ALC-Administrative Rules

Uh, to the members, the audience, I want you to know that if you intend to speak for or against anything on the agenda today. Hey members, if I could get you calm for a second. To the audience, I want to remind you that if you want to speak for or against an item. That's on the agenda today. There are sign up sheets right there at the table in front of me, not the immediate table, but the one behind the rail. You'll need to sign up on those sheets. We're going to take them up in just a couple of minutes when we take them up, uh, there will not be another opportunity to sign up to speak. We've already got one sheet that has about 8 people on it, but I just want to make sure the public knows you can sign up. We're gonna start here in just a minute once I talk to the coach here in a second. All right, members, we're on a call to order the administrative rules subcommittee, uh, this afternoon, just want to remind those again that wish to comment on a rule to go ahead and sign the sheet. Be sure you specify the role of which you wish to comment, and we'll take up the sign-up sheets momentarily. Uh, members go ahead and log into your station if you haven't already done so, uh, at this point we'll hear the reports from the executive subcommittee concerning emergency rules. have any All right, we don't have any, so that's a good thing, uh, so we have no reports for this month from the executive sub or ALC subcommittees concerning review. Uh, next, if you'll look at um Adam Uh, reports on administrative directives pursuant to Act 1258-15, uh, quarterly ending September 30th, uh, turning to item D on your agenda. We have the quarterly reports on administrative directives. So if we can get the chair, uh, if you'll come, uh, from the Department of Corrections to the table, please. And good afternoon if you will, please name and title, uh, for the record. Good afternoon. Uh, my name's Tony Rowell. I'm chief legal counsel with the Department of Corrections. Um, you have two reports in front of you. Um, the first of which is for the division of Correction, division of Community Correction, and then secretarial directives. There was only one new secretarial directive promulgated during the last quarter. It has to do with employment and the only change was that we added a provision that regards to, um, PRA compliance and just making sure that we are asking and conducting, you know, reasonable due diligence on new employees and a promotion regarding any allegations of Priya in their past. Um, that was necessary to get compliant with the prison Rape Elimination Act, which is what we're in the middle of doing as a department. And that's all on that one. Are there any questions on that one? Any questions from members? All right, without any questions and objection, this report will be filed in post prison transfer board post any new directives issued during the last quarter. OK. Any questions from members? All right, we'll take that and that'll be it. And I think that's it, isn't it? Yes, sir. Thank you. Have a great afternoon. All right, then, moving on, uh, we're gonna turn to agenda agency rules for the month and if we could please first of all, we have the Department of Commerce and Arkansas Economy Development Commission please to the table. Well Jake, that'll be you and company. If y'all would please, um, Name and title for the record and then y'all recognize to proceed, and we're on page one. It's gonna be the digital production or digital product and motion picture industry development. Jake Quinley, director of Legislative affairs for the Department of Commerce. Flynn O'Neill, executive director, AEDC. Christopher Crane, Arkansas Film commissioner to proceed, please. Thank you, members. For you is the amended digital product and motion picture Industry Development Act of 2009. This amended rule reflects changes in the incentive program that were authorized by Act 517 of 2023. The amendments focus on 3 substantive changes, which are found on pages 2 and 6 through 8 in the flag mark up, you should each have in front of you. But broadly, the three changes are an increase in the base incentive rate from 20 to 25% for qualified expenditures, an additional 5%. incentive on expenditures for qualified productions or post-production companies who hire below the line employees or pay qualified costs to a person or business in a tier 3 or 4 county, and an additional 5% incentive for a production company who produces a multi-project production in the state. Public comment period for this rule closed on September 1st. Hearing was held on August 29th. No members of the public attended and no comments were received on the rule. All right, members, any, uh, questions from members? And without objection, this rule will be reviewed and approved. Thank y'all. All right. Next up on the agenda is, uh, Department of Commerce, Rule 118 Pharmacy Benefit Managers regulation. Point of clarification, this is not to be confused with one that's had a lot of controversy or talk about it. So just please keep that in mind and also members, uh, as chair wants to go ahead and acknowledge, uh, didn't do it at the beginning, but I'm acknowledging it now that the chair does see a quorum. All right, with that, if y'all would please name and title for the record and you can proceed. Alan McLean, Arkansas Insurance commissioner. Booth ran general counsel at Arkansasur department. Jake Winley, director of legislative affairs for the Department of Commerce. All right, if you all would please proceed. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. This is, uh, Rule 118. This does not have anything to do with pharmacy reimbursement or dispensing costs or any of that, uh, the amendments we are making to Rule 118 pertain to implementing 2023 Arkansas State Legislative amendments to the PBM Licensure Act, uh, primarily to change our rule to make sure that that conforms to 2023 legislation by this body that applies our PBM rules to health plans that are issued outside the state of Arkansas, but who ensure residents living in the state. Uh, many of the amendments that members are looking at, um, appear to be significant, but they are grammatical and cosmetic and restructure the rule for better organization, um, uh, other provisions relate to our jurisdiction over Medicare Advantage plans with PBMs as well as, um, removing trade practice violation caps for penalties. We've had to, uh, uh, Uh, I think we had to pull this down to correct technical corrections, uh, not all of our proposed amendments were adopted, as you will see from our public comments, uh, summary, but essentially what this rule does is simply and only make changes to make Rule 118 conform to the PBM licensure Act changes that this body enacted in 2023. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Any questions from members? All right then, without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up, uh, department of correction. Division of Correction. We're on page 9 members. Good afternoon again. Name tile for the record, please. Tony chief legal counsel, Department of Corrections. So what you have in front of you is an update to the administrative rule on the work study release program, um, just a little bit of background, um, what this is primarily, primarily redirected towards is the work release program, which is a program we have in which inmates are able to work in the community for qualified employers. Um, they live, they spend their evenings at a minimum security facility and, um, they're able to earn wages, which we distribute to pay fines, fees, court costs, um, you know it goes to their dependents, um, and it is a revenue producer for the department because they're able to charge a small amount of rent for their cost of care. What this rule does is expands eligibility for this program. The big way that it expands eligibility is by saying that instead of being within 42 months of their parole eligibility date, they can be within 48 months. We have a scenario in which we have a couple programs where that are competing for the same inmates. We have work release, we have re-entry, and we have, um, our 309 program. So what this does is expands that work release pool a little bit, and, um, allows us to maybe get some more individuals off of that county jail backup. And I'll take any questions. All I can think of is the song I hear you knocking, but you can't come in. I'm sorry. If that was a controversial bill, you did a good timing of presenting it, but I don't think it is. So any questions from members? And without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Department of Education. And we're on page 12, very beginning. Tier quality rating improvement system members. And good afternoon if you would, and we have asked them to knock off the construction for a minute, members, but in the meantime, go ahead, name and title for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee, my name is Daniel Schultz, um, interim chief legal counsel for the Department of Education. Do me a favor, pull the mic through a little closer until we get there. Thank you. Yes sir, um. First rule we have is the Beginnings rule. This is an amendment which implements provisions of the Larnes Act that transferred the Office of Early Childhood from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Education. The rule governs the better beginnings writing system which is designed or which designates the quality of early children and early educational programs that choose to participate. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from members? All right. See, no questions with objection, this rule is going to be reviewed and approved. Next. Our next rule is the, uh, career ready pathways to a diploma rule. This is a new, uh, rule which implements provisions of the Les Act. Um, that require all public high schools to offer a career ready pathway to a high school diploma. This ensures that high school students have the opportunity to take a sequence of courses and activities that prepare the student for a high wage, high growth career field, uh, the, the program will also provide an opportunity for a certificate or a license in a high. high wage, high growth career field. Yeah, answering questions from members. Let's see, go ahead, uh, Senator Irving. Thank you. I'm right here. um, do you know if the East program is a part of, uh, the Career-ready pathway, um, to be able to be utilized for, for this program. I apologize, Senator, I don't know that, uh, off the top of my head. I'd be happy to find out for you. If you don't mind, I'd, I'd really like to look into that. I'd, I'd like for the department to look into making sure that the East program is, um, Able to, uh, meet these types of, um, Career ready pathway, curriculum or whatever you wanna call it, but, um, I, I just want to make sure that the department is, is looking into that and, and making sure that, that they are incorporated in any, any career. Ready type, uh, programs, I'll be happy to pass that and I know this language will allow, uh, the program, the opportunities to be developed over time and improved upon yeah, add that one to the list. Thank you. Representative, uh, Scott. Richardson, yes, sorry, no, that's fine. Thank you. I just wanna make sure it's me, um, because we do still have representative Scott for a little bit longer. Yeah. So, um, yeah, thank you for being here. Hey, I, uh, understand that, uh, this rule changes was also supposed to incorporate uh portions of Act 242, which included the establishment of a group of individuals to make recommendations for, um, cross matching curriculum, uh, from standard. classes to, um, the career-ready development classes so that you could use those in substitution for establishing the um credits necessary for graduation, uh, but I, looking through the rules, I didn't see, uh, those pieces or elements in that. So I'm a little curious, we're in those rules are going to be produced, um, if, if they are going to be produced anytime soon or if they're supposed to be incorporated in this. Thank you, Mr. Representative. I believe for, I, I know that it's a separate rule that's handling that, um, I don't have that information in front of me on what the status of that is, but I would, uh. I would certainly be happy to provide that for you. I, I appreciate that. If you could get that to staff so that we could get that back out when that's going to be ready. I know that, um, that we, uh, were supposed to start, um, having that information coming forward beginning this, this last school year. So I'm just curious when that, when those rules are gonna get, um, produced, propagated, and then, uh, of course, in effect, so I appreciate it. Thank you Presentative Richardson. Any other? All right then, without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. All right, you're going on to What we're down to D See rules governing documents posted to the school districts. Thank you committee. Uh, this is an amendment, uh, to existing rule which implements provisions of the Laws Act as well as other changes regarding, uh, the requirements and deadlines for posting of information on a school district's website. Uh, the new content includes, um, these are new requirements that must be by law, but the rule is saying they must be on the website, uh, superintendent's performance targets and that will be in the superintendent's contract, library policies, and, um, Reduction in force policies, all of those are required by law. And questions from members, uh, Senator Irving. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. Mr. Schultz I appreciate that you're here and I appreciate you presenting these rules. Did the Department of Education, did they provide you with any subject matter experts that could come here and answer our questions. OK, are they in the room? OK, so Representative Richardson asked a very specific question about that, the rule. And is there anybody from the Department of Education other than you that could answer his questions. Yes, I have, uh, someone coming in. OK, and Mr. Chair, if you'll forgive me or give me a little latitude. I just wanna make sure. That the questions that are being asked by this legislature that people in the departments and the agencies come prepared to be able to answer our questions. That's very important. And so I appreciate that you're here, and I, I would just, I would just make sure that, you know, to defer to you, to always call your subject matter experts to come to the table and answer specifically to questions that are being asked by you. If that, if that, if the chair will give latitude, if she can answer Representative Richardson's questions, which were valid and legitimate, then we need to hear from her at this moment. If you'll allow Mr. Chair. I will allow it, but there were no questions on the one that's before us. Do we have any questions on the role that he just presented. Represented Richardson, your question on this one, or you want, want to go back to, OK. Then, uh, without objection, the rule that's under consideration at this time will be reviewed and approved and members of chairs are going to grant the latitude and we're gonna go back to Representative Richardson and go ahead and uh. It, are you the subject matter, I'm sorry, name and title for the record, how about? Uh, hope Worsham, Assistant Commissioner for Public School Accountability for the Department of Education. All right, thank you. Are you the one that, uh, is capable of answering representative Richardson's question or do you need to bring somebody else up, Daniel. Mr. Chairman, uh, is, is a, I believe I mentioned, I apologize if I didn't, that's a different rule, uh, and I think she can speak to it, but that rule has not yet invited this process, so OK. Representative Richson, uh, ask your question and would you just refresh my memory. I, I'll do the best I can to remember the exact question, but, uh, it was something along the lines of, um, Act 242, um, established methods by which we could substitute, uh, career readiness classes, uh, through a curriculum or into the standard curriculum and as a replacement for credits that could be earned and there's a process associated with that that includes establishing a group of individuals from our. districts to help recommend that cross curriculum, uh, map and then the approval of the uh of the board. So I'm wondering where those rules are. It was my understanding that they were supposed to be included in this, and I received notice that they were, but I've not seen that. So all I was gonna add was that the rules were not included in this round. I cannot speak to where they were, um, but I can't, I was just gonna add that we have done that work, started that work to, to ensure that that process is happening. So, so the work is being done. We just don't have rules associated with it. I believe so, yes. I would be interested to know what the makeup of the, well, I mean, obviously these recommendations are coming from somewhere, um, I, I'm very interested to see that they are I should say concerned to make sure that they do are coming from the school districts, um, as they understand what they have in place, um, and so I I guess I'm, I'm. Interested in knowing what those how we're getting the uh recommendations now and where that's going and uh yeah just the overall process, but you don't have an update on to when that's gonna occur. Uh, the rules themselves, I do not know, sir. OK. Um, can I get a summary from someone that says how that's occurring now. Yes, sir. That actually falls under a different commissioner, but that assistant commissioner, but we can, um, follow up with what the process has been so far. That would be great. I'd love to see that. Thank you so much. OK. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, so Daniel, who else you got in the room with you? Uh, uh, for the, uh, for this batch of rules I have Tanya from the Office of Earth of Childhood. How about for all the rules that are on the agenda today. Have you got the subject matter experts in the room today. Yes, we have a separate expert for the higher ed rules. Let's do this. Bring how many you got here with you today? 4 in total across the two divisions. All right, so 3 in myself. OK, so do you have subject matter expert for D, E, and F in the room today. rules governing Sanders' accreditation, rural government in Arkansas Better chance program, rules governing consolidation and aation school district. You have subject matter experts in the room with you today orant Commissioner Worsham is, is for one of those and then, uh, also for, uh, ABC is, uh, the Office of Early Childhood's assistant commissioner. OK, so how about this when we get to these rules, let's bring up who, who besides you can answer questions. And then, um, I'm gonna speak for myself and maybe the coach-chair cannot. and Senator Irving, but from this point forward, uh, any rule that is going to be brought before us, have the subject matter expert and the rule in Rome, and when they, when you come to the table, they come with you and otherwise, I got a feeling that rule will get passed over, uh, if they're not in the room, Senator Irving and Sound good? OK. All right, we're gonna recognize representative uh Vought at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I want to piggyback off of, uh, Representative Richardson, also myself, because if that rule is not here by next month. It will be not ready for the next school year. Am I not correct in that assertion? Pretty sure because we won't have another ALC meeting. Until after session for that rule to be brought to us. Which means that those schools are not gonna, again, this coming year. This coming year be ready to implement those into their Uh, curriculum. That's what worries me. So if there's a way for us to get that rule here by October, I mean, by December, I think it's very necessary for it to be here. And I don't know what the holdup is or what's taking so long with this one rule, but we need that rule and we need it sooner rather than later. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Daniel, let me ask you, uh, and let me, let me ask you, is that rule out for public comment at this time? Do you know? There's anybody in the room that can answer that question? I do not believe so, but I just, I, I don't wanna, I don't want to guess on that because I did, I was, you know, prepared the rules that I had in front of me, but I didn't prepare the we have, we've had almost 100 rules we've worked on over this period. So I, I simply don't have that information right at hand, and I apologize. I unders I hear the committee and it'll be a priority. I just, I don't have more information on that available at this time. I apologize. So here's what I'd like to do. I'm gonna recognize a couple of members here in just a second, but here's what I'm gonna do, uh. You've got subject matter experts in the room for D E and F. We're going to, once I recognize these members, we're gonna go through that. We're going to, um, Well, what about, once we get through these, and you got, you got, uh, 5 more after that, um. And that's on higher education. You got subject matter room in the, in the room for those. OK, so I'll tell you what to do, um, When we get done with your agenda, I'll probably go on Department of Energy, and while we're at the Department of Energy, what I'd like you to do is communicate. Um, back to the agency to your, your folks. And, uh, come back and just give us a verbal idea of that rule is going to be ready, that they're talking about, uh, in time for, for the next, uh, meeting because I know it's gonna be out for 30 day comment and how about that? OK, sounds good. All right. Hang on one second, please. Right. OK, and maybe we'll get this resolved in a second. So let's do this. I'm gonna go to Representative Painter next, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just ask on, on uh what representative Richardson said that that process that he's asking for be distributed to the committee, uh, because I think that's important for us to also have that because We're fixing to have a dilemma if we don't understand what's going on and why it's taking forever. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. All right, let's go to Representative Kevanaugh now. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this might be a question for the department, but also for staff on the rules as a legislator, when we passed legislation, and it becomes law, and you have to promulgate rules. How long do you have to promulgate those rules indefinitely, or do you get to pick and choose when you want those rules promulgated. We talk, were you addressing me. Somebody say it again because I was, I was talking to, I was talking to the coach here. Try it again. Try it again. I'm still hearing that door knocking. Go ahead. So the question is, as legislators, when we pass a law and then we ask the agencies to promulgate the rules, what is the time frame that they have to promulgate those rules and do they get to pick and choose which rules that they want to work on and pull the gate or do. Are we just left at the, I guess the We, uh, the agency to pick and choose our legislation that they want to enforce. I'll give the answer, I think, and then, uh, well, the co-chair backed me up and straighten me out. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that we did pass, uh, Law that they had to be done by a certain time and that the report has to be given as to the progress of it. Am I mistaken on that or is that right? Yeah, and I'm sorry, what did you say? Yeah. And maybe staff could help address that as well. Do you have anything to add to what I said? Rebecca Miller Rice with the rules section. Um, Representative Kavanaugh, so if a statute specifically requires rulemaking. Then, um, if it's specifically requires rulemaking, it'll be in the bureau's report, i.e., the agency shall promulgate a rule. It depends on the language that's used in the Act. If it's shall promulgate as necessary, that could be discretionary with the agency, but if it does require specifically rulemaking, then that would need to be in effect by, they were, they're supposed to have it in fact by June 1st of the next year following section session, excuse me, um, Unless there's a different date that's specified in the statute. So there, there's a little bit of leeway, that's what these reports that, um, we hear later that those are the ones that haven't, they required it specifically in the Act, but it's not in place yet. OK, what I guess As legislators, when we asked for these rules to be done and the agency doesn't do it. And I know we're having a sidebar conversation, but I'm trying to understand, as legislators, what can we do to make sure that the rules that we're asking to be done are actually handled, so I'll tell you what I'm on a budget. I'm good at that, but I'm gonna step in on that one because I think that might put her in an awkward way to answer that question, but I got a feeling you'll probably be on it, Representative Kavanaugh, and we'll see some legislative action. Coming up if it doesn't suit you. Is that fair? OK, very good. All right. Uh, I believe we are on 4D rules governing standards accreditation, if I'm not mistaken. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the standards of accreditation are required by law to be reviewed every 2 years. Uh, this amendment is a result of that review process, the rule, uh, is also made changes, there were also changes made by the Laws Act, which are incorporated in the rule, principally inclusion of the career ready pathways to a high school diploma as mentioned previously, and also the requirement for community service are now reflected in the standards for accreditation. All right, any questions members? Without, uh, here no questions without objection. This rule is reviewed and approved. And just for record, members, unless somebody sign up to speak for and against a matter, uh, just take it for granted there's nobody signed up to speak for or against any of the rules that we're covering at this time. All right, let's go on to E then. That he rules governing the Arkansas Better Chance Program. Page 25 members. Good afternoon. Name and title for the record, please. Tanya Williams, Office of Early Childhood. OK, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this, this is an amendment to the rules necessary to implement, uh, provision of the Les Act which moved early childhood from the Department of Human Services to the Department of Education. Uh, this rule governs the early childhood program, excuse me, the, the better chance program and the Arkansas Better Chance School Success programs, uh, which are, uh. Programs that fund early childhood education, uh, we're certainly available to answer any questions. All right, any, uh, any questions, members? I got, I've got one and I just public disclaimer, uh, I am board president of a nonprofit childcare center. So I wanna ask you publicly because of the transfer from DHS over to, uh, because I have got these questions from, from my constituents as well. Give me the chain of command or could you provide a list as to who somebody should call if they have a question, and would you provide that to staff, please, and we'll push it out to the entire membership. I think that might help for our constituents. that are wondering who is it that I'm supposed to call, um, while we continue going through the transfer period. How's that? Absolutely. We have an org chart and I'll send that to staff to distribute. OK, then I'm gonna recognize Senator Irving at this time. Senator Irving. Thank you, just, I wanna, I wanna make sure I'm following the funding for this program. Did, did all of that transfer over? Did this give us more opportunities to, um, match that funding or provide additional funding, um, by the transfer of the Department of Ed, if you'll just talk me through that. That's one of the things, and then regulation wise, are we aligning these more so with what we have in Department of Ed when we moved them over. If you'll just walk me through those two things. Sure, that's a great question, and this is specific to state pre-K program that is funded through the legislature, Arkansas better chance. That actually was already at the Department of Ed. It's not part of the transfer. It's been over at ADE for the past 7 years. There is, um, about $114 million 7.5 million is TANF, the remainder of that is general revenue. Nothing about that has changed, Senator Irving. I think your question about sort of the unification and absolutely everything we are doing right now and have been for the past year in the transition is to review the rules here really about getting the language that had DHS and division of childcare and early childhood out and getting it to Department of Ed. Um, we did add one change from the Laws Act and that's that kindergarten readiness definition. So I would say all of those things are about aligning our work in early childhood to the work at K-12. Um, and you'll continue to see that as we move forward. OK, I, I appreciate that and I, I mean, I think, you know, again, more, and I hope moving this will provide more focus on early childhood. We know that it's incredibly critical, and we don't do enough to prioritize it. And so I just, I want to make sure, you know, that it's, it's housed well and functioning well. And, um, and we're able to use, you know, the funding available to us as wisely as we possibly can. So I, I appreciate, were any changes, were any was anybody else affected that was relying on TANF moneys or did it change any of that? It doesn't change anything. That actually was put into a law back in 2007, I believe. And nothing about that has changed. We continue to get that transfer to support the program. OK, thank you. All right, any other questions from members? Without objection, this rule is reviewed and proved. Thank you. Thank you. OK, let's go for F which is rules governing consolidation on page 27 members. OK, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment to implement various provisions of the General Assembly principally Act 461 of 23 that removed the authority of the state Board of Education to involuntary consolidated district with the student population of less than 350 students. The amendment also provided an administrative structure, uh, for petitions, uh, by a school district to change a boundary, uh, which is a process the state board is required to uh to participate in pursuing. law. All right. Any questions for members? Without objection, this rule is reviewed and approved. Alright, go ahead if it pleases the committee, uh, and I do want to be sure you have a timely response. We were able to to do a little bit of, of getting our heads together and communicating with the office. It appears that that's that law did not require this be set out in rule as, as I understand your question, and so that that process was able to move forward without a rule. All right, go ahead, uh, Representative