ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

Minutes of January 12, 1999

The January meeting of the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee was held on Tuesday, January 12, 1999 at 10:00 AM, in Room 149 of the Capitol Annex. Representative John Arnold, Chair, called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.

Present were:

Members: John Arnold, Chairman; Senators Marshall Long, Joey Pendleton and Dick Roeding; Representatives Jimmy Lee, James Bruce and Woody Allen.

Guests: Peggy Williams, Paula Pabon, Kentucky Legislative Ethics Commission; Maryellen Allen, Secretary of State; Angela Robinson, C. Dalene McCann, Don Speer, Finance and Administration Cabinet; Jane Gardner, Landscape Architect Board; Bill Maggard, Jr., Kentucky Board of Barbering; James E. Shane, Kentucky Commission on Military Affairs; Roy Grimes, John Wilson, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; Tamela Biggs, Amy Barker, Brenda Priestley, Department of Corrections; Stephanie C. Bingham, Dennis Mills, Kentucky Law Enforcement Council; Keith Horn, William M. Heffron, Brenda Buchwald, Carla Kirby, Department of Juvenile Justice; Gail Robinson, Department of Public Advocacy; Charlie Harman, Jim Roberts, Transportation Cabinet; Bob Tarvin, School Facilities Construction Commission; Steve Cox, Carla Montgomery, Peggy Guier, Zaring Robertson, Department of Workers’ Claims; Brenda Parker, Chandra Venettozzi, Carrie Banahan, D.J. Wasson, Sharron S. Burton, Rosie Washington, Mark McGuire, Department of Insurance; Tim Faust, Billy S. Perkins, Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction; Cliff Jennings, Trish Howard, Ann Gordon, John Gray, Gwen Winters, Cookie Whitehouse, Sandra Rolland, Karen Doyle, Jayne Arnold, Cabinets for Health Services and Families and Children; Jane Chiles, Melissa Steven, AIG; Scott Gasser, Employers Service Corporation; Doug Reynolds, Kentucky Geological Survey; Carl Sumner, Insurance Institute of Kentucky; Jim Carloss, Jr.; John Brazel, Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; F. W. White, Union Cab Co. of Louisville; Jeff Mackin, Yellow Cab of Louisville; Franklin P. Friday, Jefferson County Clerk; Marian Hayden, Cull & Hayden; John P. Cooper, KMA/KBA; Donna G. Brown, Dandridge F. Walton, Ruby Jo Cummins, KAHCF; Dick Brown, Kentucky Associated Health Plans; Nancy Galvagni, Kentucky Hospital Association; Bart Baldwin, Children’s Alliance; Sheila Schuster, Kyians for Health Care Reform; Mike Helton, Anthem; John T. McCarthy, Humana Inc.; Bob Stevens, St. Elizabeth; Barry Brown, Kentucky Ambulance Providers Association; Greg Brotzge, American Heart Association; Robert Barnett, Kentucky Pharmacists Association; Michael Collins, The Kentucky Post.

LRC Staff: Greg Karambellas, Stephen Lynn, Donna Little, Susan Wunderlich, Angela Phillips, Donna Valencia, Susan Eastman, Edna Lowery, Ellen Benzing, Cooper Whitt, DeeAnn Wenk.

The Subcommittee determined that the following administrative regulations, as amended by the promulgating agency and the Subcommittee, complied with statutory requirements:

Legislative Ethics Commission

2 KAR 2:010. Required forms. Paula Provone and Peggy Williams represented the Commission. Paula Pabon, Legal Counsel, and Peggy Williams, Principal Assistant, represented the Commission.

Subcommittee staff stated that this administrative regulation: (1) did not impose additional requirements; and (2) clarified what information was required.

Sections 1, 2, and 4 of this administrative regulation were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).

2 KAR 2:020. Statement of financial disclosure. Subcommittee staff stated that the Commission had amended this administrative regulation to comply with statutory requirements, by amending the forms incorporated by reference to: (1) clarify the meanings of "family" and consumer goods;" and (2) make it clear that: a. the Statement of Financial Disclosure shall include information for the preceding calendar year; b. specific dollar amounts are not required for specified categories; and c. consumer debts need not be disclosed.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph, and Sections 1 and 2 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).

2 KAR 2:040. Updated registration short forms for employers and legislative agents. Subcommittee staff stated that the agency had amended this administrative regulation to establish short forms for filers who had no expenses or expenditures to report.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Section 1 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).

Secretary of State: Kentucky Lien Information System

30 KAR 4:010 & E. Implementation of Kentucky Lien Information System. Mary Ellen Allen, General Counsel, represented the Secretary.

Subcommittee staff stated that KRS 355.9-401A provided, in part, that the financing statement, amendment, assignment, continuation, release or termination filed under KRS 355.9-401A shall be on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State.

Ms. Allen stated that: (1) the intent of House Bill 739, the Kentucky Lien Information System, was to: (a) be a pointer index to all financing statements filed in Kentucky; and (b) deter avoidance of local filing; (2) the form the Secretary of State prescribed was the form filed at the county level; and (3) the Secretary of State prescribed the form filed at the county level to ensure that: (a) filers maintained local filing requirements; and (b) the Secretary of State had the valuable information contained on the form filed at the county level, such as the time, date, and county of the filing.

Representative Bruce stated that: (1) he was one of the sponsors of House Bill 739; and (2) Ms. Allen had correctly stated the intent of House Bill 739.

In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Ms. Allen stated that: (1) the $100.00 penalty fee was fair; (2) a letter was circulated to all interested persons informing them of the penalty fee; and (3) the intent of the penalty fee was to ensure compliance by all secured parties, so that the Kentucky Lien Information System would be useful to lenders.

In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Ms. Allen stated that the: (1) Secretary of State had not removed the $1.00 filing fee; and (2) $1.00 filing fee would not be imposed on a non-resident filer.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to correct statutory citations; and (2) Sections 1 through 5 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).

The Subcommittee approved a motion to request LRC to refer the requirement established by KRS 355.9-401A that the Secretary of State prescribe forms to the appropriate interim joint committee for recommendations to the General Assembly at its next Regular Session.

Kentucky Commission on Military Affairs

202 KAR 5:010. Criteria for allocation of grant money. General James Shane, Executive Director, represented the Commission.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the RELATES TO and STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraphs were amended to correct statutory citations; (2) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); (3) Section 3 was amended to clarify the requirements of an eligible applicant; and (4) Section 9 was amended to clarify that staff shall not allocate grant money to qualified applicants.

