The July meeting of the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee was held on Tuesday, July 11, 2000 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 Joey Pendleton, Richard Roeding and Marshall Long; Representatives Woody Allen, Jimmie Lee and James Bruce.
Guests: Robin Thomerson, Janice Ernst, Linda Rensehier, Richard Casey, KHEAA; Roger Sugerman, Dennis Taulbee, Council on Postsecondary Education; Nancy L. Black, Scott Porter, Jack Kerns, Kentucky Athletic Commission; Tom Bennett, Jennifer Fields, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources; Brenda Priestley, Stephen P. Durham, Tamela Biggs, Department of Corrections; Charlie Harman, Transportation Cabinet; Mary Ellen Wiederwohl, Education Professional Standards Board; Helen Mountjoy, Kevin Noland, Bonnie Brinly, Board of Education; Mona Carter, Russell Coy, Brian K. Staples, Shaun Orme, Department of Insurance; Robert Calhoun, Marcia Burklow, Ann B. Reeser, David Nichols, Eric Friedlander, Karen Doyle, Trish Howard, Jare Schneider, Virginia L. Shumante, Cabinet for Health Services; Shirley Eldridge, Thelma Cornett, Rosanne Barkley, Stephanie Brammer-Barnes, Cliff Jennings, Mike Ridenour, Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Mike Helton, KPMA; Jan Gould, Kentucky Retail Federation; Ted Bradshaw, AAI; Lyle D. Cobb, Cobb & Associates; Bert May, Kentucky League of Cities; Jennifer Rhoades, Municipal Electric Power Association of Kentucky; Robert L. Barnett, Kentucky Pharmacists Association; Leon Mooneyhan, Local Superintendent's Advisory Committee; Teresa T. Combs, Kentucky School Boards Association; Betty D. Muntz, Kentucky Council of Administrators of Secondary Education; Charles Muntz, Special Education Consultant; Jane Ellen Myers, Anderson County Schools; Kathleen Reutman, Boone County School; Marti Ginter, Central Kentucky Special Education; Clatis Walker, Teresa Wasson, Central Kentucky Special Education Co-op; Ken Roberts, Daviess County Public Schools; Roberna Salyer, Greenup County School; Brenda C. Voris, Harrodsburg Independent; Carol Sturgill, Johnson County Board of Education; Linda Walters, Montgomery County; Joan Teeters, Union County Schools; Stephen W. Long; Carole H. Long; Carol L. Grissett; Veronica Brown; Marie Braun.
LRC Staff: Dave Nicholas, Donna Little, Stephen Lynn, Edna Lowery, Susan Wunderlich, Donna Valencia, Ellen Steinberg, Ellen Benzing, Biff Baker, Don Hines.
Press:
The Subcommittee determined that the following administrative regulations, as amended by the promulgating agency and the Subcommittee, complied with statutory requirements:
Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority: Division of Student Services: Kentucky Loan Program
11 KAR 3:100. Administrative wage garnishment. Richard Casey, General Counsel, and Linda Renschler, Branch Manager, Student Aid Branch, represented the Authority.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Casey stated that: (1) this administrative regulation was not more stringent than federal requirements; (2) he did not know how many student loans were outstanding; and (3) the wage garnishment process on defaulted student loans has resulted in a net recovery of approximately five million dollars from about 2,100 to 2,500 borrowers.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Sections 3, 5, and 6 were amended to: (1) correct typographical errors; and (2) comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
KHEAA Grant Programs
11 KAR 5:001. Definitions pertaining to 11 KAR Chapter 5. In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Casey stated that this administrative regulation: (1) prohibited financial aid for correspondence courses for traditional mail-order home study programs; and (2) did not affect: (a) courses through the Kentucky Commonwealth Virtual University; or (b) continuing education programs that did not lead to a certificate, diploma, or degree.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) Section 1(7) was amended to: (a) comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4)(e) for definitions; and (b) specify that the definition of “correspondence course” shall not include courses from the Kentucky Commonwealth Virtual University (KCVU); and (2) Section 1(22) was amended to correct the citation to applicable federal statutes, as required by KRS 13A.222(4)(m) and (p).
11 KAR 5:034. CAP grant student eligibility. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Sections 1(3) and 1(10) were amended to comply with the: (1) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (2) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
11 KAR 5:140. KTG award determination procedure. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to correct a statutory citation; and (2) Sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
11 KAR 5:145. CAP grant award determination procedure. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Sections 1 through 8 were amended to comply with the: (1) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (2) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
11 KAR 5:160. Disbursement procedures. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to correct a statutory citation; and (2) Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
Kentucky Educational Savings Plan Trust
11 KAR 12:010. Definitions for 11 KAR Chapter 12. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Section 1(9) was amended to correct an internal cross-reference. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Section 1(9) was amended to correct an internal cross-reference.
11 KAR 12:030. Eligibility of beneficiary and participant. In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Casey stated that: (1) the beneficiary’s social security number had been traditionally used for identification purposes; and (2) he was not aware of recent efforts to stop using social security numbers for identification.
In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) the reference to “reasonable rules and regulations” was included in the summary of the applicable statute, KRS 164A.325(9) included in the initial staff review; and (2) this administrative regulation was filed in response to the statutory mandate established in KRS 164A.325(9).
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 1 and 2 were amended to use “shall”, instead of “may”, as required by KRS 13A.222(4)(b); (3) Section 3(1) was amended to clarify the items included in a participation agreement; and (4) a new Section 4 was created to incorporate by reference the participation agreement.
Council on Postsecondary Education: Public Educational Institutions
13 KAR 2:020. Guidelines for admission to the state-supported postsecondary education institutions in Kentucky. Dennis Taulbee, General Counsel, and Roger Sugarman, Associate, Academic Affairs, represented the Council.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) Section 2 was amended to specify that the ACT recommended college core courses were listed in the ACT high school profile report; and (2) Sections 4, 6, and 7 were amended to correct typographical errors.
Kentucky Athletic Commission
201 KAR 27:005. Definitions. Nancy Black, Director, Division of Occupations and Professions, Jack Kerns, Chairman, and Scott Porter, Assistant Attorney General, represented the Commission.