Richardson. Thank you so much, chair. I appreciate that answer. Um, can we get an update on the process then as, as it's established, can we, since we didn't. Promulgate rules, it'd be nice to know that the, uh, what process is in place and who the members of the various, uh, school district teams have selected all of that kind of stuff. So um we actually released the crosswalk on 42 of 24 in April of 24. Um, we did pull a committee as outlined in the rules, I believe it was a a representative from Co op, represented from different districts. So as outlined in the law, we pulled committee members, um, together and they worked with the department to outline the courses and all of those were released in a. Commissioner's memo that had been available to districts since April. OK? And that's gonna happen annually still? Yes sir. That's an annual review. Uh, can I get a copy of that? That'd be great. Thank you. How about this? How about, uh, send that to staff and we will get out to a very specifically represented Richardson and represent Vaut. Uh, they ask questions about it, but, uh, if you will send that to us, we'll get out to the entire membership so that they can answer questions at the local level, OK? Alright. Then let's move on to Department of Education. Hi, Ed. And I believe that's you again, Daniel. Yeah Hey Daniel, how long have you been in your position? Um, the current position about a month, the agency, uh, about a year. OK. All right, we're in the rules governing higher education, uh, and we're on, uh, page 33. Governor's higher education transition scholarship program. All right. Go ahead, name the title for the record, please. Alicia Lu push button there. Alicia Lewis, Assistant commissioner for the Division of Higher Ed. OK, go ahead. Uh, thank you Mr. Chairman, committee, uh, this is a simple amendment to a scholarship rule, which implements Act 413. Uh, this is an act which required, uh, summer scholarships to fund summer tuition. Questions for members. Without objection, the rule is reviewed and approved, and page 35 rules governing. Uh, rural medical practice student loan, please. He was Chairman, uh, this is a new rule implementing Act 725, which established the osteopathic Rural Medical Scholarship Board and ACT, uh. 857, which established a corresponding scholarship. Any questions from members? OK, without objection, the rule is approved. Uh, we're going on to see government emergency response equipment. Mr. Chairman, this is a new rule implementing Act 7, 37 and 811, which requires that automated external defibrillators and opioid rescue kits, uh, be made available, uh, and, and be placed in a visible area, uh, where an appropriate locations for institutions of higher education. Any questions from members? Then without objection this role is reviewed and proved the governing student undergraduate research fellowship. Mr. Chairman, uh, this rule also provides for the funding of summer tuition according to the law, uh, it also does something of a rewrite as this was an older rule and need to be brought up to brought up to current style. Questions for members. objection and the rule is reviewed and approved and then your final one is a governing graduate medical education residency expansion. Chairman, this is a new rule implementing acts 854 and 884, uh, which established the graduate medical residency expansion board, um, the board has recently been seated, the rules to find the duties and responsibilities of the board, uh, the criteria for allocating one time. Planning grants to medical entities within an Arkansas that are creating or expanding a graduate medical education program and stipulates funding for medical fellows, uh, from excess. Planning grants. And Questions for members. objection, the rule is reviewed and approved. All right. And uh I don't think you need to remain here because I think we got. Got that issue resolved, so thank you all for being here today. Members, uh, we are on to number 6, which is Department of Energy and Environment Division and quality control and without objection and at the request of the agency, they'd like to address 6 and 8 together because they think it will bring some clarity because they do intermingle together so the chair is gonna allow them to come and we're going to talk about 6, and we're gonna talk about 8 together, but we will be taking separate votes on all three of them. So if we can get the agency to the table, please, without objection. Anybody? And if y'all will please name and title for the record and let you proceed. And, uh, start 6A and help us understand. Lawrence Bengel, director of your Oil and gas commission. Keisha Morrison, Chief counsel. Bailey Taylor, chief administrator of Environment and DEQ director. OK, go ahead, whoever's going to present, please. Good afternoon. Rus one, for the, Pollution control and ecology commission and H1 and B2 for the Oil and gas commission. Streamline the permitting and regulation of class 2 disposal wells and commercial disposal wells, uh, historically, the Historically, DEQ has regulated the surface facility and the oil and gas commission has regulated the The well and the, the boar and really this is just an effort since now both entities are under one department. It makes sense to streamline both for our resources and to make things simpler for industry, uh, happy to take any questions. Any questions from members. And you addressed in your comments, you're incorporating what we have down as the rule prevention of pollution by oil field waste, and then proof of financial responsibility required to be furnished. And Class 2 disposal of Class 2 commercial disposal well permit application. The comments that you just shared, are they in the entirety for all three? Are they specific just to the, uh, prevention of pollution by oil field for all three. OK. So members, do you have questions? Let me ask you, do you have questions on rule number one under 6, prevention of pollution by oil field waste. And without objection this rule will be reviewed and approved. Questions regarding proof of financial responsibility required to be furnished. My question would be, there's, there's no change. In that this is just to bring it, as you mentioned, streamlined. Under one accountability, is there any Less financial responsibility or expectation required. No. OK. Any questions, members? Without objection and this rule will be reviewed and approved, and then under 8B Class 2 disposal, Class 2 commercial disposal well permit application procedures. Any questions about that one, members. And once again, the intent is you just bring it all under one to streamline it so we're not duplicating on the providers or producers to have to go to places we're bringing it to one, right? That's correct. OK, very good. All right, any questions members? Then without objection this rule will also be approved and with that, I think that takes care of 6 and 8 except for now we're on to 7. Which is the Department of Energy and Environmental Liquefied petroleum gas port. Is that y'all or somebody else? We can get you all to the table, please. And if you will, sir, please name and title for the record. Kevin Foer, director of the Lookop Trail and Gas Board. OK, we're on 7A members of the state code for liquefied petroleum gas containers equipment. Y'all go ahead, please. All right, this amendment, uh, does two things. First, it updates our standards for the distance at which containers can be placed relative to, uh, buildings and other items, um, we are the only state in the country that doesn't have the NFPA. Standard and so we are just adopting that NFPA national standard with this amendment. And then the second item is we are adding, um, A mechanism by which we can facilitate removal of containers when a customer has decided to switch providers. Usually it's not a problem for the owner of the container to come and remove it, but occasionally in, in the last few years, we've seen that Occasionally, the owner is not coming to remove that container, and there has not been an enforcement mechanism for the LP gas board. And so we're amending this rule to provide that enforcement mechanism, allow for a, um, a notice and then a fine to be Uh, placed if the owner of the container does not come and remove it, uh, because there are environmental health and safety concerns if the containers are left, I've just laying around and not retrieved. Happy to take any questions. You say container, you're talking about LP gas tanks, that kind of thing? Yes, sir. OK. All right. Uh, Senator Irvin. Thank you. You, you have existing authority through past statute to to make that rule change, I'm assuming. We didn't have to pass legislation specifically for that. I I handled some legislation on this, so I'm just making sure. Uh, I Yes, OK, just making sure. OK, thank you. OK. Any other questions, members? Then without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you all very much. All right, we're down to 9A, which is Department of Finance Administration. Office of the Intergovernmental Affairs or Services. We're on page 53 members. And good afternoon if you would please name and title of the record when you have a seat. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Doris Smith. I am administrator for the Office of Intergovernmental Services. Go ahead, please. So our rule is the rule to allow for a method of administering the pregnancy Resource Center grant program. This is the 3rd year of this grant program for a fiscal year 2025, the program is appropriated $2 million to be funded to pregnancy health organizations across the state. Um, this rule allows us to promulgate the procedures by which uh the office will administer the grant program. And so uh we did, we have a completed a comment period. We did get some comments that were in opposition to the program, uh, we have responded, uh, with a thank you for those uh for those comments and um at this point we are here to um request approval of the um promulgation of this rule, so I'll take you to questions if you have any. Represented Peyton. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Payton, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm over here to your left, uh, so this. Was passed during the fiscal session. And it had, it has language in it that uh the anticipated date for issuance of award is the week of August 8th. With the project start date to begin July 1, 2024. It says the funds disbursement 1 half of it was supposed to be done on August 15th. And the other half of it is to be done on January 15th. So why are we just now seeing this? Rule and has, has that money been dispersed? Or not has not been dispersed at at the time when we issued our request for applications, we were of the mind that we could use the problem we had just promulgated rules in the previous session, but those rules expired with the um. The end of that appropriation for the previous year, so with each year of this grant program we're having to re-promulgate rules, and it has taken a little longer than we anticipated. Now we did issue an RFP for applications we did receive applications for funding. We have reviewed those applications, but we have not issued the responses to those applications.isation and appropriation bills and we appropriate the funding and And everything's in place we have a date set. It's just arbitrary. It it just doesn't happen and here we are two months later and we realized it hadn't happened initiate the uh promulgation process in July it's just taking a little while for us to get to this part, um, I believe we issued it around late July or August. We also issued, like I said, an application to the public they have responded with their applications. We have received a reviewed applications so in house we've done. All of the application process, we just can't move on issuing results to those applications bringing our focus forward. Uh When will it be? Distributed because you know when this fiscal year runs out, it's no longer appropriated. Correct, it it will be distributed once the the promulgation is complete. We issued a sub-grant awards to, we'll give them an opportunity to make adjustments to the budget as needed and we'll issue the subgrant award, and these are done by advancement of funds, so instead of issuing 3 advancement processes we can combine it into two, but it will be accomplished before the end of the fiscal year. Well, it just seems concerning to me. The as a legislature we see a problem and we. Do all of the leg work to get it. Passed and we have dates specifically mentioned in The bill and of course on a daily basis we're not checking on it and then it comes to our attention that it's 90 days late before we even. Know that it wasn't done so thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, any other comments or questions from members? So I just for my clarity purposes, how much is still sitting there to be dispersed is a full 2? 2. OK, and you anticipate that's going to be pushed out the door by wind. Yes, sir. We have applications for approximately 1.8 million and then we'll we'll make sure that we disperse the remainder to those applicants, yes, by when do you, do you anticipate disbursement will occur prior to the end of the fiscal year once the awards are issued, we set up payment date for the event. the fungus. OK, very good. All right, um, Are you down Senator Payton, are you back in the queue? Put them back in. Senator Peyton, just for the record, the full amount was to be dispersed by January 15th, according to the legislation. OK Thank you. Thank you. All right, um, then hearing no other questions or comments, uh, this without objection to this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you. All right, Department of Finance Administration, Revenue division. Good afternoon if y'all would please name and title for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Paul Geering, DFA. Alicia Austin Smith, DFA Chief counsel of the revenue division. All right, we're on page 59. This is taxi cab liability insurance and self-insurance certification, OK? Thank you, Senator Hammer, members of the committee, we are seeking review and approval of our taxicab liability insurance rule. This rule was required to be promulgated by Act 804 of 2023, you will see that the rule essentially tracks the statute. There are probably 3, major focuses of the rule that I'll call to your attention. Act 804 removed the ability for a taxi cab operator to satisfy their liability insurance requirements by posting collateral or self. venturing, it also increased the amount of their bond requirement should they satisfy that by posting a bond from $50,000 to $250,000. increased the penalties for a taxicab operator's failure to comply with any additional insurance requirements by the city and then finally it added a requirement of an annual disclosure statement to DFA and and listed what would need to be required in that disclosure statement. So that's what our role does. Our role tracks the requirements of the statute are public comment period concluded on September 18th. We did hold a public hearing. No members of the public attended and no comments were received. Unfor Fortunately, we do have one change that we need to make to the rule that is in front of you. I'll call your attention to the 3rd page of the rule. It is section 2 self-insurance. Let me interrupt you, members, you're not gonna have that in front of you. It's gonna be on the paper clip. So you're gonna have to go up to your, uh, devices there and find it on the paper clip and just pause for a second for members that want to find that, OK. OK, go ahead. Yes. Apologies. So on the 3rd page of the rule, if you're following at the top, it says section 2, self-insurance. #2 says requirements. You get a little too little B, little 2 I and then number 1. This rule was drafted to comply with Act 804 of 2023, there was another act by Senator Bryant that, um, was not in effect at the time. It was Act 91 of 2023, and we need to make sure we comply with that act as well what that role would do is on Little 2 eye, it says, this is for self-insurers in the case of a religious denomination, the denomination one prohibits its members from purchasing insurance of any form as being contrary to their religious tenets, all that act did was change the word prohibits to discourage. So instead of it prohibits, it discourages, so we need to change that one role to say discourage, we would still act, ask for approval of this rule. If, if you would prefer that we instead make that change and resubmit it next month, we, of course, would accommodate that as well. And our apologies for the change. Can you hang on one second? Members, if you're trying to find that paper clip on your device, you're have fun on your personal device, your laptop or phone or go up to the website, fine, OK. All right. OK. Done. Yes. So the change is from from the word prohibits to discourage, which tracks the statute. All right. Members have any questions? Just for the just for. Precautionary reason. I'll tell you what I want to do on this. Anybody have any questions? What I like to do is get a motion 2nd to approve the rule with the change, um, and I'm gonna go to Senator Irving on this one first, Senator Irving. OK, go ahead. Yes, Mr. Chair, I'll, I will make a motion that this rule, rule 10, um, with the Department of Finance Administrative revenue division, uh, make a motion to approve or review this rule with the changes that have been, uh, presented by the agency. Need a second, please. Got a second, got a motion 2nd, open the floor to discussion, a discussion to the motion the 2nd. Hearing no discussion, all in favor of the motion. Would you say aye? opposed? OK, it passes. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, thank you. All right, now we're on to, uh, Department of Health. Psychology board. And we're on page 61 members. Good afternoon, if y'all would please name and title for the record. Matt Gilmore, Department of Health. Colin Davies, director of Arkansas Psychology Board. Y'all go ahead and, uh, proceed. I'm here to present a real changes that were due to 3 legislative acts, the first one being the military licensing, the second one being the repeal of the examiners and the third one being the establishment. Of the Arkansas Psychology Board neurostipend and scholarship. Go ahead. Oh, we only had 2 public comments and That's it. I may have missed it, but did you explain the role? And I just missed it. OK, sorry I got distracted up here. All right, we're gonna go to, uh, Representative Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Mr. Gilmore. Matt, are you the subject matter expert on this rule. I know enough to be dangerous, sir. Just wanted to make certain, sir. Thank you. All right. Any other meaningful questions from members? All right, then without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. All right, thank you all. Thank you. All right, let's go to 12 Department of Health State Board of Health. If y'all would please name and title for a record. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Laura Shu. I'm general counsel for the Department of Health. Good afternoon. I'm Laura Rothfeld, state public health veterinarian for the Department of Health. Craig Smith, Attorney for Arkansas Department of Health. OK, y'all go ahead and then we're on the rules pertaining to rabies on page 63 members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have the rules pertaining to rabies control. This rule was amended by two acts of 2023, Acts 161 and Act 522, um, these allow persons in addition to licensed veterinarians to administer rabies vaccinations and also allows for home quarantines of vaccinated dogs and cats. Uh, we also made some technical changes. We had a public comment period. We received one, positive support comment from the AVMA and we're happy to take any. Questions. Questions from members. All right, then hearing uh uh without objection, the rule will be reviewed and approved. We're on to the repeal rules regulations for retired, uh, physician immunity. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The, uh, Proposed repeal in front of you is to repeal the rules and regulations for retired physicians Act, uh, these rules were previously incorporated into the roles pertaining to Arkansas volunteer, uh, Immunity Act for healthcare professionals in the Arkansas, uh, volunteer Health Care Act, uh, public comment was held and uh expired on October 15th and no comments were received, and with that we can answer any questions. Questions for members. All right, see, no questions then without objection, the rule is reviewed and approved. Thank y'all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Department of Human Services. County operations, it's, uh, compacts for free association. Page 66 members. And good afternoon if y'all would please your name and title for the record. Hey, Laurie McDonald, Chief of Staff, DHS. Mary Franklin, director of the division of County operations, DHS. The rule that we are presenting is a rule that changes the eligibility in the SNAP program and the transitional employment assistance program. It is a rule that we were, we are implementing as a result of a change in federal law with the consolidated appropriations Act of 2024. This rule extends eligibility to, uh, certain individuals from compact to free association states, which include federated states of Micronesia, the Republic of Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau as long as they meet all other eligibility requirements for SNAP and the T program, then they can be approved to participate in those programs. This is a follow-up promulgation to an emergency rule that was approved effective October 1, and there were no comments during the public comment period. Happy to take any questions. Senator Irvin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to appreciate the emergency rule and the emergency effort on this, and I also wanted to welcome Laurie McDonald and her new role as chief of staff of DHS and we're really excited that you're there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, congratulations, condolences, congratulations to you. You, uh, all the staff over there are always responsive to anything, so I appreciate it very much. All right, any, uh, questions, members? Then without objection this rule is reviewed and approved. Thank you all. All right, members, we're on to F. The next two rules. will require a suspension of the subcommittee rules. As the request for placement on this agenda are required materials were received after the deadline of October 15th. And so what I need to do is I will need to get a motion to suspend the subcommittee rules to hear these two rules, uh, what'll happen is I'll, if I get a motion, take a motion, get a second, we'll have the discussion. Uh, I do want to go ahead and put it out here that should it be that we do not take this item up. We do have individuals from the communities and state that have driven in, we are going to allow them to have their public comment time regardless of how this goes, so I just wanted to get that out there, um, chair and co-chair, I think we agree that if folks drive as far as some of these folks have driven, they need to have their opportunity to speak regardless of whatever the committee decides to do, so I wanted that to be out there. So, I need to have a motion and a second to suspend the rules. Do I have a motion? I have a motion. Do I have a second? Do I have a second? Hearing no second Motion fails. What we're gonna do it this time, which means this will not be taken up on today's agenda. It will be pushed to next month's agenda. However, as I mentioned just a minute ago, uh, and to the members of the public that are wondering what does that mean? That means that there'll be no action taken on the item for which, uh, you have come here to speak. However, we recognize that you have taken away from your personal time and have driven a great distance to be here, and we want to recognize you and give you an opportunity. to come to speak and, uh, to share your, your thoughts. I will ask you just a respectful request, uh, we'll ask if you would to please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less because we have 8 people signed up on the agenda, and if you hear somebody else say something, uh, that has already been said, already been said, uh, please just be respectful of that we have individuals to speak for and against. And so what I'm going to do is, uh, I'm gonna recognize. Senator Irving in a minute, but when we get to it, uh, the way that we will do it is we will take uh the first one signed up to speak against, then we'll go to a 4 against 4 back and forth until we get through the list before I go that far, Senator Irving, you are recognized. Hang on a second. OK, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Ha. The reason I made the motion is because of public comment, that's going to be presented here. And I'm. I'm more than happy to make a motion that we take no action on the rule today. But I just don't know if. You know Their comments. If we need to Put it on the agenda or keep it on the agenda or have it on the agenda so that we're just doing everything the way we're supposed to be doing. Does that make sense? I don't know if that makes sense or not, but I will go ahead and share what I understand, and I'll deferred staff, my co-chair straightened me out, but by the fact that, uh, we took up a motion that we had, did not get a second, which was required, uh, that is going to be in fact, a statement of no action will be taken on this today. However, uh, it can be placed on next month's agenda where it will be able to um be heard. because it will have met the requirements of being on by the time required, and I'm going to yield to co-chair and just affirm is that. That's correct, and there will also further public comment so OK yeah. OK, so I, I just want to make sure we knew what we were doing as far as like public comment was concerned, so they have the opportunity today to have public comment, which will be part of the record, even though it's not an official act. Item that we're considering and then next month they will also have the opportunity for public. OK, so for the members of the audience that are here, we are, we are, uh, going to let you come and speak because recognizing the time that you've invested, even though we're not going to take action on it today, and you are welcome to come back next month as well when we will take action, and the reason it's not being considered today or have to have a suspension of the rule. I know the members understand this, but we want the public to understand this. did not get to us in the required time in order to be placed on the agenda like all the other items, and because it didn't get to us in time, we have to have a motion to suspend the rules to take it up, and that motion was considered, but it failed, uh, but we're gonna let you have that chance to come speak and then you can come back next month and you'll be able to speak next month too if you would like, OK? All right, uh, I'm gonna recognize Senator Representative Darby, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not objecting to having people come speak for and against. This is just a parliamentary inquiry, if I may, of the chair. Is this at the chair's discretion? I just want to know. I mean, it's fine with me that they come and speak, but is this a call of the discretion since this is not now, it is not an agenda item. Would this be taken under other business? As far as right now, yes, I, I just for reference I'm just curious, this is a call of the chair, uh, to recognize and just to let our citizens come speak because it's the chair's opinion that anybody that drives in should have that opportunity to speak regardless of what we as a body choose to do because it's the respectful thing to do and recognize it may not be part of the official, but it is going to be a matter of, you know, it's available to the public because we're being live streamed, so. Yeah, and I'm not objecting to the chair's ruling. I was just curious as to what the chair's ruling actually was for the record. So thank you for that clarification. All right, thank you for that. All right, and so nobody else has any questions at this time and what we're gonna do is we're going to, uh, let members come up again. Uh, I would respectfully ask you if you could keep it to 5 minutes or less. We still have agenda items to deal with today, and we know some of y'all have driven a long time, so be respectful of others. And first of all, speaking against is going to be Brian Thompson, uh, who is with the Ozark Society and it's on both these agenda items come forward if you would please, Mr. Thompson, and when you have a seat. Just push the button on one of those mics there should light up green and you are recognized to share your comments, sir. Thank you, Mister Chair. I appreciate your deference to allow us to uh express our comments. Um I'm president of the Ozark Society, would you do me a favor? Um, would you go ahead and pull up mic closer to you just so we can hear and then members also, we've been requested to give to handouts. I think what I'm gonna do is because this is not a matter of official. Business, this is a courtesy. We're going to hold these items for those of you that have asked for these to be dispersed and, um, I'm gonna, I'm gonna hold those, uh, so that next month they can be introduced and would be officially considered, OK? All right, go ahead, sir. Uh thank you, sir. uh. Just to reiterate, I'm president of the Ozarci. I represent about 1000 members, and I'm against, uh, Item F1A as it's written. Uh, my comments are in regard to the removal of public notification language in this role. And uh I, I pulled a few example quotes from the Arkansas Democratic Gazette were citizens have been blindsided in the past, uh, where they didn't get proper public notification. And so I'm just gonna read a couple of quotes. Here's the first one, it feels like everything about this is sneaky. So, That's one another, they're just trying to float it by us and hope that we lay down and deal with it. Here's another. Last one, I feel like I've been lied to and told that where I live is not a community worth fighting for. Now these comments came from folks that were not notified regarding a prison. Um, a distinguished member of the Senate was also apparently blindsided, and I quote, Are you telling me that you're closing on this before we have even had a chance to sit down and talk about it. So my point is, uh, Mr. Chairman and committee members, uh, everyone deserves the respect of appropriate public notification. In regard to this particular rule, there were 670 comments, about 500 of which expressed concerns around these kinds of issues. Uh, ENE regulation 6, which is almost a mirror image of this, uh, updated by the legislature in 2014. Um And also will Appear, uh, as something before this committee. It notifies adjacent landowners, the county JP, the school superintendent, mayors of nearby municipalities requires an ad in the paper and signage at the site. And I'm sure you will agree that this is appropriate for notifying neighbors of up to 10,000 head hog farm. So please align the notification language in this new rule. With the language in reg 6. There's no cost to the division of agriculture for doing this, and it will be consistent and respectful to the citizens of Arkansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome, members chair needs to clarify something. Mr. Thompson is speaking against F1A, which is Rule 5, I believe. You're speaking against it in a, in a minute when we get to. Discussion or public comment on F2A, you're gonna speak for that. So I'll have you come back up. But right now, members, we're gonna hear for and against F1A. I'm gonna split them out, OK? So, uh, just keep that in mind. All right. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. All right, next, um, would be. Mr. Mueller, are you against F1A. Yes Are you against 1A. I'm having a little trouble reading. OK. OK, so your statement's going to be against F1A, is that correct right, we'll come on forward. I'm gonna let you speak, uh, against F1A first, OK? Afternoon, my name is uh Alan Mueller. I'm speaking on behalf of the Audubon Arkansas Society today. It is a uh statewide all volunteer organization that advocates for welfare of birds and the ecosystems that support these. The proposed uh regulations deal with uh notification process associated with licensing of combined animal feeding operations. Also commonly expressed as khos. These kinds of operations have a long history of causing excessive noise. Air pollution, especially odors and pollution to both surface and ground waters. The technical requirements prepared by the Department of Agriculture, addressed many of these issues, but they do not create confidence that these regulations by themselves are enough to avoidant damages. To surrounding community communities and property values. This is especially a problem when the local interest and other Arkansas citizens are not aware of the existence of the Kho application until the process has already started. The permitting of the Kos. Needs an open Public easily accessible process. The easily accessible part of this is what I'm talking about today. Posting notification of the application on the Department of Agriculture's website is inadequate. To keep up with pending permits and interested party would have to check the website every day to be sure they don't miss any applications. At a minimum, the Department of Agriculture should notify adjacent landowners, local newspapers, county judges. School districts Mas of nearby towns. These people are all have a, uh, role to play in the decision making process. Also, I would recommend that the relevant social media outlets also be notified. Local local communities have very personal interest in the location and operation of KOs that extend beyond the technical requirements. Local residents often identify characteristics and issues that otherwise would not be considered in the application process. Community goals may not be consistent with the technical requirements. The broader notification package recommended here can reduce controversy frequently associated with the permitting of khos and results in the operation that meets the needs of the agricultural community and local interest and the general citizens of Arkansas. The Arkansas Audubon Society recommends that the notification process be enlarged as already described an early and assured broad public notification procedure is necessary for the public input process to function effectively. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. And there are no questions. Thank you very much. All right, uh, David Peterson, are you speaking for F1A? Are you speaking for it, sir? Yes, sir. All right, would you please come forward. If you would please share your name and who you represent as you speak, please. Thank you. Yeah, I'm David Peterson. I have a PhD in mathematics and I taught for 34 years at UCA and uh I am the past president of the Ozark Society, and I appreciate the opportunity to address this subcommittee in Arkansas who might be watching online. Um, my purpose is to support continuation of the hog farm Cao moratorium on the Buffo River watershed by giving evidence that is scientific evidence that such farms significantly increase nutrient levels and sustained high E. coli levels and I was one of those who has a handout. But you don't have it, but it has pretty pictures of graphs and stuff with colored dots that support the data that I looked at, which is, um, but any rate, there are 5 things. There are, um, important in the Bret study. One of them is that independent of time of year and flow nitrate levels below. CNH on big rig were double of those above. Water comes in, it doubles the nitrate level doubles as it goes past the farm. That's just data, not for me, but Bret. That's what they found. The second thing is the 2nd nutrient that's important for the river is phosphorus. And the same problem. Phosphorus levels below the farm were 69% level higher, excuse me, on average than above the farm. Water comes in, phosphorus is added from somewhere, most likely the farm and the increase is 69%. And then there's a 600 ft deep well on the property that's 600 ft, really deep well that served the farm and over the four years that Biret managed, uh, measured the nirate levels in there, the nitrate levels went up 61%. This is deep well. The 3rd, the uh. Fourth thing is the ephemeral stream. There's the ephemeral stream that runs right below the bluff where the hog farm was contained, um, it's the ephemerals because it doesn't have much watershed, but the nitrate level in that ephemeral stream was 7 times higher than that of the stream when it comes in. That's phenomenal. 7 times higher when it goes past the farm, then water that was coming down the watershed. That's nitrate. And then the last thing I want to mention is E. coli levels on Big Creek. EPA and Arkansas recommends that the limit for recreational water use is 126 colonies per 100 mL. The geomine. On Big Creek was 151. Over the over 5 years, 151, it was generally above the safe water contact level. People shouldn't be swimming in Big Creek. E. coli levels are high. So, um, Doctor Andrews sharply, who was an acknowledged expert on legacy phosphorus and the Bret leader wrote An annually only about 20 to 30% of phosphorus applied to agricultural land is exported. Directly out of the watershed in runoff or removal in grain and animal product, the remaining 70 to 80%. Of applied phosphorus enters the soil, river sediments, groundwater, wetlands riparian flood plains, lakes, and estuaries. These stores can release legacy P phosphorus, that is, as a storage capacity becomes saturate. That's in a paper he wrote with others in 2013, and the question I have is why then was CNH allowed other permit to apply more than 100 pounds of phosphorus per acre when agricultural demand for grazing is of the order of 10 to 20 pounds per acre. During this permit, a non-discharge permit, they were applying more than 5 and sometimes 10 times the amount that agricultural need had. That's what a Kafu does. And in conclusion, I'd like to say there is legacy phosphorus on CNH fields and liking and underground nitrate plume. Perhaps there will be no long lasting damage to the river from the CNH experiment, but if there were several or many such farms on the tributaries, stream life would be changed in the enjoyment level of the river for 1.5 Arkansans and other tourists would be in jeopardy. With no quick solution, the life span for Foster on these lands is about 40 to 50 years. Where do state agencies draw the line if they don't enforce a moratorium. Protection of the river is the foremost concern, and that's my comments. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. And we are going to hold your hand out to be distributed next month's meeting, OK? So you're pretty pictures there, yeah, they were pretty OK, thank you. All right, um, Mr. Rector, I understand that you are signed up if I'm reading this right, to speak against F1A, is that right? Yes, sure. All right. Uh, my name's Bill Rector. I'm a commercial real estate broker with Keller Williams here in Little Rock. I've been a real estate broker for 50 some odd years. But for 20 years in there, I was also part owner and a publisher of the Daily Record newspaper here in Little Rock. I also had an interest in several papers, uh, in Tennessee. All of these are small legal publications that carry a lot of public notice. In the process of that. Uh, position at the Daily Record, I was, uh, the paper was a member of a thing called the the American court and commercial newspapers which the association of like kind of newspapers. And the spinoff from that which was called the public notice Resource Center. I was a board member on that. Now, uh, we also had a company called Foreclosure Placement Services where we placed foreclosure notices all of Arkansasee, sort of like an ad agency. Uh, all of this is to tell you that I, I know something about public notice. I no longer, I've sold all my interests and all my newspapers, so I have no personal axes to grind here financially, but I am here as an advocate for public notice. Um The arguments get publicly notices are cost and nobody looks at them. Um, let me give you a couple of examples. I was looking in the Daily Record. And I saw a friend of mine was getting her house foreclosed on and they're 4 notices required. So the 2nd week I looked at it and I thought, well, there it is again. I knew she could afford this house. I was really thought that was strange. 