Justice Cabinet: Department of Corrections: Office of the Secretary

501 KAR 6:020. Corrections policies and procedures. Tamela Biggs, Staff Attorney, represented the Department.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the references in CPP 3.1, 3.5, 3.6, and 6.5 were amended to correct statutory citations; (2) CPP 3.1, VI.A.1. was amended to cross reference and require that employees comply with KRS 11A.020; (3) CPP 3.1, VI.C.1. was amended to cross reference KRS 11A.040(1); and (4) various drafting and formatting amendments were made to comply with KRS Chapter 13A.

501 KAR 6:999. Corrections secured policies and procedures. Pursuant to KRS 61.815(2)KRS 61.810(1)(i) and (k), and KRS 197.025(5), the Subcommittee went into closed session to review 501 KAR 6:999. Secured policies and procedures.

Department of Criminal Justice Training: Kentucky Law Enforcement Council

503 KAR 1:060. Definitions. Stephanie Bingham, General Counsel, and Dennis Mills, Executive Staff Adviser, represented the Department.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the RELATES TO and STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraphs were amended to correct statutory citations; (2) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph was amended to clearly state the necessity for and function served by the administrative regulation, as required by KRS 13A.220(4)(f); (3) Section 1 was amended to include definitions for applicant, certification, DOCJT Job Task Analysis, POPS, and significant life change; and (4) Drafting and formatting amendments to comply with KRS Chapter 13A.

503 KAR 1:080. Certification of schools. In response to questions by Representative Bruce, Mr. Mills stated that: (1) this administrative regulation applied to schools in Kentucky that conducted law enforcement training, including the: (a) Department of Criminal Justice Training; (b) Kentucky State Police Academy; (c) Louisville Police Department; (d) Lexington Police Department; (e) Jefferson County Police Department; and (f) Bowling Green Police Department; and (2) the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council was prohibited from controlling the criminal justice training at universities.

In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Mills stated that: (1) there was not a criminal justice training school in Northern Kentucky; and (2) a criminal justice training school in Covington had been closed because: (a) of the financial requirements for staff, equipment, and other needs; and (b) it was cheaper for the Department to send students to Department of Criminal Justice training, rather than a school in Covington.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to correct statutory citations; (2) Section 2 was amended to include criteria by which Department will inspect law enforcement training schools; (3) a new Section 7 was created to incorporate by reference the Application for School Certification; (4) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph, Sections 1, 5, and 6 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); and (5) Sections 1, 2, and 4 were amended to comply with the formatting requirements of KRS 13A.220(4).

Department of Juvenile Justice: Child Welfare

505 KAR 1:010. Definitions. This administrative regulation was amended to place the definitions in alphabetical order, as required by KRS 13A.222(4).

505 KAR 1:040. Policies and procedures manual. Keith Horn, General Counsel, and Dr. William M. Heffron, Director of Mental Health Services, represented the Department. Gail Robinson, Juvenile Branch Manager for the Department of Public Advocacy appeared before the Subcommittee.

Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) this administrative regulation contained all of the policies and procedures for the Department of Juvenile Justice; (2) KRS Chapter 13A prohibited the promulgation of an administrative regulation containing every topic of a subject matter; (3) notwithstanding the need to promulgate separate administrative regulations for each topic, approval of this administrative regulation was required in order to comply with a consent decree entered in a Federal lawsuit; (4) at a later date, Subcommittee staff would: (a) meet with Department staff; and (b) divide this administrative regulation into separate topical regulations; (5) the Department would then: (a) file new administrative regulations with separate topics; and (b) delete the items that are in the new administrative regulations from this administrative regulation; (6) this existing administrative regulation was amended to revise portions of the Policy and Procedures relating to Juveniles; (7) an issue was raised regarding the size of therapeutic activity groups; (8) the Federal government had filed a lawsuit against the Department of Juvenile Justice based upon the operation of Juvenile facilities; (9) the Department had signed a consent decree that limited therapeutic group activities to eight residents (Section 43.b.); (10) the Department wanted to amend DJJ 305 "Group Counseling" to increase group sizes from ten to twelve residents.

Mr. Horn stated that: (1) group counseling was one part of treatment for a juvenile in the Department program; (2) additionally, each juvenile received individualized counseling; (3) a comprehensive treatment plan was established for a juvenile; (4) the Department had to achieve substantial compliance to have the consent decree dismissed; (5) the variance in group size would not prevent the Department from achieving substantial compliance, even if the Federal government did not agree to change the cap size; (6) the number of residents in a group session, established in DJJ 305, was a maximum number only; (7) the actual size of a group would be based upon: (a) its purpose; (b) the juveniles in the group; and (c) the group member's particular problems; and (8) not every group would have twelve residents in it.

In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Horn stated that: (1) he did not know if the Department had groups with more than eight residents; (2) the Department Director of Mental Health Services could answer questions regarding group size; (3) the idea behind Section 43 of the consent decree was for the State to reach certain goals for the treatment of juveniles; (4) the Department: (a) would not be prevented from being in substantial compliance if the cap size exceeded eight residents; and (b) was discussing changing the cap size with the Federal government; and (5) there were many parts to the consent decree, of which the group cap size was only a small part.

Ms. Robinson stated that: (1) she supervised lawyers who inspected residential treatment centers operated by the Department, pursuant to another consent decree; (2) the current group size in DJJ 305: (a) was ten residents; and (b) violated the requirements of the consent decree; (3) increasing the group size to twelve residents would not be good for juveniles receiving treatment; (4) on behalf of juveniles, she urged that the group size not be raised to twelve; (5) none of the suggestions made by the Department of Public Advocacy during the public comment period were incorporated into the administrative regulation; (6) the consent decree specifically provided, in Section 27.g., that juveniles should have access to a hotline to report abuse without involving staff in the process; (7) DJJ 140 also violated the consent decree, because the hotline was: (a) in a different building; or (b) locked room; (8) if a juvenile wanted to make a report, he had to ask a staff member to assist him in placing the call; (9) the staff member who supervised a juvenile could be the same person the juvenile wanted to report; (10) this did not promote the safety of the juveniles; (11) the quality assurance group had: (a) monitored the treatment centers for compliance with the consent decree; and (b) raised the issue of exceeding group number requirements; and (12) she had furnished Subcommittee staff with copies of the Monitor's reports.

In response to questions by Senator Pendleton, Mr. Horn stated that: (1) the consent decree was agreed upon and signed by the Commonwealth and Federal government; (2) the Federal government established a maximum number of eight residents in a group counseling session; (3) many people questioned why the consent decree had been signed; (4) there were problems with juvenile treatment in Kentucky; (5) the Department and Federal government had not completed discussions of this matter; (6) if the Department achieved substantial compliance, the consent decree would be dismissed; (7) the Department: (a) was working to achieve that goal in 1999; and (b) did not believe that this issue would prevent dismissal of the consent decree; (8) the Department's mental health experts did not believe a cap of twelve residents per group would negatively impact treatment; and (9) he had to rely on the Department mental health experts in the design of the treatment program for Kentucky juveniles.

