ALC-Administrative Rules

I'm remind those who wish to comment on a rule to go ahead and sign in be sure to specify. The rule in which you wish to comment will be taken up that sign in sheet here momentarily. Our members going to item be its report to the executive subcommittee the first item on the agenda any reports of the executive subcommittee you have one report from the executive subcommittee in your packet regarding its approval of an emergency rule since our last meeting. That will be at the. End of your packet. I have a motion to adopt this report. The motion second all in favor say aye. Posed our motion carries moving item C.. next on the agenda are the agency rules some of these presentations will include an update in accordance with Arkansas Code. As amended by act five ninety five of twenty twenty one if the agency's rules being presented are the result of a newly enacted law from the twenty twenty one session that is because the statute enacted by that if an agency determines that a newly enacted law from the twenty twenty one regular session requires new or amended rules and does not provide a different date those new or amended rules were to be filed with the Secretary of State on or before June first twenty twenty two under this law the agency were required to file their rules with Legislative Council sufficiently in advance of this date so that the Legislative Council could consider this rule for approval before the June first date. The statute further requires the executive head of the agency or his or her does it need to appear before the administrative rule subcommittee to explain why the agency has first been unable to comply with a deadline or to provide an update on the status of the rulemaking or number three describe the steps being taken by the agency to address its failure to comply with a deadline for provide an anticipated date for when the final version of the rule will be filed with the Secretary of State. To comply with the statute enacted the chairs have has that those agencies whose rules should have been filed with the Secretary of State by June first two please address these things in the presentation today. All right we're gonna go first to. the Arkansas state police retirement system. If you would ma'am push your button introduce yourself for the record and you can go ahead begin your presentation. Joining an Allison woods on the interim director of the public employees retirement system Which also administers the state police retirement system. And that's the rule that we're here for for today's state police rule eleven a regarding drive provisions. And we. At a public comment period on this ended the end of March and at that time we asked to be placed on the the June agenda our. And we could have come in may but our quarterly board meeting was at the same date in time S. this meeting was in may and so that's why we're we're here today. Of the summary this rule eleven ACT four fifteen of twenty twenty one change the service requirements for participation the dropped from thirty years to twenty eight years and that service requirement was in the in their board rule and so we need to amend its board rule to. To correspond with what's in the law and then the the second subject change wise regarding. Interest on the account the the rule included a reference to it in act and so we just updated that to generally state that interest will be applied according to the law. And those are the two subs of changes for this rule. Thanks any questions thank you members any questions on this one. All right single questions without objection this rule is reviewed approved thank you can. Remember going Adam see to have department agriculture commission on water well construction. Morning German if you would just when you get there push a button and then you can introduce yourself for the record again. We keep going read there we go I'm wait hajj chief counsel Arkansas department of agriculture. Blake forest on the edge of geology tell the supervisor for the groundwater water will section of the national resources department of ag. In Mr chairman and members of the committee this is a rule that we actually brought to you last year and I I hesitate to call it a rule amendment because it's really just a clarification doesn't change the intent for the implementation of the rule at all she's merely a clarification. Last time we brought it to you some members ask us if we would just get the input of the water well contractors association so we did that and that association holds their annual conference in January and traditionally the water will construction commission holds a meeting in conjunction with that conference and so we did that again this year held a meeting there as conference discuss the rule and then subsequent to that the association voted on this rule and at this rule clarification receive the full unanimous support of the association so we we did everything that the members asked us to do and we are ready to move forward with the rule thank you. I thank you for that presentation members any questions on this item we have who's in C. seventy four. Representative Jett you're recognized thank you appreciate that Mr this quick question so say like arise from for example as well goes down in a. Rights property up hello Sir will take somebody to do I guess to me back up what me through the procedure this how that's going to work. Districts. It and how how long it's gonna take somebody to get there is going to depend on the individual contractor I would think Blake do you have anything you can have the. Of this role would really apply to that necessarily that would be more about theirs you know business schedule when they can yeah so I guess I apologize I'm I'm going to the table here and I'm just I just literally just open this up charter reading it so does somebody come to from the state to sign off on a project somebody has worked on. not necessarily we do try to inspect wells we don't we're not required to go inspected so this is not going to put any burden on a farmer or an individual homeowner waiting on the state to come in to sign off on something absolutely look at something no Sir all right thank you thank you Mr chairman. Thank you representative Jett spur us Senator Hill you're recognized. Over here. Mister Mister Hodgman math questions is pretty simple on on this one you're looking at to our different for the person in charge is supposed to be made me within the distance self from the well with this this being service when we don't get in the twenty first century and use modern technology then we have to use a cell phone or whatever else that person to be and Eudora Arkansas and helping someone in in Fayetteville Arkansas when we will get to that point it you know that's something that I think as technology improves and advances we can certainly take a look at it at this point of the Commission just feels like that there are some situations that can't be explained over the phone maybes you know the camera on the phone want to picked everything that's going on but that that is certainly something that we can we can continue to look at as technology improves I appreciate that does I think for their culture goes it one of the most advanced industries in in the in the world I think we need to catch up with that thank you. Thank you senator hill representative all you're recognized thank you Mr chair so I want to go back to what representative Joe Jett was just saying because it does say it's requiring on site supervision for all well water constructions installation or repair activities. Yes that's how are we going to be waiting on somebody from the state no not from the state that's the the licensed contractor has to be there okay thank you. Thank you representative co chair Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you could you just tell me who's gonna be auditing this to make sure that it's in compliance because the. Who who's gonna hold somebody accountable if the two hour time frame is meant. That's the responsibility of the commission commission staff and so you'll have enough staff to do that okay you know with mold if multiple situations Kerr's singular time what's the realistic expectation that you can respond to where the farmer or whoever would not be penalized because y'all couldn't get there within that time frame what's what's the appeal of the relief process. All. Yes the farmer would not be penalized at all it would be the contractor who's not following the rules that would be penalized now it's it's like a lot of other violations of the law I mean if if we don't know that it's happened you know we won't be able to do anything about it. Okay our thank you. Thank you senator. Mr Speaker you're recognized. I didn't graduate I'm sorry. Did mean upgraded representative Wardlaw thank you. Speaker I've got a motion on this at the proper time. All right and come back in just seconds all right. By members or any other questions. And seeing other questions representative Wardlaw your motion I make a motion that we hold this to the September counsel to make sure we can study this in the cost effects of this two hour drive of this license personnel it just seems like an overreaching government to me and I just wanna make sure that we're doing this correctly. We appreciate a good vote all right thank you. Our members we have a motion from representative Wardlaw the hold this over president decide sold in the September September meetings all over to the September meeting all right all those all those with a second all those in favor say aye opposed guys haven't general hole that over to the September meeting thank you presentation. But. All right members moving down item C. three department of agriculture veterinary medicine examining board. Thank you Mr chairman and members of the committee again I'm White House chief counsel department of agriculture Cathar director for the veterinary medical examining board. Paul Turchi president of the Arkansas that numerical standing thank you. Mr chairman members of the committee a little bit of background on the A promulgation process for this rule this this was this is a rule that was required by an active twenty twenty one the board staff took some time to study what other states were doing just so we could make sure that we had a good rule and then didn't want to reinvent the wheel if there was already some some good examples out there so we took some time doing that and then we had stakeholder meetings and we had our first stakeholder meeting in November and the board review the proposed rule in December. The board requested that we have one more stakeholder meeting and so we did that at another stakeholder meeting in January and then the board of voted to go forward with the proposed rule in February and we were on the agenda last month to meet the June one deadline but there were some questions about the rule and asked if we could maybe reconsider something and of course staff we don't have the ability to to do that so we had to take it back to the board so we took it back to the board and the board unanimously voted to go forward with the version that we