In response to questions by Representative Bruce, Ms. Black stated that: (1) she was a member of the Kentucky Athletic Commission; and (2) these administrative regulations (201 KAR 27:005 through 201 KAR 27:035) were intended to control dangerous activities associated with kickboxing.
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); and (2) Section 1 was amended to: (a) comply with the: 1. format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and 2. drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); and (b) delete provisions that repeated or summarized statutory provisions, as required by KRS 13A.120(2)(e).
201 KAR 27:010. General requirements for boxing, elimination events, kick boxing, matches, shows, or exhibitions. 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); and (2) Sections 2, 4, 6, and 8 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
201 KAR 27:012. Wrestling requirements. 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); and (2) Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
201 KAR 27:013. Scoring and conduct of boxing, kick boxing, and elimination events. 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); and (2) Sections 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 14 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
201 KAR 27:014. Female boxing guidelines. 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); and (2) Sections 1 and 2 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
201 KAR 27:015. Prompt payment of fees, fines and forfeitures required. In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Porter stated that this administrative regulation: (1) did not increase actual fees; and (2) increased the salaries paid by the promoter directly to the individuals who officiated at the boxing events.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Kerns stated that, for a previous fight in Paducah, a judge: (1) drove down to Paducah; (2) paid for his food; (3) spent $54 to spend the night; and (4) received a check for $50.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the RELATES TO paragraph was amended to correct statutory citations; (2) 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); and (3) Sections 3 and 4 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
201 KAR 27:035. Seconds. 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); and (2) Section 1 was amended to comply with the format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4).
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Fish
301 KAR 1:130. Live bait for personal use. Tom Bennett, Commissioner, and Scott Porter, Assistant Attorney General, 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 of, the administrative regulation as required by KRS 13A.220(f); and (3) Sections 1 through 4 were amended to: (a) correct typographical errors; and (b) comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.
301 KAR 1:132. Sale of live bait. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the RELATES TO and STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraphs were amended to correct statutory citations; and (2) Sections 1 and 2 were amended to correct minor typographical errors.
301 KAR 1:140. Special commercial fishing permit. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Section 3 was amended to correct minor typographical errors.
301 KAR 1:201. Fishing limits. In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Bennett stated that: (1) a few commercial for-profit bass tournaments had raised concerns about the fishing limits established in this administrative regulation; (2) he was advised by Department staff that similar concerns had been raised when the size limit was increased from twelve to fifteen many years ago; (3) the quality of fishing at Lake Cumberland was outstanding; (4) objections had been raised because: (a) it took longer to grow an eighteen inch fish rather than a fifteen inch fish; and (b) commercial for-profit bass tournaments were concerned because they could not: 1. make enough money; and 2. sell the idea of a tournament with an 18 inch size limitation; and (4) the size limits would not overpopulate the lake.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Sections 1 and 2 were amended to correct minor typographical errors.
Game
301 KAR 2:144. Fall wild turkey hunting. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Sections 1 and 4 were amended to correct minor typographical errors.
301 KAR 2:174. Deer hunting zones. In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Bennett stated that this administrative regulation represented an aggressive attempt to increase the harvest amount.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: 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).
301 KAR 2:176. Deer control tags. In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Bennett stated that the Department: (1) issued about 13,000 deer control tags annually; and (2) believed that number would increase as a result of this administrative regulation.
In response to questions by Representative Allen, Mr. Bennett stated that: (1) the deer control tags were: (a) issued to landowners who complained to the Department about crop deprivation; and (b) given by the landowners to hunters; (2) landowners were not charged for those tags; and (3) unless there was a special arrangement between the landowner and the hunter, the hunter did not pay for the tag from the landowner.
In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Mr. Bennett stated that: (1) a landowner could obtain a deer control tag by: (a) contacting a Department office; and (b) asking a Department biologist to conduct a survey of the amount of crop damage; (2) the survey was typically conducted at night; and (3) this administrative regulation increased the number of deer control tags to five per person.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Sections 5 and 6 were amended to correct minor typographical errors.
Wildlife
301 KAR 4:200. Addington Enterprises and Robinson Forest Wildlife Management Areas use requirements and restrictions. In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Bennett stated that this administrative regulation restricted fishing in certain areas because: (1) those waters were recently stocked; and (2) the Department wanted to provide time for the fish to mature.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Section 8 was amended to correct minor typographical errors.
Licensing
301 KAR 5:030. Purchasing licenses and obtaining replacement licenses. In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Bennett stated that this administrative regulation: (1) did not specifically increase senior and disabled fees; and (2) established an increase across the board if a person: (a) lost a license; and (b) wanted to replace that license.
In response to questions by Representative Bruce, Mr. Bennett stated that: (1) the market for fresh water mussel shells was currently down in Japan; (2) similarly, the demand and number of permits had decreased; and (3) when the market for cultured pearls was high, the Department spent a lot of time at night on the lakes.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the STATUTORY AUTHORITY and NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraphs and Section 6 were amended to correct citations.
Transportation Cabinet: Department of Vehicle Regulation: Administration
601 KAR 2:020. Drivers' privacy protection. Charlie Harman and Todd Shipp, Assistant General Counsel, represented the Department.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Harman stated that: (1) the implementation of this administrative regulation would cost the Cabinet approximately $50,000 in decreased revenue; (2) this administrative regulation: (a) established the Cabinet’s intent not to sell personal information; and (b) reduced the amount of: 1. information sold; and 2. potential buyers; (3) currently, the Cabinet sold information from the drivers’ licensing computerized system; and (4) the Cabinet will still sell some of the information under specific restrictions.
In response to questions by Representative Allen, Mr. Harman stated that: (1) the Cabinet sold information regarding a person’s driving record under a different program; (2) this administrative regulation addressed the selling of information from a person’s driver’s license to organizations, including: (a) AAA; (b) Polk Directories; (c) City of Louisville; (d) City of Lexington; (e) Gordon Darby, who handled the VET testing program; and (f) other organizations; (3) currently a person completed a form to opt out of the system; and (4) this administrative regulation established an opt-in provision that resulted from a South Carolina lawsuit.