Senator Pendleton stated that: (1) he: (a) did not have a problem with twelve residents in a group, if the mental health experts agreed; and (b) had a problem with the Commonwealth: 1. entering into an agreement with the United States; and 2. not complying with that agreement; and (2) by its actions, the State: (a) had not shown good faith; and (b) should not have signed the consent decree, if it was not going to comply.

Mr. Horn stated that: (1) he State and Federal government continued to discuss this matter; (2) if the issue of group numbers became a major problem, the Department would amend the provision; (3) experts had monitored all of the mental health programs in the Department institutions; and (4) the monitors had not indicated that group size was a problem.

In response to questions by Senator Pendleton, Mr. Horn stated that: (1) he did not think that the failure to comply with the consent decree regarding group size had put the State in jeopardy; (2) if the Federal government insisted on a cap of eight residents, the Department would comply; (3) the problem with complying with the cap of eight residents was the number of: (a) residents in the facility; and (b) meetings that could be scheduled; and (4) the numbers fluctuated because, the Department did not know from month to month how many juveniles would be in a particular program.

Dr. Heffron stated that: (1) he thought the group size established in the consent decree had been based upon the literature on psychotherapy groups; (2) not every group operated by the Department was a psychotherapy group; (3) some groups: (a) were educational; and (b) did not address mental health issues; (4) if group categories were lumped together, it would interfere with the fact that some of the groups were not traditional psychotherapy groups; (5) when a juvenile entered a facility, he was placed in a group that he would stay with throughout his stay; (6) the residents: (a) attended activities together; (b) ate meals together; and (c) got to know each other in ways other than in the group; (7) he did not think increasing the group size to twelve would be a problem for the juveniles learning to interact with each other; (8) a smaller group size would probably be more effective, if: (a) the juveniles were in a hospital; and (b) had a limited amount of time; (9) even in a hospital, group size varied depending upon the purposes of the group; and (10) group size was not an absolute.

Senator Pendleton stated that he was also concerned that the administrative regulation had been promulgated before: (1) returning to the Court; and (2) getting the group size changed.

Mr. Horn stated that: (1) part of complying with the consent decree was getting all of the information into: (a) a policies and procedures manual; and (b) administrative regulation form; (2) by promulgating the administrative regulation, the Federal government would see that Kentucky was working to comply with the consent decree; and (3) the Federal government would: (a) review the administrative regulation; and (b) prepare a report if it objected to a particular policy.

Ms. Robinson stated that: (1) there was a report filed by the Federal monitor who reviewed Department compliance with the consent decree; and (2) in every report that had been filed, the monitor had raised the concern that the Department was not complying with the group size established in the consent decree.

In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Horn stated that: (1) when a court committed a child, it granted custody to the Department; (2) the Department decided where the child would be sent for treatment; (3) if he was removed from the community, the treatment goal was to: (a) treat him; (b) make him a better citizen; and (c) return him to the community; (4) the Department: (a) entered into a contract with the child; and (b) outlined the terms under which the child could return home; (5) if a child returned home and any term was violated, the Department could: (a) hold a hearing; and (b) return him to a treatment facility; (6) while many children responded well in treatment, they got into trouble again when they returned to the community; and (7) the Department divided revocation proceedings into two types: (a) juveniles who needed immediate placement because of: 1. recommitting offenses in the community; or 2. other safety concerns; and (b) juveniles who had problems with: 1. attending school; and 2. obeying parents.

Senator Pendleton stated that he: (1) was hesitant to approve this administrative regulation; (2) wanted: (a) this administrative regulation deferred for one month; and (b) to review the monitoring reports; and (3) wanted the Department to respond regarding the hotline issue.

Department personnel were requested to send copies of the information to be submitted to the Regulations Compiler and Subcommittee legal staff.

Mr. Horn stated that: (1) the Department: (a) needed the new policies and procedures for treatment of juveniles; and (b) would have a problem if this administrative regulation was deferred until the next meeting of the Subcommittee; and (2) he did not object to removal of the group size requirements from the policy manual.

Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) if the group size requirements were deleted, the Department would not have a policy relating to group size; and (2) a policy was required by KRS Chapter 13A, because the policy was part of the implementation of applicable authority.

In response to questions relating to the removal of the group size requirements from the policy manual, Mr. Horn stated that: (1) the Department: (a) would function as it had, without the group size policy; and (b) functioned with group sizes of eight to ten residents; and (2) the policy on group size was what the mental health experts determined was proper.

Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) group size requirements were required to be established by administrative regulation; (2) the Department could not implement the statute without having the method of implementation established in an administrative regulation, through policies and procedures that had been established by: (a) material incorporated by reference; or (b) set out in the body of the administrative regulation; (3) a policy could not be established, unless it was established by administrative regulation; (4) the fact that group size related to treatment issues did not make a difference; (5) under KRS Chapter 13A.130, the Department could not establish a practice by policy, memorandum, or other form of action, other than through the promulgation of an administrative regulation; (6) KRS Chapter 13A, particularly KRS 13A.100, 13A.120, and 13A.130, provided that when a statute was implemented, if it was not clear and complete on its face, an administrative regulation was required; and (7) there was almost nothing that could be left out of an administrative regulation, other than interoffice procedures that met the criteria established by KRS Chapter 13A.

Mr. Horn stated that: (1) he did not agree that group size requirements had to be in an administrative regulation; and (2) the issue related to the Department's responsibility to treat the children.

Subcommittee staff stated that when an agency implemented its statutory function, it: (1) implementation was required by KRS Chapter 13A to be through the promulgation of an administrative regulation; and (2) could not be done by policy or memoranda that were not part of an administrative regulation.

Rep. Lee stated that: (1) this administrative regulation should be approved, subject to: (a) the material requested being submitted in writing to the Subcommittee; and (b) recall at the next Subcommittee meeting as an existing administrative regulation; and (2) if problems were found, the: (a) Department could agree to amend as required by the Subcommittee; or (b) the administrative regulation would be found deficient.

Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) the Department of Juvenile Justice should: (a) meet with the Department of Public Advocacy; (b) discuss issues raised by this administrative regulation; (c) respond to the issues, in writing, to the Subcommittee; and (d) submit a list of questions or objections to the Subcommittee; and (2) material or objections should be submitted to the Subcommittee before the next meeting so they could be properly reviewed.

Mr. Horn stated that: (1) the issue of the hotline was: (a) raised; and (b) answered in the Statement of Consideration; (2) the Department operated may different types of facilities, based upon the classification of the juveniles; (3) it would be difficult and cost prohibitive to eliminate staff involvement with the hotline in some facilities; (4) juveniles were classified as: (a) maximum security; (b) medium security; or (c) minimum security; and (5) based on the type and layout of the facility, it might not be appropriate for a resident to have direct access to the phone.

