today which subsequently keeps the moratorium in place indefinitely until the director commissioner secretary decides to bring it back and so we resolve the problem but never being brought back again and if I'm correct in my interpretation then I have to go back to my to my conspiracy theory that there's a bigger alternative alternate motive by somebody for this to get established so that it can be perpetuated across the state maybe drop them pick up the chicken farms in the hall the cattle farmers to at some point but that's conspiracy but I mean that does possibility so Mr chair at your discretion could director keel weigh in on what her opinion is to what I just had it in the way of a question. Director would you like to weigh in on that. Thank you and I appreciate. Senators comments I guess I lean back to the idea there's no conspiracy theory on our part is the agency or my part personally is director or as a secretary of this department I I just want to I brought this forward is the rule indicated I should I mean we initiated this early to try to avoid. We felt like we have the information necessary to support of a petition we moved it forward the commission voted it as Shane Currier cheaper is indicated. We don't the. Enjoy the opportunity to bring it back in September if that's required I will do that you know I will re initiate through the commission ruled as needed to comply with the rules that you've approved as a committee and as a body so just Wheatley your looking for clarification on that but I agree with you it seems like we need to. This was justly the more turning that currently exist in place and not remove that section in its entirety which is the other option I don't know if that helps you clarify the point we're trying to follow the rules in the intent of this rule making the original rule that that this emplaced and was not initiated by the department but. In in front the burden on the director to use at science which is good to make that decision you know at this point and I think we're prepared to do that and have him consider all that as we go forward I think your comments today or you know all of you have very important. Insight to this and I understand that there's always I'm an intricate and unintended consequences excuse me and I'm certain rule makings but we are trying to strike that balance and keep it very targeted to Arkansas as a result of this particularly exceptional or watershed and Trevor that we are. I have an Arkansas that also obligated to protect so that hope that answers the question on the one on the long thank you for the time to speak again. Your secretary I've got two peoples have requested to speak for this in two against I'm gonna ask the two to come for that are signed up to speak for this Gordon Watkins and David and I'm sorry I can't read this last name. May we be excused from the table for yes please thank you. If you'll it identify yourself for the record when you get seated. Please try to keep your comments sixty eight if you can because we have a couple of the people we serve a lot of the rules we have to cover to. Thank you up terminates in German Sullivan members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak to that I will keep it brief my name is Gordon Watkins eleven Newton county where I've been farming for forty years along will buffalo river under Parthenon I'm also president of the buffalo river watershed alliance with twenty five hundred supporters who care deeply about the buffalo national river. speak in support of the proposed changes to rule five and six Pacific when the moratorium. Also should say I'm not involved in the tourism business I have rental cabins we depend on the buffalo river for a business. A this moratorium is very narrow in scope and will only affect was extremely limited sector sector of agriculture certain size one K. phones located within the buffalo river watershed. Swine cables are singled out because of the high environmental risk posed by liquid animal waste facilities which is reflected by the fact that eighty two requires permits for such operations on rule five and six. The buffalo river watershed is singled out because it contains the state's preeminent recreational stream because it's karst geology makes a buffalo particularly vulnerable to groundwater contamination from excessive nutrients and bacteria I feel sorry that map that senator Irvin held up as refers to that comment I'm sorry but got separated from my funded comments but it's not intended to be a map of the watershed. Only to show that the watershed is riddled with caves to caverns Mister four cars dietary studies spot signed by the big creek research team shall how rapidly and extensively contaminants from the code was control underground in this watershed dines acted there what they're careful feels was detected several locations in the buffalo river including an springs upstream from the confluence with of the big creek with the with the buffalo so yes water can apparently flow of health and that's reflected in the second map looks at the lower section of this page other that shows the doctorate studies. the big creek report states quote there was a statistically significant increase in soil phosphorus on the bills of saving swine flurry which prompted the warning quote to limit further accumulation of nutrients in excess of levels optimal for forage production future applications along grazing must be carefully managed and quote excess phosphorus contains one ways and stored in the soil and then slowly release to surface groundwater over many years and a phenomena describes legacy phosphorus which can lead to chronic algae blooms and usual vocation of streams the big creek data was collected over a five year period but modern swine cables are typically designed operate for twenty to twenty five years the big creek reports stated quote one farm generally changes water quality level at the field level but the cumulative effects of many forms can influence water quality of the larger watershed such as big creek in the buffalo national river and quote the big creek data clearly shows negative impacts to surface and groundwater after only five years which of extrapolated out to the typical lifespan was one careful would be exponentially worse ultimately impacting the buffalo national river this is more terms not approved and multiple Caples appear the watershed impacts describe a big creek research team from the short term study of a single cable will be compounded more torrent one insure that that does not happen. Finally it should be noted that this proposed moratorium is not new is not new unique among Arkansas regulations and it does not establish a precedent in two thousand ten pollution from the college of commission adopted rule six point six oh one much more broad watershed specific moratorium which states quote all surface discharges of waste water in the lake Maumelle basin are prohibited with the exception of those charges permitted under the NPDES storm water discharge program and quote this rule making under what thorough review include by the legislature before being adopted by peace in a so the state recognizes that certain watersheds warrant and hence protections the buffalo the nation's first national river as a symbol for the natural state which deserves such protection to ensure the future generations can swim fish and enjoy this iconic furniture thank you I'll be glad to answer questions. I don't show any questions you can would present your. Comments please. I'm a retired serve mathematics from UCAM president of the Ozarka sorry it's David Peterson whose mission since nineteen sixty two is been to preserve and conserve the buffalo river waters and waters said I want to thank the rules of the committee for this opportunity to offer support to making the current moratorium on medium and large hog K. foes on the buffalo river watershed permanent although the medium sized K. for experiment is now in the past over some five and a half years of study the big creek research and extension