In response to questions by Representative Allen, Mr. Shipp stated that: (1) currently, a person who did not wish to have their information sold was given an opportunity to opt out of the system; (2) the South Carolina case, Reno v. Condon, was decided by the United States Supreme Court; and questioned the constitutionality of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act; (3) the federal government created an opt-in system that required the state to ask each taxpayer if the taxpayer wished to have their name and other personal information made available for marketing purposes; (4) because that was not feasible for the Cabinet, the Cabinet decided to remove all forms of marketing sales; (5) as an example, R. L. Polk handled: (a) recall items for the Big 3 auto-makers; and (b) marketing for those same auto-makers; (6) under this administrative regulation, R.L. Polk will not be able to use this information for marketing purposes; (7) until now, a taxpayer could tell the Cabinet that he did not wish to participate in the marketing programs; (8) now the Cabinet will not make those sales available at all; (9) information regarding the opt-out program had been available in each of the county and circuit clerks’ offices by posters and available forms.
Representative Allen stated that: (1) he strongly objected to the Cabinet’s selling his personal information and making money off his personal information; (2) it was terrible that government would participate in this scheme; and (3) the Cabinet should contact each taxpayer to see if the taxpayer wants to be included in a program in which his information would be sold.
Mr. Shipp stated that: (1) federal law required the Cabinet to handle recall information through R.L. Polk under the Anti-pollution Standards Act; and (2) the Cabinet charged R.L. Polk for obtaining the required information.
Mr. Harman stated that: (1) the Cabinet would no longer sell this information for marketing or other profit-making purposes; (2) the federal regulation called for an opt-in process to require a taxpayer to complete a form when renewing his driver’s license to participate in the opt-in program; and (3) the Cabinet: (a) did not believe taxpayers would complete that form because no one wants to be included in the marketing programs; and (b) decided not to allow the marketing programs.
In response to questions by Representative Bruce, Mr. Shipp stated that: (1) both state and federal regulations recognized the need of insurance companies for information needed to investigate fraud; (2) the cost for that information depended on the frequency and source of the request; (3) if the City of Louisville police department requested information on a particular suspect, the Cabinet would provide that information at no cost; and (4) the Cabinet did charge: (a) insurance companies; and (b) the City of Louisville for its weekly request for a list of updates to track parking citations in the county.
In response to a question by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Harman stated that: (1) some information from a person’s driving history record, including if a person had any convictions, could be sold; and (2) personal information could not be sold.
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 this administrative regulation, as required by KRS 13A.220(3)(f); and (3) Sections 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
Education Professional Standards Board
704 KAR 20:740. Certification requirements for teachers of exceptional children. Mary Ellen Wiederwohl represented the Board.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Ms. Wiederwohl stated that: (1) this administrative regulation: (a) was not more stringent than federal requirements; (b) was not mandated by the federal government; and (c) merely related to a federal regulation; (2) the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provided that states shall establish their own certification requirements, which Kentucky already had established; (3) this administrative regulation represented a realignment of the certificates previously offered in Kentucky into the categories of disabilities defined in the IDEA; (4) teacher certification requirements were not more stringent than necessary; (5) in several of the new categories of disabilities, the Board: (a) was flexible; and (b) told school districts to place a teacher who held certification to teach exceptional children in a position if that teacher could serve the child best; (6) the Board was very concerned with the number of emergency and probationary certified teachers in this area; (7) a person could call the Board to check on a teacher’s certification; and (8) school districts: (a) had access to the Board’s database; and (b) could check teacher certification from the district’s central office.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the RELATES TO and STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraphs were amended to correct statutory citations; and (2) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1, 2, and 4 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet: Board of Education: Department of Education: Division of Exceptional Children Services: Exceptional and Handicapped Programs
Kevin Noland, Interim Commissioner of Education, Helen Mountjoy, Chair, Kentucky Board of Education; and Barbara Kibler, Attorney, Division of Exceptional Children Services, represented the Department. Carol Long, Carol Grissett, Veronica Brown, and Marie Braun appeared before the Subcommittee in objection to these administrative regulations (707 KAR 1:280 through 707 KAR 1:380). Joan Teeters, Union County Schools, Leon Mooneyhan, Local Superintendent's Advisory Committee, and Charles Muntz, Special Education Consultant, appeared before the Subcommittee in support of these administrative regulations.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Noland stated that: (1) most of the definitions in 707 KAR 1:280 were the same as previous definitions; (2) the Department: (a) promulgated these administrative regulations to: 1. reduce paperwork requirements in response to consistent requests from teachers of special education; and 2. comply with changes in federal law; (b) focused on ways to improve teaching and learning; and (c) decided to remove required paperwork that did not add to that focus; (3) 707 KAR 1:011: (a) would repeal twenty-one existing administrative regulations; and (b) was deferred until the August 1 Subcommittee meeting to coincide with the deferral of 707 KAR 1:340; (4) the Department: (a) promulgated eleven new administrative regulations following a one-year process that involved a work group that included parents, teachers, local school districts, superintendents, and special education directors; (b) held two public hearings, including: 1. a hearing in January at which 189 people submitted comments; and 2. a hearing in May; and (c) made many changes and compromises in response to the comments received; (5) many people in the audience: (a) were wearing yellow stickers that said “kids not paper”; and (b) represented local teachers, special education directors, and superintendents who supported these administrative regulations; (6) the Department: (a) could: 1. not reduce federal paperwork requirements; and 2. reduce state paperwork requirements; (b) believed these administrative regulations were no more onerous than required by federal law, except in two situations in which state statutory provisions specifically required the Board to promulgate administrative regulations that established class size and caseload requirements for special education teachers; (c) was in the process of revamping the notices sent to parents to make them as understandable as possible; and (d) could not deviate from the definitions established in federal law; (7) he could provide a list of ten stakeholder groups that: (a) had extensive input into the development of these administrative regulations; (b) had a strong commitment to these children; and (c) agreed on the same goal, to improve teaching and learning for these students; (8) some people had different ideas on how to reach those goals; (9) the Department: (a) was not able to please everybody; and (b) made great compromises to address all concerns; and (10) these administrative regulations: (a) represented what a great majority of stakeholders supported; and (b) significantly reduced paperwork.
In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Subcommittee staff stated that the initial staff review: (1) included a brief summary of the Regulatory Impact Analysis; and (2) stated that no alternative methods were contemplated since: (a) federal law required state policy on this subject; and (b) the Board could require policy only through the promulgation of administrative regulations.