In response to questions by Representative Lee, Ms. Robinson stated that: (1) her objection to a group size cap above eight residents related only to counseling sessions; (2) she: (a) would address the reasons why certain groups should be capped at eight; (b) was not involved in the process by which the State set the group cap at eight; and (c) would not object, if the Department proposed capping only psychotherapy groups at eight; (3) the policy did not indicate a group cap of eight in a psychotherapy group; and (4) she did not intend to give the impression that she objected to all meetings having more than eight residents.

In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Ms. Robinson stated that she: (1) thought the residential treatment center program was beneficial; (2) objected to certain policies; (3) did not keep statistics on success rates; and (4) had been involved with children who: (a) had completed the program; (b) had returned home; and (c) were doing what was required.

In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Mr. Horn stated that he would check with one of the Department divisions to determine if there were statistics on the success of the treatment.

Chairman Arnold stated that: (1) the Subcommittee would approve this administrative regulation, subject to the Department providing the necessary information before its February, 1999, meeting; (2) this administrative regulation would be recalled; and (3) if the Subcommittee disagreed with the Department of Juvenile Justice, this administrative regulation would be found deficient.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) Section 1 was amended to separately list the policies in the Policies and Procedures Manual; (2) definitions for "Abuse or Neglect" and "Mistreatment" were added to DJJ 142; (3) DJJ 200 was amended to incorporate by reference certain forms; (4) DJJ 201 was amended to cross-reference forms; (5) DJJ 304 and 305 were amended to insert definitions for "Behavior contract", "cycle work", "relapse prevention planning", and "Regional qualified mental health professional"; (6) DJJ 323 was amended to define "isolation"; (7) DJJ 500 was amended to: (a) include the definition of "Juvenile Services Worker" and "Youth Worker; and (b) clarify the definition of "Support Staff"; (8) DJJ 602 was amended to include the definition of "Commissioner’s warrant", "Safety concern", and "Supervised placement hearing"; (9) DJJ 620, III. was amended to provide that a youth that was rearrested shall be considered a risk to the community; (10) DJJ 620, III.A.5. was amended to clarify the rights of the youth at a probable cause hearing; and (11) drafting and formatting amendments to comply with KRS Chapter 13A.

505 KAR 1:050. Local juvenile delinquency prevention councils: formation procedure. Subcommittee staff stated that this new administrative regulation established the formation procedure for Local Juvenile Delinquency Councils, in accordance with House Bill 455, enacted during the 1998 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to correct statutory citations; (2) Sections 1 and 2 were amended to delete language that repeated KRS 15A.300(1) and (2), as required by KRS 13A.120(2)(e); (3) Section 2(2), (4), and (5) were amended to comply with the formatting requirements of KRS 13A.220(5); and (4) Section 3 was amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).

505 KAR 1:060. Local juvenile delinquency prevention councils: operation and duties. Subcommittee staff stated that this new administrative regulation established the operation and duties of Local Juvenile Delinquency Councils, in accordance with House Bill 455.

505 KAR 1:070. Local juvenile delinquency prevention councils: Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program. Subcommittee staff stated that this new administrative regulation established requirements for the administration and operation of grant programs under the Community Juvenile Justice Partnership Grant Program, in accordance with House Bill 455.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to correct statutory citations; (2) Section 1 was amended to comply with the: (a) formatting requirements of KRS 13A.220(5); and (b) the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); (3) Section 1(3) was amended to specify criteria for grant program solicitations; (4) Section 1(5) was amended to clarify the meaning of "issuer of grant program solicitations;" (5) Section 1(5)(c) was amended to clarify the activity that a council member shall avoid; (6) Section 1(7) was amended to delete language that repeated KRS 15A.300(3)(d), as required by KRS 13A.120(2)(e); (7) Section 1(8) was amended to conform with KRS 15A.300(3)(d); and (8) Section 1(9) was amended for clarity and to define "satisfactory performance" of a grant program.

The amendment was amended at Section 1(9) to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).

School Facilities Construction Commission: Education Technology Funding Program

750 KAR 2:010 & E. Education Technology Funding Program guidelines. Bob Tarvin, Executive Director, represented the Commission.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Section 3(2) was amended to clarify that the district shall provide the Commission evidence certifying that matching funds have been committed.

Labor Cabinet: Department of Workers Claims

803 KAR 25:026. Group self-insurers. Carla Montgomery, Staff Attorney, and Steve Cox, General Counsel, represented the Department.

In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Mr. Cox stated that: (1) as former employees of the Department of Insurance, both he and Ms. Montgomery: (a) were familiar with the previous problems relating to self-insured groups; and (b) recognized that some of the self-insurance groups were as large in premium volume as insurance carriers admitted to do business in Kentucky; and (2) the Department had attempted to create a stronger regulatory authority over these groups.

In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Cox stated that: (1) the Department: (a) had originally wanted to raise the threshold to $10 million; and (b) had decided to keep it at $5 million, after meeting with self-insurance groups; and (2) this administrative regulation was expected to affect 10 self-insureds who were registered and accredited with the Authority to do business in Kentucky; (4) the Department had met with those self-insureds many times about this administrative regulation; and (5) while the paperwork requirements had been changed to conform to changes in the statutory requirements for auditing self-insureds, there was not a significant change in the amount of paperwork.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1 through 12 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); and (2) Section 11 was amended to delete language that repeated or summarized KRS Chapter 13B, as required by KRS 13A.120(2)(e).

803 KAR 25:170. Filing of claims information with the Department of Workers’ Claims. In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Ms. Montgomery stated that workers’ compensation carriers were made aware of the filing requirements established in this administrative regulation.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph was amended to clearly state the necessity for and function served by this administrative regulation, as required by KRS 13A.220(3)(f); (2) Sections 4 and 5 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4) and 13A.2251(2); and (3) Section 2(1) was amended to specify that carriers shall file the required form according to the time periods prescribed in KRS 342.038, rather than repeating the statutory language, as required by KRS 13A.120(2)(e).

803 KAR 25:240. Workers’ compensation unfair claims settlement practices. In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Mr. Cox stated that: (1) while an unfair claims settlement practice act had existed for every other line of property and casualty insurance for at least the last ten years, workers’ compensation was not given that authority until the passage of House Bill 1, enacted during the 1996 First Extraordinary Session of the General Assembly; (2) Commissioner Turner had held 50 to 100 show cause hearings against self-insured employers relating to unfair claims settlement practices; and (3) the Department would look into any complaints brought to its attention.

Department of Insurance: Health Insurance Contracts

806 KAR 17:210 & E. Reporting requirements for the Kentucky Guaranteed Acceptance Program. Sharron Burton, General Counsel, and Rosie Washington, Branch Manager, represented the Department.