3rd week it was still there, 4th week is still there. This is on a Tuesday sale to take place on Thursday. So I called her up and I said, Jane, not a real name, Jane. I said, you know your house is getting foreclosed on Thursday. She's a what? Turned out that her husband was supposed to pay the mortgage payment and he lost his job and was embarrassed to tell her and was just going to let the house go to foreclosure. If I hadn't called her, she would have never remied that she'd have lost her house. Second example, a friend of mine saw a house. That her parents had lived in back in the 30s was getting foreclosed on, went down to foreclosure sale back bid 62,000 for the house, uh, there was another woman there that was interested along with my friend. She ended up buying a house for a little over 200,000. The result of that is that the woman was getting foreclosed on instead of just losing her house ended up with $140,000 in her pocket. Now the big example is, of course, the CNH pig farm. In Newton County that no notice was published on anywhere but the, the uh DEQ website. That pig farm. And it's The fact that there was no notice and the big farm appeared up there. It caused years of consternation, millions of dollars in legal fees, millions of dollars to buy the thing out. I will guarantee you that there's been more money spent on that one pig farm. That will be spent on public notice in the next 10 years in the state of Arkansas. And it all would have just been solved very easily by putting one little $50 ad in the Newton County newspaper. So, I, I don't know about the rest of this. Rule, but you need some public notice in a public place in a newspaper in the area where. Whatever permits being promulgated. And $50 we just saved millions. Public notice is important and public notice in, in a public places like newspapers. Uh, any questions? I don't see anybody appreciate your comments very much. All right. Thank you. All right, uh, Gordon Watkins, I understand you're speaking for this role. Is that correct sir, that's fine. Thank you for that. All right. Uh, let me look down the list here real quick. Uh, Richard Mays, are you speaking for? Are you speaking for F1A? All right. Yes, sir. Thank you for that. All right? Um, so that's everything on F1. We've got 3. On uh F2A, and that would put you back up the table, Mr. Thomas, uh, to speak for F2A. Do you still want to come up and speak. All right. Thank you, sir. And Then we've got uh. Got Mark Lambert. Speaking against what you're gonna come on, you got your hold, OK? And then the last one on the list is gonna be, uh, David Peterson. 4 F2A, Mr. Person, you want to come back up or you want to reserve for next. You wait for next month. OK, very good. All right, that completes everything on that matter, including giving public comment. And with that, Yeah, OK, here we go. All right, members, we're back on the agenda to G. All right. We're now to the updates concerning rulemaking from the 2023 regular session representative from each agencies here stands ready to answer any questions that you may have concerning status of its outstanding rules, those agencies are listed under item G of your agenda along with the update each provided to staff by November 1st, and we can do this one way or the other, um, we can palm up one at a time, or I think what the chair's going to do is defer that if any members have any questions of any particular. agency will call him up at the request of the members, uh, otherwise, we're going to move on. So I'll give you a minute to look over there if you haven't had a chance. Do any members want to have any of the agencies that are listed under item G to come forward to answer questions. I'll give you just a second. Uh, Senator Irving. Yes. Um, it would be Department of Education, the rules governing the child abuse, child sexual abuse, and human trafficking prevention program. Which one is that? Page 5, division of elementary and secondary education. OK, so we need Department of Ed, Division of Elementary education, secondary education. That's on page 5. Yeah Down at the bottom. So if we get y'all to the table, you got a subject matter expert with you or you on your own. I'm afraid you just missed them. They were, they were gone when I got back out there. I think what I said was a I, I know, but they had left. I'm sorry. I'll try to get him back. Senator Irvin, what do you want to do? Well, I mean, But I, I appreciate you, but I mean, I, I do, and I'm not trying to But again, we're here. We're doing our jobs. We're, we're in our seats. And they need to be here through the entire meeting and through the entire agenda. Our agency people need to be here to answer questions. Through the entire agenda, and if they're not here, that's a problem. We're here doing our job. The chair has not gaveled out of this meeting, and I am so sorry. I, I don't mean to pick on you. It's for anybody that's on this list because You know, one of the big questions that I think was asked, especially under Department of Education is if these rules aren't promulgated, what happens, it just delays us from the next school year and, you know, we're, we're concerned about that. So, and, and I think that's one of the questions I have, you know, really for all of your rules, but, um, but particularly for this one, I, I wanted to know. Um Why it has taken so long. And I think, um. As, as I know this body knows, there has been a, a, a, a, a very large amount of rulemaking. This is one of those rules. I know it's an important subject matter, but fundamentally, the statute gives us what we need to, to do what needs to be done. It's still on the rulemaking agenda, but I don't think the absence of a rule is affecting the operation of the, uh, obligations that would be in the room. OK. I mean, is that going to be your answer and, and like dyslexia screenings in schools and that, that's a different answer. OK. Dyslexia screenings, uh, so. That's part of the answer, dyslexia screenings are moving forward, uh, the issue there is simply the complexity of the issue and the timelines being worked out, um, I think we received easily over 100 comments on that rule when it was put out the first time. Uh, and there was a, there was a, a necessary. Uh, bandwidth issue to address those comments and it is, it is about to go back out for public comment a second time, uh, but there was, there was a lot of input and that input had to be. Analyze, digest it, and taken into account and, and has been there will be there are changes in it, uh, but that one is, um, The issue that being said, dyslexia screenings have been integrated into the Atlas assessment. So they are occurring today in this, the absence of the rule is not preventing dyslexia screenings from being implemented pursuant to the Lawrence Act. OK, the ones that you have listed on here that says that the final rule will be submitted for legislative review in February of 2025. Does that allow the Department of Education and our schools to implement any rule that is, um, filed and presented in February of 2025, the ability to be integrated into the following years school year. I believe that it does. Um, there was a prioritization. Uh, there were the rules that we thought had to be done more time sensitively. We're done first. Uh, these are the ones that were done, they were obviously left towards the the back end of the rulemaking process, um, but yes, uh, we will tender the rules in time for them to be approved prior to the next school year, uh, and we believe that these rules, that's possible. OK, and, and that's gonna be during the legislative session. It would go through the standing committee is my understanding if you chose to hear them, but, but we intend to provide them, so the standing committee, standing Committee on Education will be the ones to review the rules would be deferred to your staff, but I know there's a mechanism to hear them during session if you choose to do so. Yeah, OK. Can I get an answer on that from the staff? I think so, but, uh, you're gonna have to get her back to the microphone she got called away and restate the question, if you would, for Rebecca so she can answer or we can get the answer. So it says in here that the approval will be sought in February 2025. So we will be doing, that will be during legislative session, so could you just describe that process for me. Correct, so ALC rules subcommittee will not be able to meet during session. It can only meet during the interim. There is a JBC rules subcommittee. It has different rules than this subcommittee. Um, it's up to the chairs. In the past, it's been up to the chairs. What is placed on that agenda and when that subcommittee meets. OK, so, so any of these that would be presented in February 2025 we go through the JBC rules subcommittee for approval, assuming the chairs um assuming that they will allow it. Right. OK. I, I wanted to just make sure that we were all very clear about that process, um. And if you could have somebody talk to me about the human trafficking. Rules, uh, would appreciate that and I can get you more information, but I can tell you that that was discussed and it was determined that the absence of rule is not, is not impeding the implementation of the underlying law. OK. Thank you. All right, and I can, uh, I can. Firmed with conferred with my co-chair, what I said a while ago was that the individual could leave regarding Representative Richardson's issue, but not everybody else. I apologize. I, they were, they were gone when I got back out there and, and I, I. We'll, we'll make sure that they're available next time. Let me ask you this, all these that are on all these department ed rules that are on the sheet here today. Um, are they out without me reading through this again, are they all out for public comment or do you anticipate that some of them are going to be cleared off the list next month to be back on for consideration. So there are 6 by my account that will be heard at the next ALC in December, uh, there are 2 that are in public comment and there are 10 that are are still kind of that last tranche you can kind of see we've been able to bring about 10, uh per meeting and those are the ones that Senator Irving was referring to. We'd listed for perspectively for February, so you'll get with her individually and then let's do this, uh, those will probably show back up on the list next month then. So, so. advise staff they would be here, be prepared, please. I've got the message. Thank you, sir. All right. Uh, any questions members? OK. Um, So moving on to a truck. Yep. OK, moving on to H. Uh, finally, we have our submission in November monthly written update by oil and gas commission concerning rulemaking resulting from 2024 fiscal session, updates in your packet. Are there any questions? Then without objection we will file the November monthly written update and according to what I've got, no further, uh, business, we are adjourned. Thank y'all.