have before you today. And so we're no changes since the the last time you looked at this rule we're ready to move forward. Thank you members any questions. I have a Senator Irvin recognized. Thank you prayer. I'm I. I supports and I think it's I think it's an important thing to have an in person visits. to establish that relationship. My issue though is that this legislature has passed legislation that for human being. You don't have to have an in person visit to establish that patient relationship now. So we are actually now more restrictive. With that with our animals then we are with our human. Yes senator and and it just to briefly address that as we stated last time we were here you know animals can't really speak for themselves so you know neither can children in I'm. It M. and we also believe that the way our law is written it would take a legislative change for that veterinary client patient relationship to be established virtually because of the definition that we have in the law so that's something that possibly we can look at during the next session of an maybe we shouldn't pursue this rule until we have a legislative change. I just think there has to be consistency. I for one do not support the legislation I mean I I think there should be an in person visits with a healthcare provider for a human being before you deliver telemedicine. That's what I believe but I got over ruled by the majority of the legislature and I yield to that. But you here now. We have a different standard for our animals. That we do for human beings. I'm not survived I. Sorry but I don't think that's appropriate. Right and so I think and you know as as Mr Hodge mentioned in statute currently there is a requirement for a physical examination for the establishment of that relationship and so I think the role is just at this point in time consistent with the way the statutes written but I mean I I agree I think we would be happy to take a look at that for the session and see if there may be some type of change we can make their and that would you know get you baby satisfy the concerns. Thank you senator representative Vaught you're recognized thank you Mr chair can you give me the FDA's definition of of the CPR. For that. Yeah I don't have it exactly right in front of me but I do know that they require for purposes of writing a prescription for the veterinary feed directive which would cover food animals that and the FDA does require the CPR to be established through either an examination or timely and appropriate visits to the premises for the animals are capped thank you I know that we talked earlier about what Senator Irvin is bringing that and I'm I believe too that there are some things that we can do I think we also have to be careful that animals don't talk humans do talk so it's a little bit easier to do telematic for human maybe even though I don't agree I'm with Senator Irvin I don't agree with some of the tellement step is taking place but we also have to be careful and I. making sure that we keep our food chain safe and our animal safe and so I don't wanna get too crazy with just wide open telemedicine so I'd like for us to keep that in consideration also thank you. Thank you represented by Senator Caldwell you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman research center one of the members of the Senate ag and House say you've been meeting on this situation the we can go tomorrow last Friday lightning struck and killed two of my horses and had another one that I need some advice on and the nearest large general that to my home town is two hours away. And so it's important that we have some tool that we can the use and and we know there's a flaw we know is that in a but the the we thank the only way to fix it is for legislative action but in and we're already planning to do that but but I I would like to see this rule move forward for the fact that in in the Eastern Arkansas on and roll cross country we we do not have large general this although we have many large animals so the even even though we know it's it's somewhat flawed right now I would rather have the availability of of having the ability to to talk to a veterinarian the only phone in instead of of not having that service available and the legislation you know the session starts and in January we can come back and in six languages in the law well I would appreciate a good vote illness at that property. Thank you Mr. Thanks for the call will Senator Hill recognized. Thank you Mr chair owner Lou to first of all when things that the representative of all just a while ago that I have a question for from the start of on this side I do agree with the representative of all data and was cannot talk they cannot talk on the telephone whenever you're doing a virtual and they also cannot talk in the office and we cannot talk so that that point is irrelevant on that my question is I I was one aspect of this B. Hilton and discussed again with the veterinarian board and it is obvious because it was brought up to them they do not want changes they had the opportunity to look at this to possibly doing virtual where you can establish a relationship they were not interested to me this seems like it's a money grab they want you to come into the office of the veterinarian's acting jumping out here on this because they want to force you to come in to their office to make more money. Know what they can do virtually they can charge for that as well as a doctor to us so that the economic side of it should not matter and I would really greatly appreciated if they would actually considered what I ask for now I will support this but we'll look at doing legislation in January but I think this is something that could've been handled all at one time we would have to be revisiting thank you. Thank you senator hill culture Hammer. Thank you if I remember right there some insurance companies out there may be all wrong on the saying that actually cover insurance for treatment of of animals my correct on that. Yes that is correct is there anything by those insurance companies that would preclude payment if it's not done in person or that allows payment. Done telemedicine or the silent on the issue. That that is a good idea unfortunately I do not know the answer to that question but I mean I would be happy to to maybe do some research into that and seen but I'm not sure what this insurance company policies are at this time for future reference anything we might do might be good to look at that to make sure that the people are not gonna be disadvantaged one way or the other or if the pathways or established by the insurance company which I presume probably has a that train medical director just like deal with humans we might get some direction from from them. I appreciate thank you. Thank you senator senator urban you're recognized. I just want on the record that I do object to this rule and I don't support this rule at this time because it provides a different standard that we have for human beings versus animals. And so if you move to if you if you pass this rule I just want my object objection to be noted. Thank you senator representative all you're recognized thank you Mr chair I would like to thank you all for staying within the scope of the legislation when you broke the rule I understand that there are other things that people would like but you did stay within the scope of the law and it's with the intent of the law and with that being said I understand that there's objections to it but you did work very hard to make sure that you stay within the scope I think you gave people plenty of time you had a comment period I don't know if there were any comments can you tell me if there were any comments on the comment period. We did receive five comments through the public comment period and where they all negative but we had one fully in support of the roll and and the other negative comments were really just more concerned with with telemedicine in general being used in veterinary medicine okay when we write legislation we always ask that the rule be within the scope of the legislation I'm and I really do appreciate your taking time to make sure that we stated within that scope I appreciate that you've already made a promise to me that we will work on this to make it a little bit better for Senator hill and senator Caldwell and some farmers that are out there that live in rural areas but I do appreciate your work thank you thank you. I thank you members on hold on just one second I got a question for staff. Thank you senator Irving just to clarify are you wanting to make a motion to not approve the rule or you just want to be on record as having objections to the rule. I see that there's there's support among my colleagues for it I don't support it so I'm not gonna stand in the way of of moving the rule for I just wanted to be known that I object because again I understand arguments okay I do understand it's within the legislation that's fine I object because we are not consistent and I just don't think it's right I think that a child is just as important as an animal I think it's a human being and a person is just as important as an animal and I have a child is a veterinary school I mean I have you know I and so I don't understand. Why do we have one standard for human beings and another standard for animals that's my point I'm trying to make and that's why I just wanna be on record objecting to this because it's inconsistent with the policy positions that this legislature has taken on providing healthcare and I think that a child and a person is more important than an animal and I have cows and I have courses and I have a far I'm we're farmers I get all this but I I just don't understand why there is a less standard when we're treating patients and human beings than there is with this thank you thank you senator Erman aren't saying no further questions and noting senator urban's objection this road reviewed and approved. Our members are going to. See for us also department of commerce State Insurance Department. Good morning Sir if you would just introduce yourself for the record when you get that ready and you can go again yes I'm Dan honey I'm of of counsel for products once Arkansas insurance department of we have a this is a little little little of matter of clean up Arkansas insurance of the Department rule sixty nine of concerning bilateral settlements was promulgated pursuant to act for ninety nineteen ninety seven and the in two thousand nine this was repealed and replaced by ACT seven ninety six of two thousand nine which was the life settlements Act and if it is the now obsolete and no longer necessary so we have a we have repealed this there's no rule necessary for the life settlements Act because it is of a quite comprehensive and we're able to provide for enforcement without a rule okay thank you members any questions on this rule. All right seeing none I without objection this rule reviewed and approved thank you thank you. All right item C. five department of corrections. Good morning Sir just introduce yourself for the record you begin. Good morning is Mister members of the committee Solomon graves