to the collected an extensive data set that bears on the issue keeping in mind that the big creek watershed above the farmers only four percent of the entire buffalo river and its effect on the buffalo river is diluted by the other ninety six percent I think we should look at the science and see what the big creek our team really discovered I have four graphs and I wish you join me just looking at the grass that you can draw your own conclusion as to what happened. If you turn the page here. You'll see a nitrate concentrations in orange which are below the farm and nitrate concentrations in blue that are above the farm and. It's obvious that the orange dots are higher lumens they're paired over on the far right of the graph is when the big creek is in flood. And almost all the water is rain water but still. The orange dots above the blue dots and on the far left of the graph you can see that. The nitrate below the farmers about four times of what it is above the farm before it enters the farming area that's because in low flow. Most the water is groundwater and there's groundwater contamination in this watershed. There's no the blue dots don't show the same curve often low flow which means above the farm there's not water nitrate contamination but below the farm there is in the ground water if you turn the next page. You'll see that with the house tonight well my trade the well as five hundred some feet deep waters drawn from it at two hundred fifty feet and it's within fifty yards of I love doing that has two and a half million gallons of high intensity nitrate. And it's within a hundred yards of a place where there's a million pounds of fog. Hogs. in the area the size of a football field and over the five years that the farmer's been there the night tracing the well have continued to go up it's just there's no it just continuously increasing. This isn't my data this is be credit data. Thank you turn the next page. You'll see what happens to phosphorus the problem on the Illinois river northwest Arkansas for twenty seven years has been to try to reduce phosphorus in the stream. It's very difficult once you have legacy phosphorus and you can see here that between two thousand fourteen and two thousand seventeen the phosphorus level below the farm excuse me on the fields of the farm went from a hundred to two hundred twenty. That's characteristic of what happens to large medium large K. foes it happens all over the US and all over the world. And finally my last graph is the last page. You can see that the coli on the top graph is above a hundred about half the time a hundred is the threshold of a three percent infection rate. So if you're half the time if you're swimming below the. farm years this. Your subject yourself to three percent or more infection rate from E. coli. If you go downstream five and a half miles to carver which is the middle graph you can still see that the E. coli levels are above a hundred quite often. Even though the average the whole I level has dropped some that's characteristic of dilution. And if you get down to the bottom graph you'll see that by the time. Big creek enters the buffalo river it's E. coli level is still double what it is in the buffalo river. So the question is can from over five and a half miles can. The farm have an impact on the buffalo river the answer is yes in terms of E. coli. and I worry right now senator Irvin commented that progress has been made in a cooperative effort between citizens of this watershed and the state and private money. To do things like in. The sewage plant. To. Look at septic tanks to do right road building everything it's a great cooperative effort it would be a sad state if that those efforts were undermined overwhelmed by putting these kinds of K. photos on other tributaries. And I'd be happy to answer any questions of anybody asked them. Cochair insulin you've got a question. Yes how many of the twenty five hundred supporters live in the area affected if you're speaking to yes okay. Yes I don't have an exact count on that but I can tell you that the being a national river it does attract national attention and so we do have some supporters from across the country you get that number for me please I could do that thank you thank you Mr chair. Representative Wardlaw do you have a question. Mr I'm sorry Mr name but it it the questions for you the second one is spoke okay not you are limited to two other watersheds is their desire for this moratorium to be extended to other watersheds I didn't mention other watersheds the Ozark society. As single mindedly. Been a to prime trip to protect just the buffalo river that's our only interest. Okay we got an email last week before public health met that the White River in nor for rivers would be looking for the same moratorium so of the A for this more for that river I I heard of that has nothing to do with it was our society okay thank you. Okay we can let's go ahead and have our two people coming to speak for this come for thank you general. If you'll deny yourself for the record your. Please try to make your comments to sing. Yes Sir of Jeff in Arkansas farm bureau state affairs. John Daly director of environmental regulatory affairs with Arkansas farm bureau and we're gonna be really really brief on this are we we are against the this rule five and six moratorium obviously I know that in history back in fifteen another conversation with the General Assembly was to to fund the research and then come back in five years based upon you know information and and make a decision on the more term and not so on seems like there's some confusion on on that and we we can certainly address that at some some point in time but Most of my plans have hardly been been said the more torn does cover over eight hundred and fifty thousand acres that's one hundred one thousand three hundred forty two square miles or two and a half percent of the state and Senator rice I think you summed up by our position pretty well when you use the word chilling. our members are extremely concerned about what this means and if a moratorium can be placed in one river one watershed it can be placed in in other watersheds and lot of are we have a lot of operations a lot of farming in Arkansas all over a lot of folks to deal with animal litter a lot of folks he'd he'd do fertilizer who do do those kind of things in a responsible way and and they don't want to to fall into to this and just to also some of the remarks that the previous German made I would suggest anyone who didn't see the report Dr sharply who's ahead of the big creek research and extension team when he made his presentation public health he did a very good job I think that's on video bill are I think has that you can go back and take a look at that the point to the gentleman made he talked about those points and was and explain to them what those means the hot spots and some of the fields were mainly showed up we're the cattle were under the trees and where the former fed the Hey and if you know cattle they hang out under this shade trees in the they like to hang out where they're fed and so obviously that's going to be some points on any for any form I don't care what we're where you're at so anyway I know there's everyone has made a lot of points we've already made so we're we're we're just it's not necessarily about CNH it's about this moratorium and what that means going for it it's a domino that policy wise we don't want to fall in Arkansas for farming because I think it starts something that would be difficult in the future and heart agriculture in the state so. Johnny anything. Thank you German. At this time was think we've we've got a motion to senator rice you're recognized make a motion. Thank you Mr chair not I'll save you the. Sure statement without objection because you clearly have seen that and I think we've made and I'm like a motion to. To take a boat to not approve the D. E. A. rule number five and six that shown an item A and B. A because the rule is inconsistent with legislative intent it's been