In response to a question by Chairman Arnold, Ms. Burton stated that: (1) this administrative regulation imposed reporting requirements concerning the: (a) Kentucky Guaranteed Acceptance Program ("GAP"); (b) dollar amounts: 1. in that program; and 2. being taken from that program; and (c) insureds who were members of the program; and (2) because the Department had difficulty translating the data received electronically on the quarterly reports, this administrative regulation was amended to require that the report be filed manually.

In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Ms. Burton stated that there were 91 people in the GAP program.

In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Ms. Washington stated that: (1) approximately 81 people were phased into the GAP program from Anthem; (2) House Bill 315, enacted during the 1998 Regular Session of the General Assembly, required that a person diagnosed with a high-cost condition in or after 1995 be able to continue to have health insurance with Anthem while going into the GAP program; (3) the GAP program: (a) was financially viable; (b) had received enough money from the state and insurers; and (c) was projected to be fully funded; (4) the Department: (a) had not received responses from approximately 100 of the 200 carriers required to support the program; and (b) would reassess the program’s funding viability as more people joined the program in the next couple of years; (5) Humana, which agreed to participate, and Anthem were the two companies that sold individual policies for the GAP program; and (6) other insurance companies and stop-loss carriers within Kentucky who collected premiums from health benefit plans: (a) were required to pay into the pool; and (b) sold policies to small and large groups, associations, and employers;

In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Ms. Burton stated that: (1) 806 KAR 17:190 established: (a) alternative underwriting mechanism criteria, which was another way insurers could participate in the GAP program; and (b) termination requirements for the GAP program; and (2) 806 KAR 17:210 established reporting requirements for information on insureds and the money in the GAP program.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the RELATES TO, STATUTORY AUTHORITY, and NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraphs and Section 1 were amended to correct statutory citations; and (2) Sections 3 and 5 were amended to correct the name of the required form.

Cabinet for Health Services: Office of Inspector General: Division of Licensing and Regulation: Certificate of Need

900 KAR 6:050. Certificate of need administrative regulations. John Gray, Executive Director, represented the Division. Nancy Galvagni, Kentucky Hospital Association, appeared before the Subcommittee.

Representative Bruce stated that he wanted this administrative regulation amended to: (1) specify in Section 7(1)(a)1. that applications that proposed to transfer surgical services shall: (a) not be reviewed for consistency with the State Health Plan; and (b) be reviewed under the nonsubstantive review provisions established in Section 8 of this administrative regulation; and (2) amend Section 8(1)(c) to: (a) delete language that authorized nonsubstantive review for a proposal for a physician owned magnetic resonance imaging service; and (b) authorize nonsubstantive review status to an application for a proposal that involves the transfer of surgical services from a licensed health facility to another licensed health facility or to a newly established health facility.

Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) issues had been raised regarding this administrative regulation which would be: (a) explained by Ms. Galvagni to the Subcommittee; and (b) the subject of discussions between the Cabinet, Ms. Galvagni, and Subcommittee staff prior to the next Subcommittee meeting; and (2) this administrative regulation would be called up as an existing administrative regulation at the Subcommittee’s February meeting.

Ms. Galvagni stated that: (1) the Kentucky Hospital Association: (a) appreciated the Subcommittee’s agreement agreeing to reconsider this administrative regulation at its February, 1998, meeting; and (b) wanted this administrative regulation to include enforcement provisions; (2) a Certificate of Need ("Certificate", "CON"): (a) did not specify if the Certificate of Need had been issued in response to a request for authorization to provide a limited service, such as a surgery center specifically for eye or pain surgery; and (b) should be limited to the specific purposes for which the certificate had been issued; and (3) she had received conflicting information regarding whether enforcement was the responsibility of the Certificate of Need office or Licensure office.

In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Gray stated that while the biennial review process was a limited method of enforcement for a certificate of need, the Certificate of Need office: (1) had limited, if any, authority to revoke a Certificate of Need that had been implemented; and (2) believed that enforcement was the responsibility of licensure.

Chairman Arnold stated that because a person who had received a certificate of need for a surgery center to remove warts should not be operating on a person’s eyes, enforcement was necessary.

Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) representatives of the Certificate of Need and Licensure offices would meet with Subcommittee staff and Ms. Galvagni to address: (a) this issue; and (b) an issue relating to personal care; and (2) the Subcommittee staff would report back to the Subcommittee at its February, 1998, meeting.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) Section 21(5) was amended to: (a) delete language relating to disciplinary action that may be taken for failure to comply with CON terms, because Cabinet action for failure was specified in KRS Chapter 216B; and (b) cross reference disciplinary proceedings established by KRS 216B.086 and 216B.990 for failure of a Certificate holder to comply with the terms of the Certificate of Need; (2) Section 7(1)(a)1. was amended to specify that applications that proposed to transfer surgical services shall: (a) not be reviewed for consistency with the state health plan; and (b) be reviewed under the nonsubstantive review provisions established in Section 8 of this administrative regulation; and (3) Section 8(1)(c) was amended to: (a) delete language that authorized nonsubstantive review for a proposal for a physician owned magnetic resonance imaging service; and (b) authorize nonsubstantive review status to an application for a proposal that involves the transfer of surgical services from a licensed health facility to another licensed health facility or to a newly established health facility.

The Subcommittee approved a motion by Representative Bruce, seconded by Senator Pendleton, to amend Sections 7 and 8 of this administrative regulation as requested by Representative Bruce.

Cabinet for Families and Children: Department for Community Based Services: Division of Policy Development: Child Welfare

905 KAR 1:050. Approval of adoption assistance. Cliff Jennings and Sandra Rollins represented the Department.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY and NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraphs were amended to correct statutory citations; (2) Section 1 was amended to clarify eligibility for assistance; and (3) formatting amendments to comply with KRS 13A.220(4).

The Subcommittee determined that the following administrative regulations complied with statutory requirements:

Finance and Administration Cabinet: Office of the Secretary: Purchasing

200 KAR 5:021 & E. Manual of policies and procedures. Don Speer, Commissioner, Department for Administration, Dalene McCann, Director, Division of Purchasing, Angela Robinson, Attorney, Finance and Administration Cabinet, Jim Roberts, Deputy Commissioner, Department for Vehicle Registration, Transportation Cabinet, appeared before the Subcommittee.

Chairman Arnold stated that: (1) questions had been raised concerning the policies in the manual that restricted and placed conditions on contracts for upkeep and radio service work relating to the statewide vehicle enforcement radio system; (2) the following conditions attached to a contract: (a) the vendor response time during off-peak hours was limited to maximum of two hours; (b) repair had to be completed in two days; and (c) a vendor had to be located within a sixty mile radius of Frankfort; (3) some of the questions raised related to the: (a) basis for the sixty mile radius; (b) percentage of mobile units located in Central Kentucky; (c) requirement that a vendor had to be within a sixty mile radius of Frankfort; and (d) the effect this had on service in other areas of the State; and (4) questions relating to the policies had been transmitted to the Finance and Transportation Cabinets.