say secretary of corrections here today to a president a proposal for a new rule for the department of correction governing the transfer of confidential juvenile records for juveniles who were convicted under the state's extended juvenile jurisdiction act of by way of background all why we missed the June first deadline staff began working on this rule back in the summer of twenty twenty one the crafting in and is still draft of for our our review that draft was then distributed in early fall to the Department of Human Services wanted in the same way we work with them on the underlying legislation we wanted to work with them on the development of the rule we went back and forth with DHS throughout the fall while simultaneously working with the designated liaison from the board of corrections this rule was submitted to the board of corrections for their review in January of this year the board of corrections gave their approval in February it was then immediately transmitted to the governor's office received the approval of the governor's office in March to proceed with promulgation at that point we were on track to meet the June first deadline of the statute however the enabling legislation that allows us to promulgate this rule also required the a review of both the house aging use children Legislative and Military Affairs subcommittee along with the Senate you so come Committee. We received review from both those committees will during their joint meeting last month however there calendar and the calendar for a L. C. didn't line up so that pushed us a month off missing the June first deadline. In terms of what this rule does it basically does what the title indicates governed it sets out a process for the department of corrections to request receives and maintain confidential custody of records for. Users who are transferred to our custody under the E. J. J. one thing I want to I want to be clear on as as I complete my comments this does not grant the department access to all juvenile records this only allows us to request records for those individuals who are sentenced as a juvenile under the JJ as they complete that process they have their status hearing the court intern decides that they are not completely rehabilitated and transfers them to the custody of the department of corrections give you an idea of numbers over the last twenty years we've only had ten individuals come into our custody under the JJ with the be happiness answer any questions about our time line or the rule itself. All right members any questions on this rule. Seeing none without objection is reviewed and approved thank you Sir. Thanks as to item C. six the part of Education Division of elementary and secondary education. Good morning to you just with that when you push a button state your name and and position for the record good morning my name is Whitney James I'm a staff attorney with the department of education and I am here regarding the divisions rules governing Arkansas military child school transitions These rules were amended to incorporate the changes made by at ten thirty one of twenty twenty one and following the public comment period we did not make any substantive changes we were prepared to present these roles in April however they were pulled back at the request of a member so that we could add some additional additional language to chapter three paragraph five which states of the Division will cooperate with the Arkansas council for making military children to develop a guidance document to assist parents with the application and provisions of the rules I'm. And the act as well and that language has been added we took the rules back to the state board and got their final approval may the twelfth and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you members any questions on this rule. Seeing none all right without objection this was reviewed and approved thank you thank you I'm also here for the next set of rules on the agenda at these are the Division of higher education's rules governing the star spangled banner Act these rules incorporate herbs are were created for ACT nine fifty eight and twenty twenty one which requires that both the Division of higher education and the Division of elementary and secondary education promulgate rules regarding the act and we attempted to promulgate the rules concurrently with the Division of elementary and secondary education's those were finalized last month I believe and we're a little late on the division of higher education rules the Arkansas. Higher education coordinating board meets quarterly in these roles were given final approval by the board of the earliest quarterly meeting following the public comment period and following that period those substantive changes were made and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right thank you members any questions on this rule. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank you. His run item see a department of health Arkansas state board of nursing. Represented representative all you're recognized Mr Chaykin we please skip over this item or for a few minutes we've got a colleague on her way she stuck on a bridge trying to get here for questions absolutely we'll come back to the item. Eight and that's gonna move us to item nine department of health Arkansas State Medical Board. Good morning you would state your name in that position for the record. Any member in the director of the state medical board Matt Gilmore per Mille. Okay we'll just start with item eighty ACT nine ninety two thousand nineteen this is throughout the entire medical practices act that includes both the statutes and the rules this just changes or removes the words and moral and moral turpitude and also changes regulation to rule. That's on nine a any questions posed. Acting on the objection this road reviewed and approved on nine to be. This is rule thirty six rules governing abortion this the public comment period for all the rules that will be presented today ended on March twenty second the rules that will be presented today received no public comments either verbal or written the board voted to combine rules twenty six and thirty six the will you have before you is the combined role and it is updated with acts five sixty of twenty one ACT five sixty two ACT four ninety eight of twenty one. All right members any questions on your item nine B.. Sam Nunn the objection is reviewed and approved. Nine C. this is rule number thirty eight regarding telemedicine again the public comment period ended on three twenty two no public comments received on this rule it's been updated proactive eleven twelve. Mr chairman I can add a comment or two on this one our this is a rule that as miss Emory said we receive no public comments on we were consistent with the language in the access when we wrote the rule the medical board approved at their attorneys reviewed it and just want to make that clear to committee thank you Sir representative Wardlaw you're recognized I have a motion. That's here and motion to hold this into the August council meeting to further review with the health department I spoke with Mr Gilmore before meeting I don't know that I trust exactly what he said not that I don't trust them but I want to make sure. I wanna make sure it's consistent with what we think it is it before we hear this rule all right members of a motion to hold this rule did you say for the. You are always mean office told the rule to to the August meeting all right we have a motion of second. Second all those in favor say aye. Posed I will hold that rule to August moving down the item nine D.. This is rule number forty two regarding licensure for uniformed servicemembers veterans and spouses again the public comment period ended on March twenty second there were no comments received and this act amends the language according to act one thirty five of twenty twenty twenty one thank you members any questions on this rule. Ninety nine thought objection this rule is reviewed and approved nine ninety has been removed so we're on nine F.. Number thirty four. Rule thirty four is regarding death certificates again the public comment period ended on March twenty second no comments were received and this just updates the language according to ACT six seventy four of twenty one. All right members any questions. Question would push a button. The representative recognized. Thank you Mr chairman of got a question on some of the rules it talks about enforcing the rule and the when I was reading the information earlier said the a funeral home can file a complaint. with the medical board. This what can they do that directly or does the family have to do that no that the funeral home the family member can file a claim against a physician. Students and so they sent in writing what information what is then follow up questions if I can chairman of. After that complaint is made what kind of response would we received back from the funeral would receive back from the medical board the way that the complaint process works is that we receive a complaint a copy of that complaint is sent to the physician or licensed in question they are asked to respond and then that the complaint and the response is submitted to the board the board determines and determines if any action needs to be taken and after that business has been completed the complainant does receive a response saying that either it was taken for information only which means there was no violation or we're moving forward with an investigation or whatever the board has decided today. Is there a way to find out how many complaints have actually been filed. Regarding this bill sure I could find that out for you that's a problem all right thank you Mr chairman right thank you representative members any other questions seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. I or on item ten part of hell state board of optometry. Thank you. Maybe just introduce yourself for the record thank you for. Thank you for. Twenty fourth St work optometry director Matt Gilmore permit health. And we're here requesting your approval of rule changes based on acts of the twenty twenty one legislative session I am. Key amend the board's largest boards current language regarding military personnel licensure and ACT one thirty five of twenty twenty one I am going to remove the two weaver made the term criminally disqualifying offenses ACT seven forty eight of twenty twenty one we are adding language ensuring the licensure of an applicant who meets all licensure requirements and holds a work permit and from. At seven forty six of twenty twenty one adding a waiver process for initial apprenticeship application fee for individuals who meet the criteria ACT seven twenty five twenty twenty one and adding a and background check fee and a and correspondence and jurisprudence course be present two ACT eleven OO one of twenty twenty one. All right members any questions on this rule. Ninety nine without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you. going down to item eleven department of Human Services division of developmental disabilities services. Morning. Good morning. Thank you Sir