a described today and. I'm sure will be. Eight. A more clear if needed again down the road. Okay have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. Motion carries. Okay so. Okay I need another motion then I need to move to not approve the DQ role because of this inconsistency. When I'm like that motion Mr I have a motion and a second all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. Motion carries. So this rule will not be reviewed and approved. Moving on to item nine city. You're recognized if you're a reading if I yourself again please thank you Shane Corey here today is chief counsel department energy and environment and the only reason I came back appears because I didn't want all three of them to be I want to have something that we got approved today. But at this is. Licensing operators a solid waste management facilities and training and certification permit for environmental officers this is actually further on at the end of the report as an agency update and we're just here to present the final rule and Mr Gruppe is here to answer any substantive questions this is one we've been reporting on since January and we've concluded the process the PC any commission approve this also on the may twenty eighth meeting as well. Any questions from the members. Seeing none this without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you German. Item number ten department of finance administration ABC control division. Please identify yourself for the record and you can present to rule. Director Doorly Chandler. Staff attorney chip Leibovitz. The role that we have before the committee today is oversight of medical marijuana processing facilities in Arkansas by governing the requirements for recordkeeping security personnel storage and processing of marijuana in a consistent manner with the existing rules governing the cultivation and dispensary feel of facilities included in these roles are we are incorporating the language that was passed in ACT nine eighty nine regarding the edibles as well as ACT nine twenty eight involving advertising we have included some clarification the rules we have many facilities that where the rule required them to have locks in place and continuous ing monitoring systems available the rule did not say that they had actually use those because those devices so we have added that language that while you have them in place they must be used. So we have also added to the provision that would allow patients with physical restrictions to allow someone to assist them into the dispensary whiting areas for to reduce promise liability on those dispensaries. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you thank you. Of. Bill question. We do have a question sorry about that Representative Jean you're recognized thank you Mr chairman I just got a question on the financial impact and I know you go. Don't have a of good feel right now but I was wondering or the fees that we're getting through the medical marijuana is it covering the calls or we have to dip down into general revenue to cover this. The fees for the licensing right at this point in time the fees FOR A license have our should be able to cover the expenses of the the staff that's involved to monitor. You feel pretty confident it is I'm confident and with the renewal and we added an additional cultivation on unit last night at the commission meeting okay curry's thank you thank you Mr chairman. Okay without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you. Item number eleven department of health center for health practice. Thank you Mr chair RC general counsel for the department of health Linda laying the division chief over vital statistics was not able to attend today so I will be presenting the rule for at the administration of vital records and this proposed add changes addresses to acts that were passed in the twenty nineteen session ACT nine seventy five requires medical certification to be completed using electronic process or assistant a designated by the department of health this includes all the medical certifier so corners medical examiners physicians and hospice nurses and also complies with ACT eight a one of twenty nineteen which requires on the report of an induced termination of pregnancy to report whether the the abortion resulted in a live birth and we had a public comment period and the public hearing was held last September and we had no public comments and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you. I am twelve department of health division of health related boards and commissions. Please identify yourself for the record in your. Recognized to present your rule. Thank you Matt Gilmour department health. Pam five boarded ministration. one more chair of the. Sure sure but. Share in the director and the rules. As administrator I take care of the business side of the board the liaison across the state I'm kind of the face that you see up but I would like to deferred to questions about the rules to our chair person is the board members actually write those rules I just a topping okay. Three of our new rules are in our response to two thousand nineteen legislation in regards to. Excuse me the returning military veteran as far as well as active military. Licensure the second is the pre licensure criminal background check and the third of those three is the reciprocity with other states in regards to meeting the requirements of Arkansas licensure those are all three in response to two thousand nineteen legislation the last rule change that we're have brought before you is to reduce based on a number of reasoning reasonings the governor had requested that some of the licensure standards be brought down and iris was beyond the expectation in regards to hours of supervision prior to licensure of than most other by in fact probably all other boards so we are reduce that and we have also changed to expectations of the supervision to not fall under another board and to be reasonable and respect to experience of that the applicant's. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you. Item number thirteen department of health division of health related board commission state board of athletic training. Thank you Mr chair this Nancy war than is going to present those rules force she's the director. Good morning have Nancy more than. At the director of let for the training board we are amending rules to comply. With act three fifteen ACT eight twenty and acts nine ninety after legislative twenty nineteen we also have a couple of language clean up one of those is we requested shin verifications from applicants and licensees and we now do those online. And that is it. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you number fourteen the division of health related boards and commissions state board of chiropractic examiners. Mister chair we have a of a board member here to present the rules force. Sir Richard. Thank you Mr chairman in committee I am doctors there Hayes and I am the board secretary item A is a new rule regarding the licensure for military veterans and is being promulgated according to eight ACT eight twenty of twenty nineteen we did receive comments during our public comment period and have since worked with our council to amend the proposed rule at the agreement of the commentator this language has and also been that it to the AG's office Arkansas department of health and the governor's office this rule will allow for automatic licensure of active duty military members stationed in Arkansas and or returning veterans. I would be glad to answer any questions at this time thank you chairman and committee. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you item number fifteen Arkansas board of examiners in counseling. Mister chair we have Lenore Erickson is the board director here to present these rules force. Then or Ericsson presenting for the council board the main thing about our rule revisions as we wanted to make our licensure more portable and more affordable we have cut fees in have we have decreased renewal and licensure fees by fifty dollars we are also cutting back on oral interviews Arkansas is the only state in America that still does oral interviews for licensure for counselors and we are cutting that back to just doing or rules for supervisors. Whom we added the sections to comply with statutory changes for the automatic licensure for military and spouses the background pre pre licensure background check requirements and the telemedicine we're removing the specialization requirements and to be. More equivalent to other counseling boards such as social work in psychology we're the only ones that have requirements that you have specializations to provide certain services. People can still provide the services they just have to have training to do it we're not going to take their money to add it to their license anymore. We have cut back on one of the graduate course requirements that most people who try to come get a license in Arkansas to not have and it's not like a national requirement but it was in Arkansas requirements so we removed it said that it would be easier for people to come here and be licensed. And that's about it. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you. Item number sixteen. State board of dental examiners. Mister chair we have given acquire the board's attorney I think killer familiar with him we'll be seeing a motor twice. Bill present starting with vitamin eight a please it is the is the rule deal with criminal background check from the two thousand nineteen. Legislative session detail on which Felonies cannot be waited. Any questions. Seeing them without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item the this deals with the amendment to an existing rule down the dental hygienist functions updating the requirements for diligence also limiting the or call actually clarifying when a dental hygienists can work without a license Dennis. In the office. The questions on that one. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item see. This is article thirteen that this deals with sedation updating the rule of and and the language in the rule and also detail Lang the inspections for dental offices that have minimum sedation. The questions members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you I remember seventeen dietetics licensing board. The chair we have a Kim Jong Noske it was one of the board members here she's going to present the rules force. I'd like to provide a very brief overview of our and rules qualifications to obtain a licensure include a background check and completion of the application military members as well as their spouses can obtain automatic licensure provisional license dietitians are allowed practice to practice under direct supervision of a licensed dietician with application and evidence of successful completion of educational requirements and provisional licenses and last for eighteen months and they can be renewed one time the board shall provide reciprocity FOR licensed additions from other states provided that there standards for their state or not less than the Arkansas standards I licenses are renewed and annually and they consist of application of fee and documentation of twelve continuing education hours and the practice of telemedicine section details the minimum requirements for the and licensed dietician client relationship as well as requirements for telemedicine services provided by a licensed dietician and we currently have and eight hundred twelve active license dietitians in Arkansas. Any questions members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you thank you item number eighteen state board of nursing. Mr we have suited for years the director and the rules. Good morning committee I'll make this brief cause I know your tire we have multiple references to regulations that were moved through multiple chapter so I won't go through that as chapter one we and the definition of professional boundaries that was written and statute but needed to behind defined in the rules and we added information on default on student loans which is result of back to fifty two thousand nineteen. The questions from members senator Irvin recognized. Thank you I just want to thank you all for the work on this and then responding to the the difference suggestions that were made I think that those are good and clarifications thank you particularly when you're dealing with the opioid some everything that's going on there really provides protection also for those prescribing to make sure that language is clear because the prescribers whoever they are really need that level protection thank you so much for that. You may continue okay chapter two we add deferred action for childhood arrivals doc of as a result of ACT eight thirty seven of two thousand nineteen. Any questions members that. Chapter four we added rules related to allowing appearance to collaborate with the podiatrist which is the X. three oh eight of two thousand nineteen we deleted the requirement to notify certifying bodies of disciplinary action unless the appearance ability to practice is restricted we thought it wasn't necessary for public protection if they were just on probation we added a rules related to opioid prescribing as result of act five ninety three two thousand nineteen we added minimum standards for establishing a patient relationship which was modeled after medical practices act regulation to eight C.. You may continue and then the last this chapter ten for our alternative to discipline program we updated the qualifications for admission. Any questions members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you committee. Number nineteen state board of optometry. Mr with Kevin acquire again is turning for the sport. Is similar to the previous rules at chapter one article for dealt with reciprocity military just added the word to an existing rule made it automatic for licensure. Any questions from the members on this chapter. Seeing none without objection this rule is approved reviewed and approved we continue item be is the criminal background check from two thousand nineteen just specifying which felonies cannot be waived. Members any questions. Signal that objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you thank you item number twenty Arkansas psychology board. Mister chair we have the Susan Cooper here's the director for the psychology board. Good morning. Morning. Psychology board has sent a few changes I'll just briefly go over those Section one point three removes references to a newsletter which has not been published for awhile. Section two point one. Our. Okay section two point one A has language updates to comply with act three fifteen and multiple other sections do the same thing section four point two is language claim that to list proper statutory reference. Section five point three removes application process for licensed psych examiners which was originally voted on by the board but then after that comment period we heard from the psychological examiners and. The board realize that was probably not a good idea to remove that from the rules because that's necessary for them and Lots of ways so they restored those that section after the comment period. Section five point four and at the age requirements for pre doctoral internship and post doctoral supervision. in section five point five and we created a. It creates a pre licensure background check and waiver of disqualifying offenses according to ACT nine ninety of two nineteen. in section five point six we updated requirements for a one time consultation by psychologist licensed in another state and it also updates language to comply with act three fifteen. In sections six point one seven point three seven point four and seven point five we have updates to provisional licensure us the status pursuant to ACT eight eighty seven and it also updates language. In seven point five to comply with act nine ninety of two nineteen. In section six point two we have language clean up. DO terminology. Same thing with section six point three