Call to Order and Roll Call
The May meeting of the Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee was held on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, at 1:00 PM, in Room 149 of the Capitol Annex. Representative Johnny Bell, Chair, called the meeting to order, and the secretary called the roll.
Present were:
Members: Senator Joe Bowen, Co-Chair; Representative Johnny Bell, Co-Chair; Senators David Givens, Alice Forgy Kerr, and Joey Pendleton; Representative Danny Ford.
Guests: Maryellen Allen, Sarah Johnson, State Board of Elections; Doug Dowell, Laura Ferguson, DeVon Hankins, Jeff Mosley, Jim Oliver, Matt Warfield, Department of Revenue; Charles Lykins, Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists; Nathan Goldman, Board of Nursing; Margaret Everson, Mark Mangeot, Karen Waldrop, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife; Kevin Brown, Chad Collins, Julian Tackett, Kentucky High School Athletic Association; Simon Berry, Rona Paul, Department of Financial Institutions; Marc A. Guilfoil, Susan Speckert, Tim West, Kentucky Horse Racing Commission; Stan Cave, Kent Ostrander, The Family Foundation of Kentucky; and Patrick Neely, Kentucky Equine Education Project.
LRC Staff: Dave Nicholas, Emily Caudill, Donna Little, Sarah Amburgey, Emily Harkenrider, Karen Howard, and Laura Napier.
The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee met on Tuesday, May 10, 2011, and submits this report:
Administrative Regulations Reviewed by the Subcommittee:
KENTUCKY STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS: Help America Vote Act 2002
31 KAR 6:030 & E. Uniform definition of a vote. Maryellen Allen, general counsel, and Sarah Ball Johnson, executive director, represented the board.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend Sections 1, 4, 5, and 8 to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION CABINET: Department of Revenue: Forms
103 KAR 3:050. Miscellaneous taxes forms manual. Doug Dowell, attorney manager; Laura Ferguson, attorney manager; and Jeff Mosley, general counsel, represented the department.
In response to questions by Senator Givens, Ms. Ferguson stated that the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission included wagering on historical horse racing as a new form of exotic wagering in their proposed administrative regulation package, consisting of 810 KAR 1:001, 1:011, and 1:120; 811 KAR 1:005, 1:125, and 1:250; and 811 KAR 2:010, 2:060, and 2:160. If those administrative regulations became effective, it would be incumbent upon the department to have available at the same time this administrative regulation and the form necessary to collect the excise tax resulting from the new form of wagering.
In response to a question by Senator Kerr, Ms. Ferguson stated that “live racing” was not defined by KRS Chapter 138; however, KRS 138.511(3) defined the term, “daily average live handle”, which included revenue collected from activities indirectly related to but not specifically including “live racing.” The department therefore believed it had tacit authority to collect the tax. In his Franklin Circuit Court opinion, Judge Wingate determined, pertaining to a historical horse race that was replayed for a wagerer, the race was live in the mind of the wagerer and constituted a “live race.” Ms. Ferguson stated that the court opinion said that the matter of wagering on historical horse racing needed to be considered within the context of other statutes than just those that addressed live, real-time racing.
In response to questions by Senator Givens, Ms. Ferguson stated that wagering on a historical horse race could include skill in addition to chance to affect the outcome. Many bets could be placed quickly in simulcast wagering, but not as quickly as if using a historical race machine. A historical race constituted a live race because it was live in the mind of the wagerer.
In response to questions by Representative Ford and Co-Chair Bowen, Mr. Mosley stated that the department respectfully declined to defer consideration of this administrative regulation to the June 14 meeting of the Subcommittee because this administrative regulation needed to become effective in tandem with the related package proposed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.
Senator Givens stated that wagering on a historical horse race did not constitute live racing. A finding of deficiency for this administrative regulation may result in the inability to collect the excise tax if the new form of wagering became effective as it was established in the administrative regulations proposed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. This subject matter should have been processed as legislation.
In response to a question by Senator Kerr, Mr. Mosley stated that the only way to insure that taxes would be collected immediately if wagering on historical racing was established was to have the tax requirements in place simultaneously when the requirements pertaining to the gaming became effective.
In response to a question by Representative Ford, Mr. Mosley stated that the effective date for this administrative regulation was estimated at roughly six weeks from this meeting of the Subcommittee.