Clark what DHS. So this first rule this is an amendment to the a Medicaid state plan regarding rates for occupational therapy physical therapy and speech language pathology I know this is an issue that Jo heard about suffered from several of you therapist wanting to see an increase in their rates we did a study as part of our review process and I will recommending a thirty one percent increase or split that over two years to sixteen percent the first year fifteen percent the second year and we're also planning to us as soon the committee approves this we're going to be paying this rate back to a pull one up for service brought in back for April and this year that will require us to do a massive just minutes away from discussion and public health committee about this so we're gonna bring report back public health in August on the implementation of that message us but with that be happy to answer any questions thank you what how did you come of the April one date of being retroactive it was based on when we got the information back from the actuary on the on the three should be. Okay so there's no specific. No really specific reason there's no like cut off of any kind that that that April first corresponds to or well there's that and and I'm sorry I should also add there's also some CMS rules about how far back we can go and pay retroactively and so that limits as well okay thank you appreciate that the clarification members any questions. Seeing on without objection this rules are reviewed and approved and we go to eleven eleven be. R. this item we are redoing our manual for developmental therapy services and these are services that provided to it children who have developmental disabilities or delays it's connected to the services that are available to kids in school under the individuals with disabilities Education Act this is part of the state's obligation of those services this just the one piece that we have as opposed to the rest which is under education us as we're going through the mail just to improve it to make some clarification make it more clear and points we did receive just a couple of comments we successfully addressed all of those and based on understanding all the stakeholders or good with this revision of the rule and that penitentiary questions thank you Mr by members any questions. Seeing none without objection this really reviewed and approved. Right that takes us to item eleven C.. All right this is a somewhat similar deal this is for our first connections program which is again provides those services under IT a part see we have taken several documents and combine them into one to try and simplify and streamline them make them easier understand else brought clarifications we've got quite a few comments on this rule but we worked with all those issues with those commenters and again based on conversations the stakeholders we think everyone is good with the rule as it stands now. Right thank you members any questions on this rule. Seeing none without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you mark. There's a takes is item twelve department of labor licensing division of labor boiler inspection division. Morning when you get settled and just push a button and if you would introduce yourself for the record you can go and begin. Good morning Mr chairman members of the committee I'm Denise Oxley general counsel for the department of labor licensing. Resolution our total for the division of labor correct. Thank you thank you of the boiler of the amendments to the border rules were always resulted prior legislation these were subject to the deadline of June the first of the reason primarily is one of logistics and staffing that they weren't finished by two gene one of. Thank you would you mind pulling your microphone just a little bit closer certainly thank you sorry. The bill or what rules were actually the last of twenty two sets for different boards and commissions that were drafted and we anticipated that they would be the last and like I said it was primarily a question logistics and staffing that they did not get through before now but they the amendments are pretty simple First off they deal with ACT seven twenty five of twenty twenty one to provide an initial fee waiver for certain low income individuals them in the board's rules provide for automatic licensure of military personnel and their spouses of them in the rules to provide for recognition of apprenticeship programs for bill or operator licensing and they amend the division's rule on reciprocity and temporary a provisional licensing to comply with twenty nineteen legislation but I'll be happy to answer any questions all right thank you for that members any questions. Ninety nine without objection this rule is reviewed and approved thank you thank. There's a Texas to item thirteen department of labor licensing division of occupational and professional licensing boards and commissions Arkansas appraiser licensing and certification board. Denise Oxley thank you. Thank you a thank you yes I'm Diana Piasecki on the Director of the Arkansas appraiser licensing and certification board meeting dressing. And to address the fact that we were Mr June one deadline we were on track to be in front of you in may and I held up the board had approved everything we held a public comment without held a public hearing on April the sixth and we were on track for the April fifteenth deadline to be able to have our materials to be L. R. and of course that was the last day of my public comment period and that afternoon I of course received two comments the first was a verbal comment of which we addressed with the respondent in that it was covering something that these rule changes did not address the second however though was a written comment we receive from the appraisal institute and it did address the practical applications of real estate appraisal program the board of we were at the deadline to be in front of you guys in may so the board when I talked with the board they wanted to just pull that section they met on April the fourth I'm sorry may the fourth and voted to hold that section for just a little bit more study to make sure that we stayed within the parameters of our law so we will be back in front of you at a later date to address the practical applications of real estate appraisal and that's the reason that we were behind was because of late comments that we were state. Okay in order we have two things in front of you today the first addresses the appraiser Or rules themselves what we're asking for in these proposed rule changes are revisions to our qualifying and continuing education programs that includes clarification of requirements for asynchronous synchronous and hybrid educational offerings and allows for the remote proctor ring of qualifying education exams we propose amending our military veterans rules by updating terminology and allowing for automatic credentialing for the veterans and their spouses we propose and adding a section to comply with the workforce expansion active twenty twenty one and we propose adding a section to comply with Act seven forty six of seven of that act seven forty six of twenty twenty one. we are also proposing amendments to our background check rules to permanently remove disqualifying offenses and allow the board to waiver disqualification of a potential applicants. With respect to item two on the agenda the A. M. C. program the only thing that we are proposing there are two men are background check rules to remove the permanently disqualifying offenses and allowing the board to weigh the disqualification of potential applicants in without all and be happy to answer any questions. All right members you heard presentation of both rules on thirteen A. and thirteen B. are there any questions. Seeing none without objection both of these rules are reviewed and approved thank you thank you. All right moving along to item fourteen Department of Parks heritage and tourism division of Arkansas heritage. One views would introduce yourself for the record you can begin a good morning I'm Leslie Fisk in Chief of legislative affairs with parks heritage and tourism. Good morning I'm jim Andrews general counsel for Arkansas parks heritage tourism. Thank you. We're here to the department here today seeking approval of new rules for the Arkansas state capitol and historical monument protection act which is ACT one zero zero three of twenty twenty one we have not by the deadline required by act five ninety five for a combination of reasons we have right done research and communicated with other states that have similar programs to this to learn from their implementation of a program in their state we also worked internally to establish guidelines and process that would allow for successful implementation of the act and processes for applications is me we also had a public hearing and we received comments and worked with stakeholders on those comments and incorporated those comments that were received into our rules and guidelines and we anticipate to be completed representing the world's to you today. So the the summary of this act is that provides for the preservation of historical monuments on public property and the state capital area and it limits the removal of these monuments. The Arkansas history commission as a part of the Division of heritage which is a part of the Arkansas department of parks here to jitters on and his recognition as directed to implement the rules guidelines and process to ensure the preservation of these historical monuments. The rules and guidelines presented to you today established for processes in place with the history commission they establish a process for application of a waiver including a standard waiver from the act and a temporary work waiver on an emergency basis. Of the rules also establish guidelines and process on what will be designated as a historical monument. Number three creates a registration process for historical monuments erected after the passage of act one zero zero three and also establishes guidelines for the disposition of historical monuments if any type of waiver is granted. Thank you senator Johnson I figured you might want to chime in. Thank you Mr chairman first of all want things Fishkin and Mister Anders and super desk content of our meal our staff for the work they've done on this it's taking longer than I wanted but I think result is pretty good of I did have one question for our panelists if I could On page sixty three of the summary of the for the rule subcommittee a. It talks about the temporary waiver and it it it brings up the issue the fact that normally the history commission only meets quarterly and I guess my question I'll phrase it this way do you anticipate that the commission will come up with some kind of. process. When a. I dissipate them to be. The kinds of request for waiver specially temporary waivers that come in will be what I would call pro forma it's yes we've got this construction we're having today we don't want to damage the monument so can we get a waiver to move it over here temporary legal or some other accommodation to that and once that policies in