we were made some obsolete language and compliance with act three fifteen and section seven point seven. In section eight we changed and the examination process by removing the oral exam component upon re application process updates. We updated the re application process sorry and we clarify the board's authority to offer additional examinations we basically they basically voted to eliminate the oral exam but still have the authority to offer additional examinations in the future. In section nine point one. It updates and clarifies the continuing education requirements FOR licensees and. Section ten point three creates a active duty Miller returning veteran and spouse licensure reciprocity according to ACT eight twenty. in section eleven point six I when we also added after the comment period we added the definition of automatic licensure to that military reciprocity to comply with act eight twenty at eleven point six we have language that updates to comply with act three fifteen in section thirteen we deleted For fees currently assessed by the board. In section nineteen we created a new section to supervise tells psychology under the Arkansas telemedicine ACT. And And that's about it. The questions for members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you. Thank you. Item number twenty one. Social work licensing board. Mr sure we have Mister the bind here the social work or director. Good morning I am ready bang with the social work licensing board and we would like to propose changes to our rules at summer based on the laws that were passed this previous general session and most of the rest or clarification purposes only at dating word dean and different phrases in part of our rules that were kind of obsolete needed to be updated to the modern working. And section one it is already on only and the board voted to change chair person to just chair and that way it. It did away with what chair manner chairwoman we can just say chair Section two the application procedures we updated to be in compliance with the new military law we added pre licensure background check according to ACT nine ninety two thousand nineteen we updated the language regarding background checks. A removing some old language in it that he it to be in compliance with that nine ninety as we added the military license automatic procedures on that. We were the moved some terminology on the fees and we have not raised in the fees that we combine to fees there was an application fee and the filing fee that together equal to one hundred dollars and in our code it says one hundred dollars so it's a combination and it avoids thing have to pay to separate fees in order to obtain their license when it is actually one fee and we added an application expiration date section three on provisional licenses we very remove some old language of that required to take the exam within six months there were no teeth and that no one nothing that we did about that if they did and so we just remove that and remove some duplicated background information section four we updated the terms section five under the what we are calling endorsement of reciprocity we added in our law and six twenty three last year's the wording estate substantial equivalency and this kind of. Defines that in it makes it easier for people coming from out of state to Arkansas to meet our requirements we accept their requirements that they had to meet for their state and once again remove some duplicated background information under section six on supervision we get a lot of clarification on that part seven on fees there's just a lot of clarification in we took out a couple of fees that we did not utilize. Section eight was issuance renewal expiration reinstatement and this is the one thing that we were. Add got most comments owner comment period was were proposing to reduce the number of C. use from forty eight every two years thirty and that's because the board is realized over the years that from employers are not providing those C. E. use for free for people and are not paying for an and our fees for licensure are pretty low renewal fee is low but social workers have to spend a lot of money for their continuing education and so by Reggie seeing this website in our social workers a lot of money and reduce the burden of them have to take vacation in time off to get their CD's. We also expanded to. I'm sorry in the next section section nine continued education we added clarification for the newer services of webinars so I can understand that if it's live and interactive they can count that is face to face and that's been very useful during this emergency period we've been under we just updated some of the items that we get a lot of questions on our section ten code of ethics we. Remove the section and added to the order checks in and added to our code and it's a minor clarifications to the wordings. Section eleven definition of and FOR have professional conduct. Once again some minor wording change from changes and we added a section about telemedicine telehealth. Disciplinary procedures that wording some minor wording changes and. Thirteen certificates of professional social work corporations there's was a fee for change of address we eliminated that and our new this was the addition of fourteen telemedicine ACT that is currently in place and emergency rules do to cope with it and that is something our borders worked very hard to allow social work should practice FIA telemedicine and decision be added to make it permanent. Be happy to answer any questions. Members any questions. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you thank you item number twenty two DHS division of children and family services. Please identify yourself for the record. You're recognized to present your rule. Good morning my name is Kristen Harper an assistant director with the division of children and family services and more quite well chief staff for DHS. We have one proposed rule packet for review today regarding the division's child maltreatment investigation determination guide or publication three fifty seven this document was previously in entitled the child maltreatment assessment protocol the revised version there is the scope of the publication to only focus on the legal elements required to make a true finding of child maltreatment at the conclusion of an investigation. Has been restructured so that aligns the guidance for in terminology used in making the determination with the child maltreatment ACT. The other items in the packet our technical changes to reflect the name change the document in the scope of of the fifty seven and reflect current practice law. There is only one public comment received specific to pub three fifty seven which was simply to at a table of contents which we have done at this rule was reviewed last week by the children and youth committee in I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Members any questions for this rule. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you. Item number twenty three DHS division of county operations. Thanks chairman mark what with the HSN have five merry Franklin with division county operations here who can answer questions if needed these are changes to our eligibility policies for Medicaid bond large these are just technical and clean up changes I'm not a lot of such as the one substantive piece that is in there is we're making changes to what are known as income offsets these are for in but in some cases individuals can spend their funds on some medical items that are ordinarily covered by Medicaid and had that deducted from their income we consider for eligibility purposes there's been some changes in federal law and see Mister regulations and so we changed it reflect those new CMS requirements and with that we'll be happy to answer questions. Any questions from members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item number twenty four. Division of developmental disabilities. Thank you Mr chairman this rule is far division available disability services and and I do have Melissa stone is director the director the division here to answer questions if needed this rule relates to the children with chronic health conditions program this program is funded by part in part by federal funds to assist children who have certain chronic illnesses or disabilities and help them and obtain the services they need and all we're doing here is were essentially formalizing the eligibility criteria for that program I'll be happy to answer any questions. Members any questions. Sooner without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item number twenty five list. Division of medical services start with number eighty. Thank you Mr chairman this autumn relates to personal care services and to the administrative requirements for others in a lot of discussion about the payment rate for personal care services and Mister is admission the earlier if I used a brief update because we did have a rule relates to the rate those on the agenda that is been pulled from the agenda boss one give you a brief update about where that stands and where that's going up last year as part of an ongoing review of Medicaid payment rates did just that proposed a one point four percent increase in the payment rate for personal care providers and this increase was to turn bar contracted actuaries based in part on national data and based in part on cost survey data submitted by Arkansas providers we begin paying that higher rate and on January one on a temp temporary conditional basis and then we also began the process of doing the this rule change to make that rate change permanent last week and public health committee there were objections to that rules providers object to that rate they want to be higher and so based on those objections of the committee decided to further rule and that's the reason they were not bring it forward to you today we continue to discuss the that issue with both members and with providers but so far the providers have declined to voice any support for moving forward with the one point four percent increase and so for that reason we're not moving forward with it because it's not moving forward that does mean that DHS has to stop paying that increase personal care rate and afterward bring the right back down to the twenty nineteen level so we're going to do that review what additional steps we have to take to remain in compliance with state law and with C. miss requirements regarding that higher rate that was paid to date earlier this year and one issue that the plate into this the providers and hire their own actuary to look at the rate and to make a recommendation and they'd come back recognition based on some. Different data that was submitted by the providers we offered to review that data and determine what that that would change justify a change in our recommendation yesterday we did finally receive some of that data filed that was submitted by the providers so we're going to be reviewing that go look for the differences between that data and the data we relied on and also consider how it ministry cost may be affected by changes in supervision rules changes and how easy these being implemented and then if we determine a higher rates necessary we'll bring that back to you this fall I'll aiming towards a January one twenty one implementation date so that's where we're a personal care rates and such devised the remaining rules that are on today's agenda do not affect that rate and social that be clear right we do have one question Senator hammer you're recognized yes Sir thank you Mr chair did you receive a better a bigger data of selection from the providers and you did the first time around. What they submitted it it is additional data we did not have before we just started going through that causes is quite a few documents they sent us but yes and that is additional data we did not have before okay for you thank you Mr. Please continue okay so for the rule is before you today on twenty five a last month part of health and brought a rule to you that produced the requirements for supervision of personal care aides used to be that an RN had to go to every beneficiary at least once every sixty days to check on them and that was scaled back in the rule change last month under par health rules so that at least annually and more if the beneficiary needs that and can be by someone who is less than or it can be someone who has a couple of years of high school of Senate college education so what we're doing this rule is we your Marion that replacement our own rules to the providers don't fall two separate sets of rules and we're also cutting back on the amount of information we require providers to submit to get prior authorization for personal care services and with that be happy to answer any questions. Senator you're recognized. Just a clarification so the administrative percentage that still is being changed is that correct full of all on on enters the rate yes for it we provide what what we come up with our actuaries come up was thirty seven percent providers and forty one percent and so we're gonna look at that difference we're also look at the difference that these changes would back to that as well okay that that's that's what I want to make sure that this is income included in that thank you and and so we're waiting on CMS to determine whether we need to go back and because we put that in place January one retroactively twenty twenty two you're saying that we may. To payments MSN's. We just a look and see what our obligations are CMS on that and that's something that we started looking at and we hope will know something here in the next few days okay but that was put in place by emergency rule correct what it was a it was an emergency rule but there was funding that was done the governor provided rainy day funds and we brought that to for Legislative Council back in December so what the rule it was just. Funding yes ma'am okay thank you. Any other questions. Without objection this rule is reviewed and approved you continue item be. Thank you Mr chairman of this item is an amendment or make a state plan related to the support act this is a an act that Congress passed related OTP we will we will aids made some changes in how we have to treat opioid surround how they're purchased how we authorized them and so we've simply revise our rules to come into compliance with those two federal requirements and I Janet man whose director the division medical services is present and able to answer questions if needed any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved at MC. This is not a Medicaid rule we have for our Medicaid management information system or MMI us that's the system the process is all Medicaid claims we had a a software package that providers could use to upload claims to that system is called es war provider electronic solutions we now have a web portal that providers can use to submit claims and so the past software is really is outdated and we're intending to phase that out there only a handful providers who are still using the we've reached out those providers to help them transition over to the web portal to use instead and so all this rule does is just take out references to the past take that out of our rules. Members any questions. Tina without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item easy. All right item a this is a no the one of the rate changes from the rate review process we've been going for this is for early intervention day treatment and adult developmental day treatment providers and FOR everything with her providers they are they're good with this change we've not heard any objections or any request to stop it and so this just increases that right. Any questions. Seeing none without objection oak I do have one. Representative Dotson you're recognized thank you Mr chair question I had on this one in your in one of the responses on a. From the agency said that. CMS Has until June twenty fifth to approve this. Why are we doing this before CMS is actually gotten back with this white