In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Ms. Kibler stated that the definition of “consent” in 707 KAR 1:280, Section 1(15): (1) tracked the federal definition; and (2) was very similar to the current state definition.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding regarding 707 KAR 1:280, Mr. Noland stated that: (1) the definition of “home school” in Section 1(28): (a) would not affect private or home schools; and (b) was required because: 1. federal law required school districts to identify, and offer services to, students with a disability, even if the students attended private school; and 2. private schools included home schools; and (2) the definition of “monitoring” in Section 1(34): (a) related to 707 KAR 1:380; (b) was needed because federal law required the Department to monitor to ensure that students with disabilities received required services; and (c) was changed to focus the Department’s efforts: 1. on ensuring that students received improved services and learning; and 2. away from overly technical requirements.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Ms. Kibler stated that Section 1(42) of 707 KAR 1:280 defined “private school children with disabilities” because federal law required school districts to identify children with disabilities, even if the children were enrolled in private schools.
In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Noland stated that the definition of “qualified personnel” in 707 KAR 1:280, Section 1(44), did not affect private or home schools because the state did not regulate their qualifications.
In response to questions by Representative Lee, Mr. Noland stated that: (1) some parents of students with disabilities were in attendance at the Subcommittee’s meeting; (2) some school district personnel also had students with disabilities; and (3) the statement of consideration filed after the January public hearing included comments from concerned parents.
Representative Lee stated that: (1) he wanted to: (a) hear comments from parents of special needs students regarding these administrative regulations; and (b) eliminate needless paperwork; (2) if these administrative regulations negatively affected the quality of education or services provided to Kentucky’s children, he could not support them; (3) many parents: (a) did not understand the complex governmental process and red tape; (b) were emotionally involved with their special needs child; and (c) needed to understand the requirements and their entitlements; and (4) the state should prepare these children to lead as normal a life as possible through its educational system.
Ms. Mountjoy stated that: (1) it was important to remember that the Board had to balance: (a) the ability of the districts to provide the time and resources to provide the appropriate services; and (b) the needs of the students; (2) the primary purpose of these administrative regulations was to provide an appropriate education to students who needed the programs; and (3) the Board: (a) could not satisfy the requests made by every parent, administrator, or teacher; (b) focused on those changes: 1. favored by a preponderance of people; and 2. which placed the needs of the children first; (c) asked the Department to prepare material for parents that: 1. were written in plain English; and 2. explained available services and the process for resolving problems or answering questions; and (d) wanted to make sure that parents were partners with the schools in providing the best services for their students.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Ms. Kibler stated that: (1) the procedures for disciplining students were established in an administrative regulation; (2) 707 KAR 1:290 reflected requirements of federal law that a student suspended for more than eleven days or expelled was still entitled to receive services; (3) 707 KAR 1:360, regarding confidentiality of information: (a) did not affect local school board actions; (b) reflected federal requirements; and (c) was similar to requirements that had been in place since before 1993; (4) local school districts developed service plans; (5) regarding monitoring, prior to this past school year, the Department focused on compliance with administrative regulations; (6) beginning this year, the Department’s focus: (a) was more on student outcomes and progress; and (b) included compliance as required by federal law; (7) the Department hoped that the: (a) school districts would spend less time and money with the new process because the Department would be looking at information school districts routinely gathered and already kept; and (b) new requirements would be less burdensome; and (8) the Department had looked at programs implemented in other states.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Noland stated that: (1) the reviews were conducted on-site by Department staff; (2) federal law required services be delivered to a student regardless of the child’s location; and (3) if a child with a disability moved from a large district to a small district, federal law required the child to be served in the new area without significant change in the child’s education plan.
In response to questions by Representative Lee, Mr. Noland stated that: (1) 707 KAR 1:011 and 707 KAR 1:340 were deferred to address technical changes recommended by Subcommittee staff; (2) because the Board, not the Department, was authorized to promulgate these administrative regulations, the Board needed to approve substantive amendments; (3) the Board’s next meeting was scheduled for August 1; (4) the suggested amendments would: (a) clarify the voluntary mediation process available to parents; and (b) incorporate by reference a model form for parents to use; and (5) the Department would talk with involved parents and try to accommodate them as much as possible.
Ms. Long stated that: (1) she was a parent of a special education child; (2) she and Ms. Grissett had: (a) followed the procedures for these administrative regulations; and (b) attended the two public hearings; (3) these administrative regulations needed to comply with state and federal laws; (4) even though these administrative regulations were in their fifteenth version, these administrative regulations still did not comply with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and state law; (5) 707 KAR 1:340 did not: (a) adequately address due process and procedures for formal complaints and mediation; and (b) comply with federal law; (6) she supported the elimination of needless paperwork and duplicate information; (7) 707 KAR 1:380 did not establish specific timelines, including the number of appeals which affected the need for sanctions; (8) the Department would not enforce corrective action plans, which enabled local school districts that had been found out of compliance; (9) she was concerned that 707 KAR 1:380 included a statement that: (a) provided that the Department shall not initiate further sanctions during the time period established in the corrective action plan unless requested by the local education agency; and (b) gave the local education agency an opportunity to control the: 1. corrective action plan; and 2. outcome of a complaint against the local education agency; (10) the timelines or criteria for appeals, especially the rights of local education agencies to appeal a decision, were not established by: (a) federal law; or (b) these administrative regulations; and (11) 707 KAR 1:380: (a) was not written in logical order, because topics were mixed; and (b) should not be approved until: 1. the subject matters were clearly organized; and 2. the appeals procedures for local education agencies were established.
Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) KRS Chapter 13B established specific procedures and timelines for administrative hearings and appeals; and (2) those procedures required: (a) a hearing officer to: 1. hear the case; 2. make a decision; and 3. refer his initial decision to the agency head; (b) the agency head to make a final decision; and (c) if a party disagreed with the agency head’s decision, that party to file suit in circuit court in the county where the school was located.
Ms. Grissett stated that: (1) she was a: (a) parent of an adult with special education needs; and (b) grandmother of five children with learning disabilities; (2) she had talked with Subcommittee staff about the differences between these administrative regulations and federal law; (3) 34 CFR 300.508: (a) required an impartial hearing officer; and (b) provided that a hearing could not be conducted by an employee of the state agency; (4) under KRS Chapter 13B, the agency head was usually the hearing officer; and (5) 707 KAR 1:340 did not include the hearing rights required by, and established in, 34 CFR 300.509.