place is this something that staff could using the guidelines from the the commission that we face established this is our policy in this type of instance that would not require everything to be on holes in the instance that there might be more than a couple months before the commission could actually meet to grant the waiver in other words. Could a a blanket policy be in place and if anything falls outside that policy would require a meeting in and review by the commission but if it's something that I would hope could become routine in cases like this is there a mechanism that that would be carried out through authority granted by the history commission to staff. We'll ask the. I think a couple questions and they're the first ones yes ma'am released to go. Specifically to the temporary waiver on an emergency basis the rules and guidelines provide that that can be done through a phone call that can be done through an email and that will be a very quick turnaround time you know immediately and there will be a follow up internally afterwards to gather more documentation so if there is if we do do receive word or the history Commission does state are crossed that there's an emergency temporary waiver emergency gauge the situation that can be taken care of quickly also the the law governing the history commission secretary parts here to tourism can call a meeting at any time so that will help with I think as you're talking about the timing of these applications there will not be a wait for the history commission to make quarterly that's our practice that has been in place but the secretary can call a meeting at any time so I guess to paraphrase what you said the staff that can be given the authority and if it's something that is not clearly defined or or outside the a pre approved process that the commission is given then the secretary could say Hey we need to have a short emergency meeting and deal with this matter and Mr entry is not in so at that that sounds good to me and I I really appreciate that and again Mr chairman I wanna thank these folks that were I wish we had this done on time but I think is all in all is well that ends well I think they've done a good job on it and thank you for your work on it thank you Mr chairman I encourage the committee to favorably review the role thank you senator our members any other questions on this rule. Ninety nine without objection this rule is reunify route thank you. Thank you members item fifteen has been pulled removing an item sixteen state board of finance. Morning Mr chairman members of TJ Fowler general counsel for the Arkansas treasurer Debbie Rogers department of finance and administration. Go ahead all right there are two items on the agenda I'm actually gonna take them an ops order if that's alright with the with the members the second item which is to say the full investment policy for the state treasury actually encompasses all the items it'll be dealt with in state treasury money management trust so if you review and approve that item then you're essentially reviewing and approving all the changes and in what is item at a This rule change by the state board of finance contains three broad categories of changes to the rules the first is simply stylistic changes to comport with the upcoming code of Arkansas rule style guide the second the one I suspect you'll be most interested in or the substantive changes to the treasury's permissible investments under modern portfolio theory and the third is a review provision that requires the state board of finance to holistically review this rule so that at least annually the state board of finance believe that the substantive rule changes were needed to shift towards what is considered a modern portfolio approach for treasury investments that approach permits put a promotes portfolio diversification and a holistic view of portfolio security rather than focusing on a single asset class in isolation those substantive changes following the six categories first it removes duration requirements for commercial paper as long as they're rated investment grade by two nationally recognized statistical rating organizations the rationale for that is that commercial papers already duration limited by its nature I don't believe there's any commercial paper offering in the current market place going to under seventy days and is this body may recall previous state board of financial changes already risk significantly restricted the quality ratings on commercial paper and those will remain in effect so so those strict quality rating still apply. The second substantive change increases the permissible duration for corporate bonds to ten years as long as they are rated investment grade by at least two and our SROs and that longer a longer duration bond would still impact the total portfolio maturity limit so check on duration remains that simply shifted to the whole portfolios of clothes to persecute to check. Third it permits the purchase of general obligation bonds of cities counties municipalities and other subdivisions as long as they hold investment grade rating this is always been permitted in statute is now being clarified is permissible in the rules as well I think there's some hope among the treasury and among the state board of finance this will allow the treasure to invest in Arkansas communities where appropriate. The fourth change removes ambiguity around investment pools made up of permissible assets the treasury has always done this they it's always been the position that if a single security is permitted then they can also invest in a pool of the securities this actually this change actually came out of some discussions with legislative audit they just thought it was best to be clarified that made express the rule. This change is is actually three smaller changes at all deal with the duration of the total portfolio limit the first the total portfolio maturity limit is going to be measured as a weighted average maturity as opposed to straight average maturity. Second it exempts treasuries and agencies from the ten year per individual asset limit thought being that treasuries and agencies or sausage such a secure asset class that they didn't need that restriction and the third changes extending CMO's and mortgage backed securities to a fifteen year average life but again this would still impact the total portfolio limits so check remains there and the final substantive change of the state board of finance has removed the CD rates being set and rule for the for the state for the treasury certificate of deposit investment program that's a bit of a misnomer essentially this just mirrors the change that that has already been made about five years ago for C. rate set for treasury investments the treasury certificate of deposit investor program is actually a program that has never been used during my tenure in the last seven years and and I believe was a. You can speak twenty was last year's it was last used in twenty eighteen and twenty ten essentially it gives the state board of finance authority to pull money out of the treasury and invested directly as a state board of finance and certificates of deposit and this just allows them flexibility when when those rates were set in rule to the APA process those rates like so vote for behind the market by the time it went through the APA processes review that the rates were at that point your role of and we had to start over and had a marketable cities those are all the substantive changes I'm happy to answer any questions anyone might have cochair Hammer you're recognized thank you could you tell me these proposed changes are they on the basis of past investment experience of the treasury or what is driving the request to modernize would be my term I would use. That's a good question so this actually started back in twenty twenty there was a proposed rule changes very similar to this although it didn't have quite as many facets it didn't have the stylistic changes because the kind of Arkansas rules wasn't thinking that time that rule made it through the review process but then as we were going to present it here the Arkansas bankers association had some concerns because I hadn't had a chance to look at so we pulled the rule we met with the Arkansas bankers association tweak some things and and brought this rule backs essentially this rule is two years old from its genesis of the genesis really began because we had so much market fluctuation over the last two years it was really hard for our investment department to find corporate bonds commercial paper that was effective I obviously market conditions are very different this week than they were last week but it's still it basically just gives more I would say more errors in the quiver of the treasury investment department to do things as this volatile market develops okay let me let me let more specific in the past few years or businessman vests for practices that have been done by the treasury that has actually producing very high yields but maybe a little more research and some people would have cared to at a six bows to so does the proposed rule the way it's presented allow for that to happen or by you know incorporation new investment practices that may be would have been prohibited before or does this still provide some safeguards against what was at that time may be considered questionable risky at best. I understand your question now I believe those concerns revolved around commercial paper primarily with also some Simone mortgage backs and CERN's and as I said earlier that does this body approved rule changes at that time that up the credit ratings for commercial paper specifically in corporate debt that those limitations are still in place so only five percent of the total portfolio can be and second tier corrupt corporate debt and I believe only fifteen percent of the entire portfolio can be incorporate that period so yes those concerns the the fixes for those concerns remain in place even with this rule set okay thank you. All right thank you Senator however and other Questions were in C. forty one representative right you're recognized yes thank you Mr chairman Sir let me ask you this in a situation where you sold a stock or a bond that you felt like it was fiction the fallout would this make it a lot easier for you to make that adjustment. But. I think the answer to that is so the treasury is not permitted to invest in equities so we we can never purchase a stock I'm getting feedback I apologize the As far as getting out of the bond the treasury's goal and the state board of finances rules. Request we're not trading right we're not we're not buying to sell or buying to take a position and hold it now that being said if there was a position that because of some crazy market fluctuation was going to be adverse to the state yes of course we can divest from that position if need be and nothing in these changes make it easier harder to do that to purchase or to sell does that answer your question. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Thank you senator Ron. Our members any other questions so that that testimony really covers both of your rules would you say yes Sir so the state treasury money management rules which are actually item a in the agenda that deals with a short term only portfolio that's essentially a local government investment pool the rule changes there are identical to these where they apply obviously the the long term duration items don't appear there because there is no long term investing in that corner thank you for that clarification members any questions on either of these two rules. Icing on without objection will consider both of these rules reviewed and approved thank you members that takes us back up to the item that we skipped earlier item number eight. Which of the department of health Arkansas state board of nursing. I'll be on page seventeen of your packet members. The. Back in one part of it okay. Citat for director of the board of nursing a knee injury director of the state medical board. Okay the rules that we're presenting here today are based on ACT four twelve of twenty twenty one of their our method of implementing that act we had the public comment that enter any included March fourteenth we had some public comments received most of more in support of the proposed rules if you had to do with verbiage that week cleaned up we did not make the June first deadline because we had some changes that were requested by the public health committee those changes were made and approved by public health on June first. And the chapter has outlines the purpose and authority of the committee the general matters of how the committee functions qualifications for full independent practice and outlines the fees charged. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Representive great you're recognized thank you thank you for holding this. So that I can get down here and a couple things started I have a lot of questions but one the first ones I've got and. Reapplying like if someone were denied revoked suspended I don't see anywhere in here like a length of time when they would be allowed to reapply or if they will be allowed to reapply. I don't recall anything. Related to that. I mean there's nothing that stops them for immediately re applying that would have to address the deficiencies that were outlined by the committee okay so you don't think we need to add anything to it to address the time frame. I mean I think I'm fine if you don't want to I disposition and one clarify yeah I mean it I think the biggest reason for and I'll be the number of hours so you have to get the number of hours. Or if you don't qualify okay and that brings me I think to as I was fine tuning it looking through it and on the rules under the criteria. A qualifications for full independent practice it looks like you struck out a bunch of language on eighty six but you've got submission on number five submission of a notarized affidavit attesting to the number of clinical practice hours. Meet the intent of the law with the six thousand hours of collaborative practice will the reason we struck out the the red this redline is due to the concerns of the public health committee and I believe that we were treating out of state individuals different than in state individual so we decided to treat them all the same by doing the affidavit of practice hours with the nurse signing affidavit of practice hours that gives the committee the authority if they're found to have falsified that document the thirty to take action and pull the certificate of prescriptive authority for independent practice and then it also gives the board the authority and ability to take action against the license for falsification of documentation so does the board planned then to follow up with whatever physician is listed on that affidavit to verify that those hours are correct. Well I in reality a lot of these individuals will have multiple physicians some position still won't be in practice and so it'll be almost impossible to verify every single hour that they submit okay I'm not cool with that at all and that was not the intent of what we were trying to do what we are trying to do is that the collaborating physician or physicians could attest if there's five they can all attest to a thousand hours separately But that's all for now we'll come back and get thank you I'm sure there are others thank you. Thank you represent great culture Hammer you had questions. Thank you Mr I'm working up a recollection of all the meetings but with regards to the first issue about reapplying period I think that was intentionally left unaddressed just in the event that the somebody submitted something and maybe the board refused it on the basis of something being absent that it would allow them to be able to come back as soon as possible and reapply given the fact that honestly this is a new adventure and if there was if there was latitude for them to come back as quickly as they could gather what the board may have felt was missing do you recall any of that conversations that aligned with the thing you remember I don't recall the conversation but I'm an agreement that you know you want them to come back that create of correct their deficiencies okay and with regard to the in ten of the number of hours the the driving goal and driving purpose was to substantiate specifically was somebody out of state that there would be verification that would substantiate that they had the number of hours that were were intended. Is is that accurate. From out of state to talking let's just separated and talk about the ones that were out of state. Okay the the way the law is written the only individuals that I can apply for independent practice from out of state of those that have practice under a collaborative practice agreement in that state correct so. So what we want is to make sure that they have practiced the required number of hours out of state and there's only one of two ways to get there one is to contact the physicians under which they serve and get supporting documentation or provide the affidavit in the event that position is no longer practicing deceased or whatever the case may be they would not be prohibited from submitting both would they the wait is currently read let's just say they can substantiate five thousand hours to physicians that are still available to document the other flowers thousand maybe is covered by a physician who is no longer and the and the affidavit could substitute for that is that is that the way the rule would be applied or is that a fair interpretation of the rule really doesn't require the documentation from the physician. Any longer okay. Did the language originally yes it did okay and so to address that when the concerns were expressed in the various committee meetings the substitute that was the affidavit and who presented that idea D. was at any one particular entities impacted by this or just came out of the committee that that was submitted I recall it came out of the committee okay and that would be a way of applying it across the board equally among all applicants and who also on the committee discipline wise who who makes up the committee. The witch Committee APR and the the out there for physicians on the full and the practice committee and for a parents what's the vote to go this way unanimous on the board. One dissenting I believe. You know if there was a physician or a physician but three the other physicians were okay with that yes that were at the meeting that were at the meeting one position was absent okay but okay thank you. Thank you senator Senator Irvin you're recognized. So I go back to the intent of the of the law that we passed and it's very very clear on page two under lines fourteen through sixteen that there has to be required to proof of successful completion of six thousand two hundred forty hours of practice under a collaborative practice agreement with a physician. And it looks to me that you've removed. That from your rule. And that's not consistent with the lank the legislation in the law that was passed by this body. And so it seems to me that you responded to the comment found on page nineteen. Where they do not agree with the requirement of having an affidavit from the collaborating physician or attesting that the AP and has practiced a minimum of six thousand two hundred forty hours under a collaborative practice agreement the A. N. P. affirms that the education the APN receives that clinically and academically prepares the APN to practice in a past internalization that's not what the law is the law does not recognize the educational clinical hours or the academic hours as part of that six thousand two hundred forty eight hours it is very clearly written. And so you're rule does not account for that and doesn't follow the intent of the legislation from my perspective if you have to have as the law states you have to have proof of evidence from a collaborating physician of those hours. And so that would require an affidavit from a collaborative physician. That's what the law says I don't I mean yeah I understand opinions but we have to go based on the law agreed the changes were not made based on the public comment okay we originally had that in there and left it in even with the public comment the changes were based on the Comments made at public health committee from that was legislative slate of public health committee yes yes what I understand comments at a public health committee but that's very different from us taking a vote on legislation. Again that's an opinion from that I mean I understand that but it has to follow the law. If it doesn't follow the law then then the rule should not go forwards. It doesn't what we do in the interim and public health committees or education committees is. Is not we can't change the law within those interim committee meetings. Correct that's correct. Representative Dotson you're recognized thank you Mr chair I I've been following this long here and reading that particular. Line in the law on page two of the the thing line fourteen were says proof of successful completion of six thousand two hundred forty hours I how how do you get to the place where. And it affidavit attesting is proof of that I mean that I understand kind of what you're trying to do or what's being attempted to do to make an allowance and maybe in an emergency situation of physician is dead and no longer in practice and can't be found there there might be some sort of a and it testing affidavit or something like that but that even isn't that's not even allowable within the statute itself was written so I don't know how you can move forward with this as written right now or how we can move forward with approving something like this as written with that word proof of successful completion in their. We found proof of successful hours very difficult to define and that's what you saw in the redline version a multitude of of things because. Some positions no longer exists the practice no longer exist as we were just going with other items but as I said the joint public health committee did not want that in there. I understand that there are there are some that don't want it in there but I'm you're still compliance with the statute itself and and I mean I I can't support it with