why don't we will hold off till next month to find out if they approve or disapprove how we and that's always bills trying to balance between the state approval to see miss purple but we do get the Siemens rule back earlier this week and so there okay so it is approved now yes all right thanks. Thank you Sir any other questions. Seeing none in without objection this rule is reviewed and approved by the mass. I'm F. of relisted durable medical equipment including oxygen all we're doing in this rule is that we are things language in the state we will not pay more than Medicare rates Mister chairman I apologize there's been a change on this one I found that after meeting started today CMS asks us to add a sentence to this doesn't changing things substantively but it does seem to be clarified if the committees one to approve it with that explanation that's fine if you all for for us to bring it back next month that's fine as well will which deferred the committee on that. Senate no substantive changes to yes Sir just clarifying change locking being read to the language if you don't mind that would be good yes Sir pull that up. Is this is they want to add is we have the new language we've added to make that clarification for once of the enemy and after we would added for all other D. me claims not covered by section nineteen oh three I twenty seven of social security act rate will be set as follows thank goes into the existing language in the rule okay any questions members. Chairman. Senator you're recognized Mister chair I make a motion to review this rule with the included language that was just read by mark why. Any other questions of all on that. Promotion. Can I get a second on that. Second all those in favor say aye aye opposed no motion carries then this rule is reviewed and approved thank you item G.. Student I think Mr chairman this autumn relates to self direction budget calculation for personal care services individuals can choose one of two ways to receive those they can have a an agency to the agency hires employees and then provides is employers provide the services or the beneficiary can act as their own employer and they can choose who they want to provide those services Senate their payment rate and and manage that person as their employer and it's called self direction problem we have is that still direction their their budget they have is based on a percentage of the personal care right with it increases in minimum wage that part that percentage is not enough for the beneficiaries to pay those workers minimum wage as of January one this coming year so what we're doing is we did a calculation determine what's an appropriate amount and work eek increasing the percentage this used to calculate their budget and CMS is located there okay with this again does affect the rate it's based on the rate but does not change the rate and so and had answering questions. Senator hammer you're recognized for a question thank you Mr the just reiterate what you just said about it how did not change the rate if you calculated the cost of minimum wage in there they did raise the rate. It's the the way it works is that we take the minimum wage rate which is it'll be eighteen dollars and then we apply this percentage was seventy percent and multiply that times the number of hours they're entitled to and that gives them their overall budget and with since the only additional cost that have that is just the faca which is only about ten percent or so is still leaves them where they can pay minimum wage they can't can't actually by little above minimum wage as well thanks use they have some options for the leader pay that is so much of that workers they think that's necessary or some other items they can use that money for related to their disability but the eighteen dollar whatever rate you quoted didn't go up any no Sir ill just whatever the personal care rate it'll be a percentage of that are thing Mr. Any other questions. Seeing that without a junction this rule is reviewed and approved. Item H.. And I made this is another rate change from the review process this is for evaluation and management codes for physicians we're proposing a five percent increase on those codes for positions we're also looking an additional three percent increase we've looked at doing that through the patient centered medical home model or also through the primary care management model there's also knows there some who are advocate for us to just apply to race themselves we're still working through that will be coming back to you with what to do that three percent of this just goes and does this for the initial five percent but that push that to affect now. Any questions. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. item I. And I don't mind this is the last piece from the reviews for this this time this is for the rate for vaccine ministration our proposing to increase that rate that rate is available both doctors and pharmacies and if the bill through this process and store opens with this increased rate this will improve the vaccination rates among our Medicaid beneficiaries happy answering questions any questions members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you members item number twenty six now the department of labor licensing DIV it division of labor. You'll come to the table identify yourself for the record you are recognized to present your rule. Start with item a. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee my name is Denise obviously I'm general counsel for the department of labor and licensing and item a is an amendment to the state's minimum wage act rules promulgated for that the majority of these deal with legislation that was passed during the twenty nineteen session. specifically it incorporates the test for independent contractors. Percent at ten fifty five of twenty nineteen it eliminates a thirty cents an hour cap on a credit or allowance against the minimum wage. For boarding lodging and uses a reasonable way test like the feds do. I changes the statute of limitations from three years to two years It authorizes pre loaded debit cards in conformity with that act as payment to employees. In addition there is some organizational name changes address changes. Regulation to rule. There's a statutory exemption that's included that was past several years ago and it was the only statutory exemption not included in the rules so we wanted to go ahead and include that. It update some references to federal law and. Changes the tip credit law to conform to the statutory language in addition to that it just make some grammatical and stylistic changes but I will be happy to answer any questions if I can. Dotson you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair my question has to do with your agency response to public comment number one here on the. Page two twelve of our. Our supplemental agenda here are some region to It says there in the the second paragraph that. a new rule was issued January first of twenty twenty and I guess new regulation federal regulation there was a new federal regulation correct and these rules were begin the promulgation process in August last year prior to that going into effect I'm just wondering if if you are Shouldn't these rules reflect the new regulation that went into a fact before we we go through and approve these are you starting a PA process over again to reflect the the new regulation that is a very good question in no we're not starting the process at this time let me explain a little bit about what the permit a rule did. It dealt with white collar exemptions and it raised what the minimum was for supervisors and managers that were exempt I had to make a certain salary level before they can actually be exempt if they did not make that salary level than they had to be paid overtime. Of so the the actual. Federal rule was first proposed as an amendment under. It's for the fifty five dollars a week both across the board for state and federal for a number of years the Obama administration proposed raising it to nine hundred thirteen dollars a week which means any supervisor manager that did not make at least that much would have to be paid overtime. A in the trump administration lowered that to six hundred eighty four dollars per week and that's the rule that took effect January one. The federal department of labour looks it rules across the nation when they make decisions like this. And that may or may not be best for Arkansas when we take a look at those because that will mean a lot of impact on small mom and pop businesses so we have not yet completed an evaluation of that in terms of its impact on Arkansas and with that we want to follow the federal rule or not that's why that's not addressed in these rules okay so is is it optional for us than it is optional for us you know thank you thank you Mr. Thank you any other questions. Seeing none of that objection this rule is reviewed and approved item be. Item the is amendments to the state child labor rules and that does nothing but change organizational. The names and addresses for the agency. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item C. Odyssey deals with the general organizational structure and procedures for the labor standards section of the agency it is the same it revises organizational rules it changes. Rules to route. Rex to rules and changes the address and it removes one reference to the state's prevailing wage law which has been repealed. But I'll be happy to answer any questions any questions members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you may have excuse Mr chairman. Number twenty seven. Appraiser licensing and certification board. You will come to the table in addition so for the record you're recognized presenter rule. Of thank you Mr chairman of my name is Diana P. all ski and I and the director for the Arkansas appraiser licensing and certification board. Of this morning I'm here to present the rules the proposed rule changes for the appraiser board appraisal management companies rules of these changes were published in the newspaper and they were available and still are on our website a public hearing was held with no one in attendance and no public comments were received of Arkansas begin registering appraisal management company is back in January of twenty ten for the most part are existing AMC rules are simply a restatement of the statutes the board has taken this opportunity to correct this issue removing duplications and adding requirements of the financial institutions reform recovery and enforcement act of nineteen eighty nine as amended by Dodd Frank the primary change and I know there are a lot of changes but the primary change is in regards to the new national registry A it I am see national registry fee collected by each jurisdiction and remitted to the appraisal subcommittee and with that of happy to answer any questions. Any questions from the members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you Sir. Item number twenty eight commission for Arkansas public school academic facilities and transportation. Please identify yourself for the record. Welcome to present your rule thank you Laurie freenode general counsel for the division of elementary and secondary education I'm here on behalf of the commission for Arkansas public school academic facilities and transportation. The first rule is a revision of section eight thousand it's an addition of section eight thousand to the academic facility manual which provides minimum construction standards witcher requirements and guidelines which are only recommendations for safety and security measures an ACT new academic facilities. Members any questions. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item be thank you identity the this were these rules incorporate provisions of act five of seven of twenty nineteen which address energy conservation or energy cost saving measures and governmental facilities designed to reduce consumption of energy natural resources are operating cost prior to ACT five oh seven school districts did not have the opportunity to participate in this program now they do it is an opt in and their board if their board approves it date can often and then receive the assistance of the of the Arkansas pollution control and ecology commission. Members any questions. Sooner without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you okay members were quickly going back to number. Back to number eight department of education division of higher education. Please identify yourself for the record. I guess that's it by microphone to do that and clamor on behalf of the division of higher education. We have. Three rules changes before you today. Do me a lawn chair under equipment okay first one okay eight A was the change. Minor change in the state teacher education program. This was altered to allow for alternative education prepare preparation programs to qualify prior to that you had to this is a loan forgiveness programs that program to qualify you had to go through a traditional licensure program to be eligible we wanted this loan forgiveness program well we were implementing the law that said if you were not traditionally certified that you can still qualify for that loan forgiveness so if you have a math degree and decide that you want to be a teacher instead of a mathematician then you can get alternatively certified and we will let that a loan forgiveness but towards that. That's the first one any questions members. CNN without objection this rule is reviewed and approved item the I should probably have pointed out on the last one that it practice still keeps those teachers prioritized that go through the traditional start AM eight be is the change in the Arkansas governor's scholars program that allows for the award to be pro rated during the senior year and formerly it was pro rated only for the last semester but sometimes courses are offered in the semester they need to be so student might be in the fall of their senior year and not have fifteen hours required for the program being offered and so that law allows them to take a pro rated award that semester and return to a full award for the spring if they needed to or if they needed also pro rate for the spring they can pro rate their entire senior year. Any questions from members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved an item city is the Arkansas act are three different changes in the Arkansas academic challenge. Brought by three different pieces of legislation act thirty four is the one that we referred to above it is also allows for pro rating the entire senior year for an academic challenge student. axe seven fifty five. Allows the academic challenge award to be applied toward the governor's scholarship award it doesn't increase the amount to the student but it essentially. Allowed of funds from the academic challenge to be put towards that governor scholarship. And. ACT five four nine is the super score that's probably the biggest change that your constituents might notice it allows for your ACT score of nineteen to be arrived at by super scoring which is taking the highest score from maximum from all your test attempts so that you can get the nineteen. And that's the last D. questions members. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you so much last item on the agenda item II our final item are the agency of dates in accordance with ACT five seventeen of two thousand nineteen in lieu of requiring agencies to physically appear this month to present these updates we requested they submit letters with status updates you've been email these letters and also have them in your packet so without any objection we will review and file those letters and it's our hope that hopefully in the next meeting or two we can proceed with having the director here to answer any questions. So those are reviewed members thank you appreciated by sticking to the Senate we had some long ones and but was report that these be heard so I appreciate you tough in this one out thank you very much this meeting is adjourned.