Co-Chair Bell stated that this administrative regulation should not be found deficient because the excise tax would not be collectible if the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission's administrative regulations became effective without this administrative regulation also being effective. Mr. Mosley clarified that the department could still collect the excise tax if the suggested staff amendment was not approved; however, the administrative regulation would be better with the suggested staff amendment. The suggested staff amendment was not approved by the subcommittee due to a lack of a required second.
Representative Ford stated that since he voted against the administrative regulations regarding wagering on historical horse racing, it would be hypocritical for him to not also vote to find this administrative regulation deficient. He made a motion, which was seconded by Senator Kerr, to find this administrative regulation deficient. A roll call vote was taken. There being four (4) votes to find the administrative regulation deficient and one (1) vote against finding the administrative regulation deficient, the motion failed (See KRS 13A.020(4)).
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CABINET: Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists: Board
201 KAR 12:083. Educational requirements. Charles Lykins, administrator, represented the board.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend Sections 2 and 3 to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
Board of Nursing: Board
201 KAR 20:490. Licensed practical nurse intravenous therapy scope of practice. Nathan Goldman, general counsel, represented the board.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 2, 5, and 6 to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
TOURISM, ARTS AND HERITAGE CABINET: Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources: Game
301 KAR 2:172. Deer hunting seasons, zones, and requirements. Margaret Everson, general counsel, and Dr. Karen Waldrop, wildlife director, represented the department.
Hunting and Fishing
301 KAR 3:100. Special commission permits.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Section 1 to clarify the definition of “incorporated nonprofit conservation organization"; (2) to amend Section 3 to specify all types of special commission permits; and (3) to amend the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1 through 3 to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
EDUCATION CABINET: Kentucky Board of Education: Department of Education: School Terms, Attendance and Operation
702 KAR 7:065. Designation of agent to manage high school interscholastic athletics. Kevin Brown, general counsel, Department of Education, represented the department. Chad Collins, general counsel, and Julian Tackett, commissioner, represented the Kentucky High School Athletic Association.
In response to questions by Senator Givens, Mr. Tackett stated that some incorporated bylaws had revised semester grade tracking procedures to allow teacher coaches to check grades through Infinite Campus and clarified the scheduling of games and practices, especially for volleyball, basketball, and spring football practices. The decision to propose the amendments was almost unanimous, as reflected in the association's vote record.
In response to a question by Senator Pendleton, Mr. Tackett stated that the amendments were intended to create a more fair and balanced playing field as it related to spring practice.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Section 4 to establish that the material incorporated by reference shall apply to high school athletics in Kentucky; and (2) to amend Section 5 to incorporate all documents and forms that will be used to govern high school athletics in Kentucky. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET: Department of Financial Institutions: Securities Division: Securities
808 KAR 10:010. Forms for application, registration, notice filing, reporting and compliance. Simon Berry, staff attorney, and Ronda Paul, certified examiner, represented the department.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Sections 1 and 2 to update the name of a form; and (2) to amend the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph and Sections 1 and 2 to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:030. Conduct of broker-dealers, agents, and employees; investment advisors and representatives.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Section 5 to clarify requirements for brochures and brochure supplements; and (2) to amend the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph and Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:050. Application withdrawal.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend the STATUTORY AUTHORITY and NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraphs to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:200. Investment advisers' minimum liquid capitalization bond.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend the RELATES TO paragraph and Sections 1 and 3 to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:240. Registration exemptions - sale of business.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend Section 1 to: (1) establish a definition for "legal entity;" and (2) comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:260. Examination requirement for individuals advising the public on securities, broker-dealers, and agents.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend the RELATES TO and NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraphs and Sections 2 through 6 to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:280. Qualifications, eligibility, and restrictions on the use of Form U-7, Small Corporate Offering Registration.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the RELATES TO paragraph to add a citation; (2) to amend the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph to add authorizing language; and (3) to amend Sections 1 and 2 for clarification and to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:410. Life settlement investments.