Chairman Arnold stated that because 707 KAR 1:340 was deferred, the comments should focus on administrative regulations currently under consideration.
Ms. Grissett stated that: (1) the definition of adverse affect meant that the progress of the child was impeded by the disability to the extent that the educational performance was significantly and consistently below the level of similar age peers; (2) there was an adverse effect on any child with a disability because that disability affected the child’s entire life and education; (3) she did not think it made sense to require that an orthopedically-handicapped child be behind academically in order to identify the child; (4) this definition (included in 707 KAR 1:280, Section 1(2)) was a major flaw; (5) children should be kept as close as possible to their grade level; (6) some words in the federal regulations had been changed; (7) the federal regulations required that certain criteria be met to determine whether a child had a disability; and (7) she had submitted a packet that explained her concerns to Subcommittee members.
Ms. Brown stated that: (1) she: (a) was a parent from Jefferson County; and (b) had an eight and a half year old daughter with multiple needs in special education; (2) her daughter Morgan: (a) was: 1. born with multiple disabilities which resulted in her being visually impaired, profoundly deaf, and developmentally delayed; 2. in a wheelchair; and 3. non-verbal; and (b) could not take care of herself at all; (3) after the birth of Morgan, her family participated in the First Steps program, which: (a) was very inclusive; and (b) enabled her daughter to be involved with children who did not have disabilities; (4) her daughter: (a) entered the public school system at age three; and (b) was enrolled in a regular classroom with typical children for two years of preschool; (5) in preschool: (a) teachers were very responsive; and (b) training and information was available to them; (6) when it was time to transfer Morgan to kindergarten, a placement specialist called, prior to the placement meeting, to inform the family that a slot had been saved in the functional mental disability (FMD) classroom in the neighborhood school, which was not accessible to children in wheelchairs; (7) at the first meeting, several professionals stated that Morgan would be better placed in a classroom that only included children with disabilities; (8) she disagreed with that decision because Morgan had spent her first five (5) years in an inclusive environment; (9) reluctantly, the school system placed Morgan in a regular kindergarten classroom, in which the teachers: (a) were not prepared to address Morgan’s needs; and (b) did not have the training and support needed to help Morgan be successful in the classroom; (10) she: (a) had fought constantly for her daughter, who was now in fourth grade, to remain in a regular classroom, but the regular teachers did not know how to adapt her school work based on: 1. what the other children were learning; and 2. Morgan’s education plan; (b) was not able to return to work because she spent ninety (90) percent of her time: 1. getting her daughter’s education; and 2. helping other families who had children with disabilities; (c) did not know how to improve these administrative regulations; and (d) was disappointed that the Department: 1. chose to follow minimum federal standards; and 2. did not provide additional clarification to local school districts as to the meaning of federal regulations; (11) local school districts: (a) struggled with the federal regulations; and (b) interpreted the meaning of an “appropriate education” differently in each school district; (12) over 800 teachers were emergency certified to teach special education in Jefferson County; (13) the majority of people who attended the public hearings were school administrators; (14) she questioned whether these administrative regulations met the needs of most parents, especially since over ninety-thousand students in Kentucky had an individual education plan; (15) all children should be participating in regular education; (16) children should not be segregated; (17) if teachers were trained, the teachers should be able to take care of any child with a disability; and (18) many parents did not know that they could question the decisions made by the education professionals in the best interests of their children.
Representative Lee stated that: (1) the 138 legislators in the Kentucky General Assembly were dedicated individuals; (2) if a parent called him regarding problems with the education of a special needs child, he would take the time to meet with the educational system and resolve the parents’ determination; (3) parents should feel free to contact their local legislators for assistance in resolving those issues; (4) the General Assembly could address statutory problems while in session to make the requirements crystal clear; (5) local legislators were an asset in working with the school districts; (6) he: (a) received many calls each day regarding special needs and human delivery services; (b) had a great relationship with his local school districts; and (c) had not been involved in a situation yet in which they could not work out the problems; (7) parents should ask legislators specifically for help.
Ms. Braun stated that: (1) she: (a) was an advocate for the disabled; (b) had attended a private school system in the 1960s; (c) was not around “normal” students; and (d) encouraged the Subcommittee and the Department not to segregate special needs students because those students may become doctors or lawyers someday; and (2) rather than looking at a student’s disabilities, the school system should look at the student’s minds.
Ms. Teeters stated that: (1) she: (a) was the Director of Special Education for Union County Schools; (b) had a child with a disability; (c) had a disability herself; (d) was familiar with all sides of the issues; (e) supported these administrative regulations; and (f) hoped the Subcommittee would approve these administrative regulations; (2) while there were areas in which these administrative regulations were not perfect, she believed there had been a great effort to pull together as much consensus as possible; (3) schools needed to do a better job of ensuring that the schools, teachers, and administrators gained the trust of the parents and students; (4) all persons interested in special education needed to work closer together; (5) the state was very short of special education teachers; (6) teachers have: (a) transferred from special education to regular education because of the paperwork requirements; and (b) removed their special education designation from their certification; and (7) special education was a high pressure job without additional funds to attract quality teachers.
Mr. Mooneyhan stated that: (1) he was the: (a) Superintendent of Schools for Shelby County; and (b) chair of the Local Superintendents Advisory Council; (2) the Council: (a) was established by the legislature; (b) was required to: 1. review all administrative regulations; and 2. advise the Board; (c) was extensively involved in the review of these administrative regulations; and (d) wanted the state administrative regulations to mirror federal law and regulations; (2) these administrative regulations: (a) were basically in compliance with the federal regulations; and (b) did not exceed federal requirements, except for a few areas; (3) the Council believed that these administrative regulations: (a) should be approved by the Subcommittee; (b) represented a compromise that took into consideration concerns raised by all stakeholders; and (c) would better serve special education students; (4) currently, the focus appeared to be on monitoring paperwork; (5) under these administrative regulations, the focus would be shifted to the: (a) quality of programs and services provided to special education students; and (b) achievements and gains made in those programs; and (6) the Subcommittee should approve these administrative regulations because they: (a) were a step forward in special education; (b) would better serve students; and (c) relieved teachers of unnecessary paperwork.