Mr. Roberts stated that, with regard to the: (1) average time from loss of communications or need of repair until a unit was sent to Frankfort for repair: (a) if the radio was not operational, it would be fixed locally regardless of the complexity of the problem; and (b) if all communications were out, and a supervisor or employee was scheduled for training or meetings in Frankfort, the person going to Frankfort would bring the car and return the same day; (2) reason new installation of lights, cameras, and radios were in the same contract as two-way service for old and new units, rather than being separately contracted: (a) in the specifications the item, "other equipment", was intended to have the vendor perform the installation functions; and (b) one-vendor approach would ensure continuity, uniformity, and a single contact, or source of blame if problems arose; (3) reason for not having 3 service centers, even though 25% of the units were in eastern Kentucky, 25% of the units were in western Kentucky, and 50% of the units were in central Kentucky: (a) in most cases, the repair process worked better to have the radio system repaired by the initial installer; (b) with proper initial installation, there should be only minor problems; (c) minor repairs, adjustments, and total failure were handled locally; and (d) the Transportation Cabinet dealt with local dealers in: 1. Paducah; 2. Franklin; 3. Henderson; 4. London; and 5. Pikeville; (4) 41 cars west of Elizabethtown that were alleged to be too far from service: the Transportation Cabinet: (a) had not found that service was less or impaired by being too far away; and (b) requested it be notified of cases in which service was degraded because the vehicles were located west of Elizabethtown; (5) single contract, for radio communications and lighting, camera equipment and other items, after initial installation: (a) because the initial installer knew how the equipment was wired and configured, it was more efficient for the initial installer to repair the equipment; and (b) a problem caused by initial installation should be repaired by the initial installer at no additional cost; (6) reason minor repairs were made locally while larger problems were corrected in Frankfort: (a) problems were handled on a case by case basis; (b) not all major problems were handled in Frankfort; (c) the vendor is a certified Kenwood dealer, which is the type of equipment Vehicle Enforcement vehicles have, and other vendors might not be Kenwood dealers; and (d) a major problem could be due to improper installation, for which the initial installer should be responsible; (7) danger in officers being without communications until they can get an appointment in Frankfort: (a) officers were not sent out without communications; and (b) if they were in Frankfort for repairs and the equipment could not be repaired that day, they would be issued a pool car with a working radio; (8) inability of the repair center to repair units from eastern or western Kentucky because it is overwhelmed with repairs: (a) the units would be given preference over normal installations, or authorization would be granted for the repair to be made locally; (b) officers would not return home without communications, because: 1. the equipment would be repaired; or 2. a pool car would be issued; and (c) a spare or swapped radio would be used for repair, if the item is deemed not to be repairable; (9) cost of drive time, extra trips, or the cost of an over-night stay: (a) in most cases, unless an officer was in Frankfort for another reason, the Transportation Cabinet would receive an estimate from a local vendor; (b) if extra trips have been required, they would be rare; and (c) the Transportation Cabinet did not recall that any over-night stay; and (10) reason State Police, and Fish and Wildlife, had service centers throughout the state that were made up of agency employees or a contracted firm, if one center was considered adequate: (a) the Transportation Cabinet understood that installations for Fish and Wildlife were made in Frankfort; (b) while Transportation Cabinet Motor Vehicles had 200 or fewer vehicles, the State Police had: 1. over 1,000 vehicles; and 2. 16 posts staffed by State Police personnel to maintain State Police equipment.

With regard to the reason a contract was issued for such a long time without requiring rebidding, which would appear to allow the original bidder continuously to renew his contract, Mr. Speer stated that: (1) an option to renew had to be agreed upon by both the Commonwealth and the vendor; (2) a state agency or the Finance and Administration Cabinet would review a vendor’s performance before it recommended renewal of his contract; (3) an option to renew would vary, depending upon the type of contracted service; and (4) these contracts were: (a) contracts with options to renew; (b) 1 year contracts with four 1 year options to renew; and (c) were intended to ensure continuity and prevent a lapse in service that would occur if a new contract was required each year.

With regard to the requirement that a vendor be located within a 60-mile radius of Frankfort in order to be eligible to bid on a contract for upkeep and radio service work relating to the statewide vehicle enforcement radio system, Mr. Speer stated that, while the 60-mile radius requirement had been a business decision based on the variables that had been discussed: (1) the requirement that a vendor be physically located within a 60-mile radius of Frankfort: (a) should not have been a conditions of eligibility; and (b) would not be a condition of eligibility in future contract solicitations; and (2) emphasis would be placed on the delivery of services.

In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Speer stated that: (1) the 60-mile radius requirement would be rescinded; (2) all vendors would be allowed to bid on the contracts; (3) the criteria would relate to service and repair in a timely manner.

Chairman Arnold state that: (1) this change was good; (2) there was not much difference between driving from Sturgis, Elizabethtown, Paducah, Morgantown, or Hopkinsville to Frankfort or driving from Frankfort to Sturgis, Elizabethtown, Paducah, Morgantown, or Hopkinsville and a vendor from areas other than a 60-mile radius of Frankfort could make the drive here. Mr. Speer stated that the requirement would be limited to meeting the service requirements in a timely manner.

Representative Allen stated that: (1) he wanted to raise an issue that, while unrelated to the subject matter of this administrative regulation, was serious; (2) on many occasions, he had noticed state vehicles exceeding posted speed limits, traveling at speeds in excess of seventy miles, and as much as 90 miles per hour; (3) these state vehicles were: (a) not State Police vehicles in pursuit; and (b) were vehicles belonging to Fish and Wildlife and the Transportation Cabinet; (4) could not understand why such excessive speed was allowed; (5) state employees driving state vehicles should observe the speed limits that citizens observed; (6) unsafe excessive speed by state vehicles was: (a) dangerous; (b) set a bad example; and (c) was disapproved and resented by citizens of the state; and (7) state agencies should at least send a memo to their employees instructing them to observe speed limits.

Mr. Roberts stated that: (1) speed limits applied to state employees; (2) if the license number and the date of an incident were reported to the Transportation Cabinet, it could have the Finance and Administration Cabinet obtain the driver’s name, and take action; and (3) agreed with Representative Allen’s suggestion to send a memo to state employees.

Board of Examiners and Registration of Landscape Architects

201 KAR 10:050. Fees. In response to a question by Representative Allen, Ms. Gardner stated that: (1) this administrative regulation: (a) affected the national examination fees for licensure; and (b) did not affect current licensees in Kentucky; and (2) because the national supplier of the examination had restructured the examination from seven to five sections, the cost of the examination had decreased.