In response to a question by Senator Givens, Ms. Paul stated that the term "viatical" was changed to "life settlement investments" throughout this administrative regulation to mirror changes made by the Department of Insurance. There were no substantive changes.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the RELATES TO and STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraphs to correct and add citations; (2) to amend the NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraph to delete superfluous language; and (3) to amend Sections 1, 2, 3, and 9 to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:440. Examples of dishonest or unethical practice for broker-dealers and agents.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the RELATES TO paragraph to add a citation; and (2) to amend the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph and Section 1 to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:450. Examples of dishonest or unethical practice for investment advisers and investment adviser representatives.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the RELATES TO paragraph to add citations; and (2) to amend the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph and Sections 1 and 2 to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:480. Books and records of firms employing issuer agents.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Section 1 to correct the edition date for the “Offering Document Guidelines”; and (2) to amend the RELATES TO and NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY paragraphs and Section 1 to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
808 KAR 10:490. Procedures for Distributing and Using Funds from the Securities Fraud Prosecution and Prevention Fund.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
Kentucky Horse Racing Commission: Thoroughbred Racing
810 KAR 1:001. Definitions. Marc A. Guilfoil, deputy executive director, and Tim West, assistant general counsel, represented the commission. Patrick Neely, executive director, Kentucky Equine Education Project, appeared in support of 810 KAR 1:001, 1:011, and 1:120; 811 KAR 1:005, 1:125, and 1:250; and 811 KAR 2:010, 2:060, and 2:160. Stan Cave, attorney, and Kent Ostrander, executive director, represented The Family Foundation of Kentucky and appeared in opposition to 810 KAR 1:001, 1:011, and 1:120; 811 KAR 1:005, 1:125, and 1:250; and 811 KAR 2:010, 2:060, and 2:160.
In response to a question by Representative Ford, Mr. West stated that the commission respectfully declined to defer consideration of these administrative regulations to the June 14 meeting of the Subcommittee.
Senator Pendleton stated that the administrative regulations needed to move forward through the administrative regulation review process.
Mr. West stated that the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission had statutory authority to promulgate administrative regulations pertaining to wagering on historical horse racing. He provided the definition of "pari-mutuel" from the Interstate Horse Racing Act, the Racing Commissioners International Model Rules, and the decision in Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey Club. Mr. West stated that, pursuant to the aforementioned rules, for a wager to comply with the definition of “pari-mutuel,” three (3) things were necessary: (1) the wagers must be in a pool; (2) patrons must wager amongst themselves, not against the house; and (3) the operator must get a statutory commission. These administrative regulations define “pari-mutuel” similarly with the aforementioned rules. Wagering on historic horse racing does not specifically include “instant racing;” however, “instant racing” would be approved by the commission as meeting “wagering on historic horse racing.”
Mr. West explained how the historic horse racing wagering machines worked. A player never won more than one (1) pool. There was a “seed pool” that insured a minimum payout availability. All races in the video library had ten (10) horses without disqualifications or a dead heat. Handicapping information was provided to inject an element of skill. The pools grew in real time until there was a winner. Once there was a winner, the pool returned to the minimum “seed pool.” A bet was “locked in” once the historical race initiated. The wagerer may watch the entire race or just the stretch run.
In response to questions by Senator Givens, Mr. West stated that wagering on a historical horse race did not constitute an expansion of gambling, but was a type of exotic wagering based on pari-mutuel wagering of a horse race, which was already allowed in the Commonwealth. This was an evolution of horse race wagering, not an expansion of gaming. It was up to the wagerer to determine if skill would be an element utilized in the wager process, and skill was an element that was always an option in addition to chance for determining the outcome of a wager. A “quick pick” option provided for more chance and less use of skill. Handicap information, if used, provided the opportunity for skill to be a factor in the outcome of the wager. All wagers wagered on different races within the same pool. The statute only exempted horse racing from antigambling provisions; therefore, expansion to cards or other sports would not be possible. A wager could potentially be placed within one (1) minute of a previous cycle of wagering. Mr. West stated that the appearance of the machine was more like a slot machine, but was otherwise different. The machine provided a quicker wager than one would encounter at a live, real-time horse race because of logistics, such as in moving and preparing horses. The defining characteristic of the broader rules pertaining to “pari-mutuel" was the pooling of risk, not if the event was a single race.
In response to questions by Representative Ford, Mr. West stated that the recent opinion from the Attorney General did not provide for wagering on a historical horse race and required administrative regulations to be promulgated. Duly filed administrative regulations would carry the full force of law. These administrative regulations were being promulgated to define “pari-mutuel.” Mr. Guilfoil stated that wagering restrictions would prevent wagering my minors or a horse trainer under investigation who has been prohibited from attending a live, real-time race. This type of restriction would carry forward to wagering on a historical horse race. The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission was a government agency; however, the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association and the racetracks were not state governing bodies. Mr. West stated that the same types of provisions already in place for these entities in live, real time horse racing would be extended to wagers on historical horse racing. This would benefit the entire horse industry. “Live racing” was defined by Mr. West as racing in real time but subject to interpretation.