Mr. Muntz stated that: (1) he: (a) had served twenty-five years as a teacher in special education and director of special education; (b) had spent the last six years as a special education consultant; and (c) wanted to commend the legislators for taking the leadership role in reforming special education; (2) the Office of Education Accountability had been commissioned to conduct two studies on special education; (3) the first study: (a) outlined the many problems in the field; and (b) was prepared in 1998; (4) the second study: (a) was done on the paperwork issue; and (b) made recommendations on solutions on those problems; (5) in the fall, the Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education unanimously passed a resolution that urged the Board to promulgate administrative regulations that adhered to, but did not exceed, the federal requirements except when necessary to provide educational services and protections to students with disabilities; (6) he appreciated the confusion Subcommittee members must feel when given different views of these issues; (7) after thirty-one years in special education, he sometimes considered it a challenge to figure out the status of special education in Kentucky; (8) at national conferences, the state is heralded as the leading state in the nation; (9) the OEA report states that: (a) Kentucky has a thirty-four percent drop-out rate; (b) sixty-eight percent of students drop out in some areas; (c) students were not graduating with a diploma; and (d) Kentucky’s graduation rate had declined from fifty-eight percent in 1989 to forty-seven percent now; (10) newspapers report that between 1000 and 1200 classrooms are staffed with non-certified teachers who did not know how to teach special education students; (11) surveys of special education teachers indicate that many teachers were in the process of quitting and having their special education certification removed; (12) a recent survey pointed out that 449.5 positions were open in Kentucky for special education teachers, with 218 certified applicants available; (13) the teacher shortage would get even worse in future years; (14) teachers were required to spend as much as one-third of their time on areas other than instruction of students because of paperwork requirements; (15) these administrative regulations: (a) would enable Kentucky to: 1. focus on the education of students with disabilities; and 2. reinforce teachers to enter or remain in the field; (b) maintained the safeguards and protections available to parents under the federal law; and (c) could not become effective until approved by the Office of Special Education Programs in Washington, D.C., which would not approve administrative regulations that did not comply with the federal law; (16) the monitoring system would focus more on students and their progress than paperwork and required forms; and (17) these administrative regulations: (a) had widespread support because: 1. people across the state had several opportunities to provide input into their development; and 2. various interest groups across the state had worked together to reach a compromise on their provisions; and (b) were supported by the: 1. State Advisory Panel for Exceptional Children, which was comprised, pursuant to federal law, of over fifty percent parents of students with disabilities and individuals with disabilities; 2. Council of Administrators of Special Education; 3. Kentucky Association of School Administrators; 4. Kentucky School Board Association; 5. Central Kentucky Co-Op of Elementary Principals; and 6. Council for Exceptional Children.
In response to questions by Chairman Arnold, Mr. Noland stated that these administrative regulations: (1) reduced the paperwork to enable teachers to focus on the students; (2) ensured inclusion of children with disabilities in regular classrooms, which was also a federal requirement; and (3) would be implemented as intended by the Board.
In response to questions by Representative Lee, Mr. Noland stated that: (1) 707 KAR 1:380, Section 1(7), provided that the Department shall not initiate further sanctions during the time period specified in the corrective action plan unless requested by the local education agency; (2) the 1998 General Assembly amended a statute that established a process that required the Department, as it monitored and enforced special education laws, it could not automatically jump to the end and withhold funds if they are not complying with the law; that bill set up a progressive approach.
In response to a question by Representative Lee, Ms. Kibler stated that possible sanctions that could be requested under 707 KAR 1:280 included: (1) technical assistance; (2) consultation from the Department; (3) additional training; (4) a special education mentor; or (5) other actions in response to a local education agency’s failure to comply with applicable requirements.
In response to questions by Representative Lee, Mr. Noland stated that: (1) a corrective action plan: (a) listed deficiencies; and (b) established a timeline for improvements; and (2) a local district: (a) was required to implement a corrective action plan; and (b) might request technical assistance from the Department.
Senator Roeding stated that parents should inform legislators about their needs to enable legislators to assist them.
Representative Lee stated that: (1) he wanted the parents and others concerned about special education to know that the Subcommittee would monitor the implementation of these administrative regulations; (2) the paperwork reduction should enable teachers to have more time to attend to students and their needs; and (3) if the implementation of these administrative regulations did not benefit special needs students or if it hindered their education, the Subcommittee would reconsider these administrative regulations to determine if a finding of deficiency should be made.
Ms. Brown stated that: (1) Mr. Muntz did not include parent organizations in his list of supporting organizations; and (2) she believed it was significant that: (a) there were hundreds of parent organizations in Kentucky; and (b) parent organizations were not: 1. included in his list; and 2. present at the Subcommittee meeting to support these administrative regulations.
Chairman Arnold stated that: (1) he: (a) agreed with the comments made by each of the Subcommittee members and each presenter; (b) understood both sides of the issues; and (c) wanted to thank each person who attended the Subcommittee meeting because their attendance: 1. showed concern for special education; and 2. was most helpful to Subcommittee members; (2) while these administrative regulations were not perfect, they provided a starting place; and (3) these administrative regulations, as amended, would be approved by the Subcommittee.
707 KAR 1:280. Definitions. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Section 1 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); and (2) Section 1(52) was amended to alphabetize the definitions, as required by KRS 13A.222(4)(e).
707 KAR 1:290. Free appropriate public education. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph was amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
707 KAR 1:300. Child find, evaluation, and reevaluation. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph was amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
707 KAR 1:310. Determination of eligibility. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph was amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
707 KAR 1:320. Individual education program. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Section 5 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); and (2) Section 5 was amended to comply with the formatting requirements of KRS 13A.220(4).
707 KAR 1:330. Comprehensive system of personnel development. 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).
707 KAR 1:350. Placement decisions. 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).
707 KAR 1:360. Confidentiality of information. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Section 7 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
707 KAR 1:370. Children with disabilities enrolled in private schools. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph was amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); and (2) Section 6 was amended to comply with the formatting requirements of KRS 13A.220(4).
707 KAR 1:380. Monitoring and recovery of funds. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Section 6 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4); and (2) Section 6 was amended to comply with the formatting requirements of KRS 13A.220(4).