Board of Barbering

201 KAR 14:180. License fees, examination fees, renewal fees and expiration fees. Bill Maggard, Administrator, represented the Board.

In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Mr. Maggard stated that the fees: (1) were established in this administrative regulation; and (2) included: (a) a $30 initial fee for an apprentice, barber, or barber shop; (b) a $150 initial fee for barber school; (c) a $50 initial fee for teachers; and (d) examination, renewal, and late fees.

In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Maggard stated that: (1) the Board had previously charged fees: (a) under the direction of the last two budget bills; and (b) that exceeded the amounts authorized by the budget bills; (2) House Bill 602, enacted during the 1998 Regular Session of the General Assembly, established new limits, which brought the fees within the authorized limits; (3) while most of the fees established in this administrative regulation were the same as the previous fees, this administrative regulation included: (a) a $70 decrease in the fee for renewals for barber schools; and (b) a $5 decrease for all late fees; (4) the Board sent an annual newspaper to members; and (5) the renewal notice on the back of the license included information on the fees.

In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Maggard stated that the fees for a barber: (1) had not been increased; and (2) were $30.

Tourism Development Cabinet: Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Game

301 KAR 2:251. Hunting and trapping seasons and limits for furbearers and small game. Roy Grimes, Director of Wildlife, and John Wilson, Assistant Director, Public Affairs, represented the Department.

In response to a question by Representative Allen, Mr. Grimes stated that because duck and geese hunters were not authorized to leave the normal channels of a water system, a hunter who entered by boat on private property that had been flooded would be considered a trespasser.

Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction: Division of Building Codes Enforcement: Plumbing

815 KAR 20:120. Water supply and distribution. Tim Faust, Assistant Director, represented the Department.

In response to a question by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Faust stated that copper tubing and galvanized steel pipe could be joined, if the manufacturer’s fitting specified in this administrative regulation was used.

Electrical Inspectors

815 KAR 35:015. Certification of electrical inspectors. Bill Perkins, Chief Electrical Inspector, represented the Department.

In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Perkins stated that: (1) this administrative regulation did not change the fees that had previously been established; (2) Senate Bill 18, enacted during the 1998 Regular Session of the General Assembly: (a) was referred to as the "straight pipe bill"; (b) made electrical inspectors responsible for compliance with its provisions; and (c) did not establish provisions for noncompliance; and (3) this administrative regulation: (a) established a procedure under which the Department would discuss the requirements of Senate Bill 18 with an electrical inspector who had not complied with its requirements; and (b) enabled the Department to enforce the Senate bill.

In response to questions by Representative Allen, Mr. Perkins stated that: (1) prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 18, an electrical inspector conducted an inspection when it was requested; (2) Senate Bill 18 prohibited an electrical inspector from conducting an inspection until after the Health Department inspections had been completed; and (3) Senate Bill 18 was a good piece of legislation because it helped reduce solid waste problems, especially from trailers located on hillsides.

In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Perkins stated that Senate Bill 18 was the "straight pipe bill", and prohibited a person from running a straight pipe from a mobile home or other structure to a hillside for solid waste disposal.

In response to questions by Representative Lee, Mr. Perkins stated that: (1) Senate Bill 18: (a) required a home builder to pull the permits from the health department; (b) did not: 1. require an electrical contractor or electrician to pull the permits; and 2. prohibit an electrician from performing the electrical work prior to the inspections; and (c) prohibited conducting an electrical inspection prior to the inspection of the septic and sewer systems; (2) if an electrical contractor filed for the electrical inspection, he would be asked for the other permits, because the electrical inspector was not allowed to conduct an inspection until the health department permits had been issued; and (3) the homeowner or contractor was responsible for making sure the permits had been pulled.

In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Perkins stated that: (1) he would provide additional information to the Subcommittee, in writing, regarding the requirements from Senate Bill 18; and (2) because the health department was the agency that had determined that changing from a single or double wide trailer to a three-wide or multiple section home increased the capability of a septic tank, clarification about why a permit was not issued should come from the health department.

In response to a request by Representative Lee, Mr. Perkins stated that: (1) he had notified electrical inspectors in Kentucky that electricians were not responsible for obtaining permits from the health department: (a) through a letter; and (b) in two one-hour continuing education programs conducted at the electrical inspectors’ meetings in February and August; (2) he believed that electricians should be licensed by the state because: (a) many other professions were required to be licensed; and (b) he had seen the results of non-licensed electricians, during his over forty years of electrical work, including work in the Fire Marshal’s Office; and (3) enactment of a licensure requirement during the 2000 Regular Session of the General Assembly would be a positive improvement for Kentucky.

Cabinet for Health Services: Office of Inspector General: Division of Licensing and Regulation: Certificate of Need

900 KAR 6:030. Certificate of need expenditure minimums. John Gray, Executive Director, represented the Division.

Cabinet for Health Services: Department for Medicaid Services: Division of Financial Management and Analysis: Medicaid Services

907 KAR 1:391. Repeal of 907 KAR 1:390. Trish Howard represented the Department.

In response to a question by Chairman Arnold, Ms. Howard stated that this administrative regulation repealed 907 KAR 1:390, because the hearing services manual was now incorporated by reference into the hearing services administrative regulation, 907 KAR 1:038.

The Subcommittee and promulgating administrative bodies agreed to defer consideration of the following administrative regulations to the February 9, 1999 meeting of the Subcommittee:

Agricultural Experiment Station: University of Kentucky: Division of Regulatory Services: Commercial Feeds

12 KAR 2:031. Directions and precautionary statements for feed with additives.

12 KAR 2:041. Additives.

12 KAR 2:046. Poisonous or deleterious substances.

12 KAR 2:051. Manufacturing conditions.

12 KAR 2:056. List of manufacturers.

12 KAR 2:061. Registration.

12 KAR 2:066. Suitability.

Pet Food

12 KAR 3:012. Uniform labeling format.

12 KAR 3:017. Brand and product names.

12 KAR 3:022. Guarantees.

12 KAR 3:027. Ingredients.

12 KAR 3:037. Additives.

12 KAR 3:042. Statement of caloric content.

Kentucky State Treasurer: State Treasury

20 KAR 1:040E. Unclaimed properties; claims.

20 KAR 1:070E. Unclaimed property; administrative hearing, appeals process.

20 KAR 1:080E. Reports to be filed by holders of unclaimed property.

Revenue Cabinet: Department of Law: Division of Tax Policy: Selective Excise Tax; Motor Vehicle Usage

103 KAR 44:060E. Motor vehicle usage tax valuation.

Board of Medical Licensure

201 KAR 9:320. Procedures for physician training and/or supervision of noncertified individuals in the use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs).