that that line being in there because it's not actually proof. Thank you. Cochair Hammer. Thank you Mr. Thank you upon the subject first of all who was it that you said did not want that in there was that the the board that you they came up with the rules or who was at the joint public health committee the joint public health committee did legislators okay did not want what in their number the redline version in their. They had two concerns when we took at the public health was the letters of recommendation and number six that's redlined out AMD. Okay and. Your response to that was what to take that out and put in the affidavit. Okay and that came out of the Legislative Joint came out of a legislative committee recommendation yes. Senator Hammer I think Mr for Mr Emery discussed stakeholders and got some of the feedback from the Committee meeting and come up with this and that was the best option I could come up with the time okay and then with regards to the definition of proof what what what constitutes the definition of proof. I think that's open to interpretation. So it's left greater silent. Yes I would would you agree with that yes okay so let me let greater silent the determination that has been made is that proof is sufficient to an affidavit provided by the nurse is that in my connecting the dots correctly yes okay. Let's just say that up take it into people that live within Arkansas okay what if you have a nurse who applies in state that no longer has a physician that they can verify maybe go back twenty years that they they had a house that handled in state now The difference than out of state I you can get something from somebody that doesn't exist anymore and that runs them into an issue of not being able to show proof of their hours okay so what we would subsequently be doing is throwing out we if we don't do the role we thrown out everybody. Who cannot substantiate with a by a living person's affidavit that they actually had a collaborative agreement to at the time which they say they were practicing this act the correct yes the in state or someone a little bit easier because the collaborative practice agreements on file with the board of nursing so we can go back and look at every collaborative practice agreement an individual's hat so we would have that to back up in the in state people there's no way to do that without a state okay and and just for the purpose of fairness all the way around what a responsible APR inmate is too much of a judgment call for you to answer but we're responsible APR and have some sort of documentation that they would keep that would show that they had practiced under a collaborative agreement at some time but they still have to substantiate those hours I mean just because they just because they hold up and say back in nineteen ninety four I had a collaborative agreement the verification of those hours is still going to have to be done by somebody if that position is dead we're down to no choice at all so we're about to eliminate a large potentially we don't know how many is really we really don't I mean we're talking about B. two or two hundred we're going to eliminate them from the equation if that practicing physician that they had a clever agreement with is deceased and they can't verify those hours correct so this is a practical solution around what might be a problem have not be is that there yes that's correct thank you. Thank you senator representative gray you're recognized thank you Mr chair and I know I filed the bill in twenty nineteen that the essentially did they as it had more hours and we just didn't go anywhere with it and I was supportive of it in the legislature so I just want to throw that out there that I do want this to go through and up but I wanted to match the intent of the law and I was unable to attend public health meeting in Fort Smith this month it was a week ago but this just as a person who supports this does not meet the intent of the law and so I think I would like to give you the opportunity to pull it down before I make a motion that we hold it based on either it doesn't meet the intent of the law it doesn't actually meet the law or just because I can because it's got a fee in it there are lots of reasons why I can hold it but I would prefer that you pull it down is that something you would be willing to date absolutely thank you. All right. You can even pull that roll down bring it. This whenever will bring it back all right thank you. Amber's any other questions on this one since it's pull down I don't guess there's any. that's going to take us to bear with me just as. I move that take this item D. this item on the agenda will include updates by the various agencies who have not completed their rulemaking by the June first deadline and whose rules are not on the agenda for approval. As I mentioned earlier Arkansas Code amended by act five ninety five of twenty twenty one provides that if an agency determines that a newly enacted law from the twenty twenty one regular session requires new or amended rules or does not provide a different date those new or amended rules work to have been filed by the with the Secretary of State on or before June first of twenty twenty two again the statute further requires the executive head of the agency or his or her designees to appear before the administrative role subcommittee to explain why the agency has been one unable to comply with a deadline to provide an update on the status of the rule making three describe the steps being taken by the agency to address its failure to comply with a deadline and finally for to provide an anticipated date for when the final version of the rules will be filed with the Secretary of State. These agencies will have to appear on a monthly basis until the final rules are filed with the secretary of state's office. Pursuant to the statute enacted the chairs have requested those agencies to appear here today but we also requested that each agency provide the subcommittee a written summary detailing those out of items I just outlined those summaries are in your packet for your review and if there is an agency from which you would wish to here today we can ask agency to come to the table and just a reminder some of these rules may already be in the process they just are not ready for approval however because they have not yet been filed with the Secretary of State we have to follow the statute. So give me a minute to take a look at that. I does anyone wish to hear from any of the agencies listed under item D. on your agenda you have represented Wardlaw you're recognized. I think I'd like to hear from the department of agriculture please. All right. One jump to state your name and title for the record get started yes Sir west toward the center around which for Arkansas. Wait Hodges legal counsel for the department of agriculture. Thank you Mr. Can you just go through what those rules aren't ready for us so we can hear that. Hello there delay in an area yes Sir I'll the I'll start with a general overview and both myself and Mr Hodge will try to answer any more specific Requirements about the the rule itself but I think is most members remember during the legislative session there was a a change to the the make up of the State Plant Board which was ultimately found by the Supreme court to be unconstitutional so that the wait a little bit of action on implementing the industry here parole which is which is why we're on the agenda today so got the board situated and then just very recently circuit court found the board to be unconstitutional again so we're working through a number one working through some legal issues on how what that means for for the board and how we move forward having conversations with the attorney general's office on that itself but second Morse more substantively to the to the rule itself industrial hemp rule we went through the process the Mr procedures process follow that have the meetings of the board when it could meet your head open for public comment didn't didn't get a whole lot of feedback but once once admitted to the public comment period we or her from a couple people and just in full transparency in working with them decided to hold out and and work on revisions to the rule so kind of two factors of just making sure we're consistent with the rule to to meet the needs of industry in the questions that been race and then second just working through the issues of the the plant board itself. Mr do have follow up. So when when do you as a secretary think will have a board of agriculture that's functional. For the State Plant Board as it currently exists I think or I hesitate to say too much on it now but or or current interpretation from the from the order of the circuit court is that the makeup of the board even though it's removed nine members since the nineteen member board is removed nine members we still have a ten member board that could meet other some questions on whether industry and others would would be very happy about that but I think it has as it currently exist the board or interpretations that could move for there's. Again ongoing discussion with the attorney general's office on if the order is appealed and you know when it would be is legally sufficient for the board to meet again to move for with other actions. Okay thank you. I think your representative John thank you for coming down. Members are there any others representative Dotson. Yes the item D. ten. transformation church services all right we get someone come down for a department of transformation shared services. Which state your name for the record and then that we can begin. Metrostudy Fluegel council. thank you just as far as white where these are at looks like some of the the reasons you have in your letter says. Just unable to meet the deadline to the time required to draft rules. my company forms why is that taking so long since he's been statutes for over a year. So the I think you're referring to the divisive concepts rule but I'll talk about yeah that's the first one yeah yeah yeah yeah so we developed a draft initially we had a lot of back and forth on it as far as what to include in their and so that took a little bit of time when we finally got the rule developed it was decided that we needed to also develop a form to go with it and make sure we got that approval so we did that as well but in in all honesty we worked on it we had a draft in January eight B. had to pull it down and and re work it and that just took us a little bit of time but No excuse we should have got it done and it's out there for public comment starting tomorrow and it will be public hearing is June twenty ninth okay. And then on the on the DB a minimum standards and criteria role what happened there is it's a hundred ninety two page rule and it hasn't been updated in more than a decade and so when we got in there to just do the legislative changes that came through we realize that it made more sense to do a comprehensive overhaul to try to update it for everything because it'd been a while since it'd been reworked and so going through those hundred ninety two pages there's been a. A either a formatting change or or