Department of Insurance: Assets and Liabilities
806 KAR 6:075. Valuation of life insurance policies. Mona Carter, Deputy Commissioner, Brian Staples, Director, Life Insurance Division, and Russ Coy, Attorney, represented the Department.
In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Ms. Carter stated that this administrative regulation would not chase insurance companies out of the state.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Staples stated that: (1) in the past, some insurance companies had developed a practice of under-reserving, in which a company: (a) offered products below costs; and (b) might not have enough money to pay claims on valid policies; (2) the Department: (a) had not identified a specific number of companies that engaged in that practice; and (b) recognized that a large number of companies currently operating in Kentucky had followed proper reserving practices; (3) the actuarial tables changed throughout the years to reflect new diseases; (4) death rates in Kentucky had increased; (5) because of that increase, some companies had not established proper reserves; (6) companies may need to increase prices by a maximum of fifteen percent to establish proper reserve amounts; (7) those potential price increases would: (a) not affect current policies; and (b) affect future policies; and (8) even though people were living longer, the death rate was higher because there were more people in Kentucky.
Representative Bruce stated that this administrative regulation was intended to protect persons who bought policies because of high-scheme advertising used by some companies..
Mr. Staples stated that the Department wanted to insure solvency within the companies.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Ms. Carter stated that: (1) twenty-four states had already adopted similar provisions to this administrative regulation; (2) most states had adopted the provisions before 2000 because the new reserving and actuarial tables became effective in 2000; (3) seven states were in the process of adopting these provisions, which would be standard throughout the industry; and (4) the states surrounding Kentucky had previously adopted these provisions.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) Section 7 was amended to comply with the formatting requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (2) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 were amended to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
Cabinet for Health Service: Department for Public Health: Emergency Medical Technicians
902 KAR 13:010. Definitions for 902 KAR Chapter 13. Marcia Burklow, Supervisor, Training and Certification Branch, and Robert Calhoun, EMS Program Branch Manager, represented the Department.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Calhoun stated that: (1) these administrative regulations (902 KAR 13:010 through 902 KAR 13:171) were promulgated in response to House Bill 312, enacted during the 2000 Regular Session, which dealt with the national registry of EMT requirements; (2) the law was changed in the 2000 session to: (a) require the registry for initial certification; and (b) make the registry optional thereafter; and (3) the Department had heard complaints about the required registry for the last four years.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Section 1(4) was amended to clarify “certified”.
902 KAR 13:070. Emergency medical technician-basic instructors and EMT-instructor trainers. In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Calhoun stated that a hospital would qualify as an EMS mission.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: Sections 5 and 8 were amended to correct minor typographical errors.
902 KAR 13:090. Disciplinary actions. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to delete a citation to KRS Chapter 13B; and (2) Sections 1(1) and 1(2) were amended to delete statutory citations.
902 KAR 13:110. Emergency medical technician-first responder training, examination, and certification. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) Section 3(6) was amended to correct a statutory citation; and (2) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 3 and 6 were amended to correct minor typographical errors.
902 KAR 13:160. Emergency medical services educational institutions and emergency medical services testing agencies. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the TITLE and Section 1 were amended to comply with the: (1) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (2) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
Emergency Medical Services and Ambulance Service Providers
902 KAR 14:070. License procedures and fee schedule for ambulance providers. In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Mr. Calhoun stated that this administrative regulation did not change the fee schedule.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: the STATUTORY AUTHORITY: paragraph was amended to delete a citation to KRS Chapter 13B.
902 KAR 14:080. Class I ground ambulance providers. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph was amended to correct statutory citations; (2) Section 1(8) was amended to insert KRS citations to clarify requirements; (3) Section 3(2)(a)3. was amended to delete the language due to changes mandated by HB 405; (4) Section 2(1)(b)2. was amended to delete language regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation or ability to pay; (5) Section 3(2)(b)4. was amended to correct a statutory citation; and (6) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
902 KAR 14:090. Air ambulance service providers. This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) Section 1(1) was amended to define “air ambulance service”; (2) Section 2(5) was amended to change “permitted” to “licensed”; and (3) Section 10(4) was amended to delete language to comply with HB 405.
Cabinet for Families and Children: Department for Community Based Services: Division of Policy Development: Protection and Permanency: Child Welfare
922 KAR 1:350. Family preparation. Cliff Jennings represented the Department.
In response to a question by Representative Bruce, Mr. Jennings stated that this administrative regulation did not involve the Kentucky Baptist Homes.
In response to a question by Senator Roeding, Mr. Jennings stated that Section 12 of this administrative regulation increased payments paid to assist the resource home parents in obtaining the training needed to qualify.
This administrative regulation was amended as follows: (1) the material incorporated by reference was amended to: (a) change the name of a form; (b) insert a section requiring the applicant's signature for release of medical information; (c) add physician's assistant as a health care professional; and (d) delete the requirement for the applicant to supply health information not relevant to approval as a resource home; (2) the RELATES TO paragraph was amended to correct statutory citations; and (3) the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1 through 10 and 12 through 19 were amended to comply with the: (a) format requirements of KRS 13A.220(4); and (b) drafting requirements of KRS 13A.222(4).
The Subcommittee determined that the following administrative regulations complied with statutory authority:
Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority: Division of Student Services: Kentucky Educational Savings Plan Trust
11 KAR 12:040. Residency classification for Kentucky Educational Savings Plan Trust vested participation agreements. Richard Casey, General Counsel, and Linda Renschler, Branch Manager, Student Aid Branch, represented the Authority.
11 KAR 12:050. Substitution of a beneficiary.
11 KAR 12:070. Benefits payable from the Kentucky Educational Savings Plan Trust Program fund.
Commonwealth Merit Scholarship Program
11 KAR 15:060. Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship overpayment and refund and repayment procedure.
Justice Cabinet: Department of Corrections: Office of the Secretary
501 KAR 6:020 & E. Corrections policies and procedures. Steve Durham, General Counsel, and Tamela Biggs, Staff Attorney, represented the Department.
In response to questions by Representative Lee, Subcommittee staff stated that: (1) this administrative regulation complied with applicable statutory authority; (2) the initial staff review noted that a required form was not made available to the public; and (3) personal information on the form was given to the general public under the statutory requirements.