In response to questions by Co-Chair Bowen, Mr. West stated that multiple wagerers using historical horse racing machines would have wagers pooled within the same six (6) types of pools. The entire horse racing community supported wagering on historical horse racing. The public hearing was held at the Red Mile, and all attendees except the Family Foundation of Kentucky supported the proposals. Churchill Downs, Keeneland, and other tracks were all in support. If a wagering system was pari-mutuel and pertained to horse racing, it would be approved pursuant to these administrative regulations; therefore, “instant racing” was not the only potential form of wagering on a historical horse race.
Senator Pendleton stated that these administrative regulations pertained only to horse racing. Kentucky was losing revenue to other states. Senator Pendleton made a motion to approve these administrative regulations. Co-Chair Bell determined that the motion was out of order because the Subcommittee was not authorized to approve administrative regulations, only amendments thereto. Senator Pendleton revised his motion to not find these administrative regulations deficient.
In response to a question by Senator Givens, Mr. West stated that a hypothetical wager involving plastic horses and dice would not constitute wagering on a historical or other race because if a living horse was not racing at the time the race took place, the integrity of horse racing would be undermined.
Mr. Neely stated that the Kentucky Equine Education Project represented all breeds of horses and had over 15,000 members. The project supported “instant wagering” as a form of wagering on historical horse races. Wagering on historical horse races had been successful in Arkansas. Like Kentucky, Arkansas prohibited casino gambling, but allowed pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing. Other states supplemented horse racing purses and breeders’ incentive programs; therefore, without these administrative regulations, Kentucky would be at a disadvantage. New fans of horse racing have been created via this new type of exotic wagering.
In response to a question by Senator Pendleton, Mr. West stated that there was not a substantive difference between simulcast and machine wagering. Both related to horse racing and both involved pari-mutuel gaming.
In response to questions by Co-Chair Bowen, Mr. Neely stated that the target market for wagering on historical horse racing was as many consumers as possible. Skill was an important element in wagering on historical horse racing, but could be eliminated if the wagerer chose. Mr. West stated that those consumers who came to wager on historical horse racing may also be introduced to live, real-time horse racing and become a fan, rather than just the opposite happening. Mr. Neely stated that evidence supported Mr. West's hypothesis more than the opposite, which would be losing fans of live, real-time horse racing to machines.
In response to questions by Senator Kerr, Mr. West stated that financial forecasting for annual tax revenue from wagering on historical horse racing was difficult to determine. Comparison with Arkansas's revenue was not exact because of very different market sizes. The number of terminals that would be used would depend on how popular wagering on historical horse racing became. Mr. Neely stated that he did not have accurate financial forecasts either.
Senator Pendleton stated that it was unknown if wagering on historical horse racing would be successful and lucrative, but it would not be possible to determine unless it was attempted. The policy could be changed in the future by the Subcommittee or the legislature if it was not successful. The horse industry in Kentucky was in trouble, and this may help.
In response to questions by Representative Ford, Mr. Neely stated that wagering on historical horse racing involved an element of skill if the wagerer so chose. This was a horse racing event that may be characterized as "gaming," which was a term presently part of horse racing vernacular. Mr. West stated that wagering on historical horse racing was a type of exotic wager.
Mr. Cave stated that wagering on historical horse racing did not constitute live racing. Because a video of a horse race was not a horse race but a video, the video was not under the jurisdiction of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. He quoted Mr. Neely's comment that "A horse race is a spectacular event, which cannot be replicated on a tv screen." Mr. Cave stated that there was a two (2) part test for determining the legality of this matter: (1) was this a horse race; and (2) was it pari-mutuel. His answer to both tests was no and he stated that the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and the Department of Revenue were so unsure if this was legal, they sought a determination from the court system.
Mr. Cave stated that wagering on historical horse racing was not truly pari-mutuel because patrons were not betting on the same event. The patent for the instant racing machine indicated that each player bets on a unique pool of one (1). The purse comes from progressive wagering pools. The Kentucky Attorney General's opinion stated that changes to an administrative regulation that would provide for wagering on historical horse races may also necessitate changes to the statute that prohibits certain devices, which appear to include an instant racing reel device. This may be the reason the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission declined to bring an instant gaming machine to the Subcommittee meeting. It may be illegal to bring such a device into Kentucky. A Wyoming court decision recently struck down a similar law in that state on the basis that the instant gaming reel machine was a slot machine, which was prohibited by Wyoming statutes. The Wyoming court decision stated that the device was a slot machine disguised as pari-mutuel wagering.