medical change or an updating change on almost every line of those hundred ninety two pages and that's what's taken awhile on that but we have the draft ready we will get it to the governor's office this week and we hope to get it in the public comment period before the month ends so are you working as you're going through that dramatic overhaul with the new style guide and everything to try to make sure that it seamlessly flows into the new system correct correct what what is happened is it hasn't been opened up and decades so it's got some old formatting in it it needed to account for some new laws that have been in place that for whatever reason it just wasn't updated to reflect and so we're trying to do a comprehensive clean up to get it ready for that and like I said it's a hundred ninety two pages it overlaps with a few other agencies and universities and and things like that so we want to make sure we worked with them and credit to my staff they've worked really hard on that and it's just a little bit behind and that's going out for public comment we hope to have it out for public comment by the end of this month we've got it drafted we need to get it to the governor's office we will this week I just haven't had a chance to do a full comprehensive review on it and then we'll get it out the door. He represented Wardlaw you're recognized. Mr at different agency Arkansas Department labor licensing our thank you for coming down certificate department of labor licensing. You Oxley general counsel. Thank you Mr So reading through these the board of electrics and errors the home inspector board contractors license board all these different ones you have reasonings there why you're not ready one of the reasons in there is very disturbing to me and it says that you cannot get a quorum for these meetings. are we keep in attendance because it come to my attention earlier today it's kind of weird that this plays out but DHS is now keep in attendance of all the boards that govern the different effects of DHS are you guys keep in attendance to these to make sure these members are being due diligence and their duties and participating yes Sir and we are following and I think we have a legislative report due August first on the past two years of attendance of attendance at attendance report on our board membership so yes we are keeping that and I think the response the problem is with special meetings. it it's getting a quorum for specially called meeting Mr brings up my follow up sure glad you brought that because it said in one of these and you guys don't meet monthly career for to meet these deadlines is is almost impossible because of those non monthly meetings if you say that in here so if you know you have legislation you know you have rules do. How come you can't get that stuff on a early agenda to make sure that it's achieved without the special meetings. That's that's a good question and that is that is. Something that we need to address clearly in a better more timely manner so one thing we've done as a legislature we've been studying occupational licensing which is what these are and we've been trying to make it easier to get people into these occupations to make sure that our citizens have access to electricity as plumbers and elect and so on. I just think it's very important that you send the message back to these folks that they need to go to work then you get these things done they to get a doctor to native do it on the deadlines that are set forth yes Sir thank you Mr thank you representative Wardlaw representative Springer you're recognized. Good morning thank you Mr I would just like to follow up to what's representative Wardlaw this state it a number of these items that are issued in. D. one two three thirteen and they're not even signed by the persons I guess that have submitted the reasons so I brought this up yesterday they're not signed the reasons for why there's a delay or not yeah a number of them don't have signatures on. So I don't know if there's a commitment to follow up what. Represent for you Mister chair not for could you repeat that but I was dealing with another issue would you mind repeating that question for me okay so I guess my question is under D. one through ten there I guess that there are reasons are exhibits here that have been provided to us for reasons why certain things seven taking place in representa Wardlaw just mention that and I just notice at the going through all these reading them. There are not there no signatures from these departments as to what they submitted they don't sign off on that I think this idea exception I would say. That there are no signatures the right the I understand your question that's that's why the chair's asked members of or the folks are all those letters to be here to bill to address those questions our all right well I would think if they submit something that they should sign off on yes ma'am I understand thank you representative Beatty you're recognized the Department they it okay thank you for coming down ma'am we Gates department education. When you would please just and introduce yourself for the record and we'll get started. Court a solace for chief legal counsel department education status meant that the commissioner department education thank you of my of my question is on the succeed scholarship program and it's noted in in your report that a draft of the rule that there was a draft rule but it was held pending the application process my question is what does the application process have to do with the written language of the acts of this body passed. So one of the things that was in the statute was that if the number of applications exceeded the amount of scholarships available that we could do a random lottery instead of a first come first serve as it's been the process as we wrote the rules we tried to incorporate what that lottery process would look like and as more questions kept rising and we kept getting closer to the application deadline we felt that it it wouldn't be appropriate to put something out there in the middle of the application cycle that could affect those applicants and so we felt it better to wait to go ahead and complete the application process we in fact did not exceed the number of available scholarships and so we didn't even have to touch the the lottery process but we have that now drafted and will have it in place before the next application cycle of I guess the first question what date was that draft prepared. Initially it was prepared in December of twenty one but again it hasn't been released passed internal review and discussion so you you drafted in December of twenty one and you still haven't re release that rule. Correct can you can you tell me a word there I'm so I'm sorry Mister chair of follow up questions. What were the total number of applications during the application process do you have that I do if you'll give me just a second to look that up. We received two hundred and eighty eight new applications and what was the total available. Sorry I'm scrolling through here. Two hundred and ninety nine. So we could pass the rule and not had to deal with the lottery issue. Yes we could have and again hindsight is twenty twenty and that we just didn't want to put ourselves in the situation of having a rule going out without sufficient notice to the public who would be affected by that rule right in the middle of the application process. Right no further questions. Thank you representative Beatty representative Springer you're recognized. Thank you Mr I just wanted to make the record reflect that out of the eleven reports that were submitted only three of the eleven or signed by the person said submit them thank you thank you. Members any other questions for the Department education. Senate thank you for coming down thank you members any other questions for any of these agencies reports. We I need to get the Department of Transformation church services back up for a second leave there's an item on there that we need to take care of. All right mistrust you have at the bottom of your letter that you reviewed at two eighty eight of twenty twenty one and determine rules not required or necessary you also are asking to remove at four eighty eight from the at five eighty five reporting did you want to give the legislation on that. Sure you know when my staff initially put together the letter of a acts that might require rules they they did that and I signed off on the letter when we recently looked at it again in the last couple months we realized that that act only changed DFA to TSS in the statute and that's already reflected in our rules so there was no need for a rule change so you're asking for that to be excluded going forward yes members can we get a motion that we have a motion to exclude I have a second that's it to exclude this from the from the list of five ACT five eighty five All those of favour say aye. Lows thank you Sir come back down our members any other questions for any of these other agencies. I had a note here that. Someone wanted to speak to a representative from you M. S. but I guess that's been pulled down we're moving along to item E. these back to the first second those summers will be filed. I didn't see representative Vaught apologized that's okay we have an insurance department yes sorry back that up insurance department Monday. We're thrilled Arkansas insurance department. Read. Thermos thank thank you Mr chairman do you have an emergency rule that has anything to do with this yes it usually six share this rule regulates or PM licensure act in axe six sixty five twenty twenty one we were required to file a rule to enforce ACT six sixty five twenty twenty one or before January first of this year and it's not like we didn't try we did a start promulgation of rule one eighteen of last fall in twenty twenty one it had a public hearing actually in December of last year we were unable to get consensus is on PBM reporting data from the health plans and PBMs from other stakeholders they simply couldn't agree to language related to resign and spread pricing data reports in so we were unable to complete finalizes rule before the January the first day so what we did do recently is we re file this rule is an emergency rule as it and as a permanent rule so we have a public hearing scheduled for July seventeenth of this month to go over this again. Thank you Mr any other questions members all right thank you for coming down members that's all the questions we have on these particular agency so the summers will be filed that takes us to item E. and this finalized on the agenda will be the June monthly written updates percent ACT five ninety five of twenty twenty one these updates are from the agencies regarding the status of their rulemaking implementing it twenty twenty one legislation and are in your packets of these updates are from those agencies who have a later deadline for their rules then the June first deadline so they have more time. Hours are there any questions on these. All right well with no objection will file the June a monthly written reports and seeing no other business thank you for your time we are adjourned.