201 KAR 9:330E. Determination of death by a paramedic.

201 KAR 9:335E. Discontinuance of resuscitation by a paramedic.

201 KAR 9:340E. Training of paramedics in determination of death and discontinuance of resuscitation.

Board of Examiners and Registration of Landscape Architects

201 KAR 10:080. Continuing education.

Board of Certification of Alcohol and Drug Counselors

201 KAR 35:030. Code of ethics.

201 KAR 35:040. Continuing education requirements.

Tourism Development Cabinet: Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Game

301 KAR 2:221E. Waterfowl seasons and limits.

301 KAR 2:222E. Waterfowl hunting requirements.

301 KAR 2:223E. Waterfowl reporting requirements.

301 KAR 2:226E. Youth waterfowl hunting season.

Transportation Cabinet: Department of Vehicle Regulation: Division of Motor Carriers

601 KAR 1:115. Taxicabs, limousines, and disabled persons vehicles. Charles Harmon represented the Cabinet. Don Taylor, Vice President, Global Transportation; Jeff Macken, Yellow Cab, Louisville; and Bill White, Union Cab, Louisville, appeared before the Subcommittee.

Mr. Harmon stated that the Department supported this administrative regulation: (1) with the amendment suggested by Subcommittee staff; and (2) without additional amendments.

Mr. White stated that: (1) he: (a) owned and operated Union Cab of Louisville; and (b) supported amending this administrative regulation; (2) the amendments placed the rural and smaller cab companies on an even scale; (3) escrow permits: (a) enabled large cab companies to have back-up cabs: 1. without carrying insurance on those cabs, because large cab companies were self-insured; and 2. for use during special events, such as the Kentucky Derby; (b) created a hardship for smaller cab companies that were: 1. not self-insured; and 2. required to pay $75 to $100 per week per cab for insurance; and (4) it was not profitable for smaller cab companies to keep back-up vehicles on hand throughout the entire year.

Mr. Mack stated that he: (1) was with Yellow Cab in Louisville; and (2) wanted this administrative regulation deferred until the February 9, 1999, meeting of the Subcommittee to give his company additional time to work with the Department to establish a compromise for companies that had cab permits in escrow.

Mr. Harmon stated that while the Cabinet did not object to deferring this administrative regulation, this administrative regulation required certain actions by June 30, 1999, the end of the fiscal year.

This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph was amended to clearly state the necessity for and function served by the administrative regulation, as required by KRS 13A.220(4)(f); (2) Section 2(2) was amended to provide that if there is no protest, the commissioner shall approve sale, transfer, or lease; and (3) Drafting and formatting amendments to comply with KRS Chapter 13A.

Without objection, this administrative regulation was deferred.

Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet: Kentucky Board of Education: Department of Education: Office of Learning Programs Development: Office of Instruction

704 KAR 3:480E. Early reading incentive grants.

School Facilities Construction Commission: Procedures

750 KAR 1:010E. Commission procedures.

Kentucky Board of Tax Appeals: Tax Appeals

802 KAR 1:010. Rules of practice and procedure.

Labor Cabinet: Department of Workers Claims

803 KAR 25:175E. Filing of insurance coverage and notice of policy changes or termination.

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

803 KAR 50:010. Hearings; procedure, disposition.

Department of Insurance: Life Insurance and Annuity Contracts

806 KAR 15:040E. Licensing, reporting, and general requirements for viatical settlement providers and brokers.

Health Insurance Contracts

806 KAR 17:170E. Genetic testing.

806 KAR 17:190 & E. Guaranteed Acceptance Program requirements. Sharron Burton, General Counsel, represented the

Subcommittee staff stated that the Department had agreed to defer consideration of this administrative regulation to work on issues that had been raised.

806 KAR 17:200E. Severity codes for high-cost conditions.

Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction: Division of Building Codes Enforcement: Kentucky Building Code

815 KAR 7:105. Kentucky Building Code/1997.

Cabinet for Health Services: Department for Public Health: Health Services and Facilities

902 KAR 20:134. Repeal of 902 KAR 20:135.

Milk and Milk Products

902 KAR 50:031. Standards for producer eligibility for manufacturing grade milk.

902 KAR 50:032. Standards for farm requirements for manufacturing grade milk.

902 KAR 50:033. Standards for enforcement procedures for manufacturing grade milk.

Cabinet for Families and Children: Department for Community Based Services: Division of Policy Development: Public Assistance

904 KAR 2:006E. Technical requirements for the Kentucky Transitional Assistance Program (K-TAP).

904 KAR 2:116E. Home Energy Assistance Program.

904 KAR 2:370E. Technical requirements for Kentucky Works.

Cabinet for Health Services: Department for Medicaid Services: Division of Financial Management and Analysis: Medicaid Services

907 KAR 1:013E. Payments for hospital inpatient services.

907 KAR 1:025E. Payments for nursing facility and intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded services.

907 KAR 1:635E. Conditions of coverage for the Kentucky Hospital Care Program (KHCP).

907 KAR 1:755E. Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Program.

Department for Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services: Substance Abuse

908 KAR 1:311. Repeal of 908 KAR 1:010, 908 KAR 1:020, 908 KAR 1:030, 908 KAR 1:040, 908 KAR 1:050, 908 KAR 1:060, 908 KAR 1:070, 908 KAR 1:080, 908 KAR 1:090, 908 KAR 1:100, 908 KAR 1:110, 908 KAR 1:120, 908 KAR 1:130, 908 KAR 1:140, 908 KAR 1:150, 908 KAR 1:160, 908 KAR 1:170, 908 KAR 1:180, 908 KAR 1:190, 908 KAR 1:200, 908 KAR 1:210, 908 KAR 1:220, 908 KAR 1:230, 908 KAR 1:240, 908 KAR 1:250, and 908 KAR 1:260.

908 KAR 1:370. Licensing procedures and standards for persons and agencies operating alcohol and other drug abuse treatment programs.

OTHER BUSINESS:

New Subcommittee Member

Chairman Arnold introduced Senator Marshall Long who had been appointed to the Subcommittee to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Senator Kafoglis.

Sound System

Representative Lee stated that: (1) in 1996, he had submitted a request to LRC that the sound systems in all legislative committee rooms and the chambers be replaced; (2) he discussed the sound systems with LRC, during the 1999 Organizational Session of the General Assembly; (3) a pilot model had been accepted by LRC; (4) the sound systems would be: (a) sent out for bids; and (b) similar to the sound systems installed in the judicial branch; and (5) the microphone problem should be solved soon.

The Subcommittee adjourned at 12:30 p.m. until February 9, 1999, at 10 a.m. in Room 149 of the Capitol Annex.