Department of Insurance: Health Maintenance Organizations
806 KAR 38:091. Repeal of 806 KAR 38:090. Mona Carter, Deputy Commissioner, and Shaun Orme, Counsel, represented the Department.
In response to questions by Senator Roeding, Mr. Orme stated that: (1) he did not believe this administrative regulation would have an effect on whether insurance companies stayed in the state; and (2) this administrative regulation repealed 806 KAR 38:090, relating to open enrollment, because: (a) the authorizing statute was repealed in 1998; and (b) Kentucky has guaranteed issue.
Cabinet for Health Service: Department for Public Health: Emergency Medical Technicians
902 KAR 13:050. Requirements for examination, certification and recertification of the emergency medical technician-basic. Marcia Burklow, Supervisor, Training and Certification Branch, and Robert Calhoun, EMS Program Branch Manager, represented the Department.
902 KAR 13:080. Emergency medical technician-basic authorized procedures.
902 KAR 13:170. Emergency medical technician-basic course requirements.
902 KAR 13:171. Repeal of 902 KAR 13:020 and 902 KAR 13:130.
Cabinet for Families and Children: Department for Community Based Services: Division of Policy Development: Family Support: K-TAP, Kentucky Works, Welfare to Work, State Supplementation
921 KAR 2:050. Time and manner of payments. Rosanne Barkley represented the Department.
The Subcommittee and promulgating administrative bodies agreed to defer consideration of the following administrative regulations to the next meeting of the Subcommittee:
Board of Barbering
201 KAR 14:180. License fees, examination fees, renewal fees and expiration fees.
Board of Licensure of Marriage and Family Therapists
201 KAR 32:030. Fees.
201 KAR 32:081. Inactive licensure status.
201 KAR 32:101. Reinstatement of license subject to disciplinary action.
Tourism Development Cabinet: Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Game
301 KAR 2:221E. Waterfowl seasons and limits.
Justice Cabinet: Department of Corrections: Office of the Secretary
501 KAR 6:190 & E. Approval process for mental health professionals performing comprehensive sex offender presentence evaluations.
501 KAR 6:200 & E. Comprehensive sex offender presentence evaluation procedure.
Education, Arts and Humanities Cabinet: Board of Education: Department of Education: Division of Exceptional Children Services: Exceptional and Handicapped Programs
707 KAR 1:011. Repeal of 707 KAR 1:015, 707 KAR 1:040, 707 KAR 1:045, 707 KAR 1:090, 707 KAR 1:100, 707 KAR 1:110, 707 KAR 1:120, 707 KAR 1:130, 707 KAR 1:140, 707 KAR 1:150, 707 KAR 1:160, 707 KAR 1:170, 707 KAR 1:180, 707 KAR 1:190, 707 KAR 1:200, 707 KAR 1:210, 707 KAR 1:220, 707 KAR 1:230, 707 KAR 1:240, 707 KAR 1:250, 707 KAR 1:260.
707 KAR 1:340. Procedural safeguards and state complaint procedures.
Workforce Development Cabinet: Department for Technical Education: General Administration
780 KAR 1:010. 2001-2004 program plan.
Management of the Kentucky TECH System
780 KAR 2:010. Administration of vocational-technical education schools.
780 KAR 2:011. Repeal of administrative regulations in 780 KAR Chapter 2.
780 KAR 2:030. Steering and advisory committees for area technology centers primarily serving secondary students.
780 KAR 2:040. Live work projects.
780 KAR 2:060. Discipline of students.
780 KAR 2:110. Student medical and accident insurance.
780 KAR 2:140. Tuition and fees.
Instructional Programs
780 KAR 4:010. General standards.
780 KAR 4:011. Repeal of administrative regulations in 780 KAR Chapter 4.
780 KAR 4:050. Certificate requirements for Kentucky TECH students.
Veterans' Approval Agency
780 KAR 5:011. Repeal of administrative regulations in 780 KAR Chapter 5.
Facilities and Equipment of the Kentucky TECH System
780 KAR 7:010. Definitions.
780 KAR 7:011. Repeal of administrative regulations in 780 KAR Chapter 7.
780 KAR 7:020. Area technology center facility standards.
780 KAR 7:040. Facility maintenance.
780 KAR 7:060. Equipment inventory.
Adult Education
780 KAR 9:011. Repeal of administrative regulation in 780 KAR Chapter 9.
Department of Financial Institutions: Securities
808 KAR 10:030. Conduct of broker-dealers, agents, and employees; investment advisers and representatives.
808 KAR 10:040. Dishonest or unethical practice defined.
Cabinet for Health Services: Department for Public Health: Radiology
902 KAR 100:010. Definitions.
902 KAR 100:036. Repeal of 902 KAR 100:035.
902 KAR 100:040. General provisions for specific licenses.
902 KAR 100:041. Quantities of radioactive materials requiring consideration of the need for an emergency plan.
902 KAR 100:042. Decommissioning and financial surety.
902 KAR 100:045. Exemptions.
902 KAR 100:058. Specific licenses to manufacture, assemble, repair, or distribute products.
902 KAR 100:070. Transportation of radioactive material.
902 KAR 100:085. Exempt concentrations.
902 KAR 100:165. Notices, reports and instructions to employees.
Division of Licensing and Regulation: Office of Inspector General
906 KAR 1:110E. Critical access hospital services.
Department for Medicaid Services: Medicaid Services
907 KAR 1:012E. Inpatient hospital services.
907 KAR 1:013E. Payments for hospital inpatient services.
907 KAR 1:044E. Mental health center services.
Payment and Services
907 KAR 3:066E. Nonemergency medical transportation waiver services and payments.
Department for Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services: Mental Health
908 KAR 2:210E. Domestic violence offender treatment certification standards.
Institutional Care
908 KAR 3:050E. Per diem rate pursuant to the “Patient Liability Act of 1978.”
OTHER BUSINESS:
Next Meeting:
The Legislative Research Commission approved the Subcommittee's request to reschedule the August meeting to Tuesday, August 1, 2000 at 10:00 because of a scheduling conflict for many members on the regular meeting date.
The Subcommittee adjourned at 12:20 p.m. until August 1, 2000, at 10 a.m. in Room 149 of the Capitol Annex.