Mr. Cave stated that the wagering excise tax could only be collected on live, real-time horse racing events; therefore, it may not be possible to collect revenue from wagering on historical horse races. Wagering on historical horse racing would violate KRS 230.370, which prohibited keeping undisclosed information about a horse race such as the horse's name, jockey's name, or owner's name.
Mr. Cave stated that The Family Foundation of Kentucky was additionally concerned that there were not questions or discussions that took place at the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission the day that the commission approved these administrative regulations for filing. There were sworn affidavits related to the approval of these administrative regulations that were dated prior to the date the commission officially took the vote.
In response to questions by Co-Chair Bowen, Mr. Cave stated that representatives from the horse racing industry had, in press reports, stated both support and opposition to wagering on historical horse racing. The public hearing was held at the Red Mile venue, which was not a nonbiased facility; therefore, the results of the public hearing did not necessarily represent the total scope of opposition.
Senator Pendleton stated that he was offended that The Family Foundation of Kentucky had insinuated that Subcommittee members were being led blindly into bad public policymaking. He stated that Kentucky needed to protect its signature horse industry and the integrity of horse racing.
In response to statements by Mr. Cave, Mr. West stated that the argument of The Family Foundation of Kentucky was an emotive one, not based on the facts. The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission was cognizant of all applicable statutes and had vetted all the issues carefully. He said that KRS 230.370 pertained to undisclosed information about a live, real-time horse race and did not apply to wagering on historical horse races.
A motion was made by Senator Givens and seconded by Representative Ford to find these administrative regulations deficient unless the agency agreed to defer. Mr. West restated the commission's decision not to defer. A roll call vote was taken. There being four (4) votes to find the administrative regulations deficient, one (1) vote not to find the administrative regulations deficient, and one (1) pass vote, the motion failed (See KRS 13A.020(4)).
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph to correct citations; and (2) to amend Section 1 to: (a) delete unnecessary definitions; and (b) comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
810 KAR 1:009. Jockeys and apprentices.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: to amend Sections 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 15, and 17 to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
810 KAR 1:011. Pari-mutuel wagering.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the RELATES TO paragraph to include additional relevant citations; (2) to amend Section 2 to delete language that repeats statutory provisions; (3) to amend Sections 1, 3, 4, and 9 to include cross references to other administrative regulations; and (4) to amend Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 for clarity and to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
810 KAR 1:120. Exotic wagering.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Sections 2 and 5 to include cross references; and (2) to amend Sections 2 and 4 for clarity and to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
Harness Racing
811 KAR 1:005. Definitions.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph to update citations; and (2) to amend Section 1 to: (a) delete unnecessary definitions; and (b) comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
811 KAR 1:125. Pari-mutuel wagering.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the RELATES TO paragraph to include additional relevant citations; (2) to amend Section 2 to delete language that repeats statutory provisions; (3) to amend Sections 1, 3, 4, and 9 to include cross references to other administrative regulations; and (4) to amend the TITLE and Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 for clarity and to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
811 KAR 1:250. Exotic wagering.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Sections 2 and 5 to include cross references; and (2) to amend Sections 2 and 4 for clarity and to comply with the drafting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
Quarter Horse, Appaloosa, and Arabian Racing
811 KAR 2:010. Definitions.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the STATUTORY AUTHORITY paragraph to update citations; and (2) to amend Section 1 to: (a) delete unnecessary definitions; and (b) comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
811 KAR 2:060. Pari-mutuel wagering.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend the RELATES TO paragraph to include additional relevant citations; (2) to amend Section 2 to delete language that repeated statutory provisions; (3) to amend Sections 1, 3, 4, and 9 to include cross references to other administrative regulations; and (4) to amend Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 for clarity and to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
811 KAR 2:160. Exotic wagering.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the following amendments: (1) to amend Sections 2 and 5 to include cross references; and (2) to amend Sections 2 and 4 for clarity and to comply with the drafting and formatting requirements of KRS Chapter 13A. Without objection, and with agreement of the agency, the amendments were approved.
The following administrative regulations were deferred to the June 14, 2011, meeting of the Subcommittee:
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CABINET: Board of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing: Board
201 KAR 39:010. Definitions.
201 KAR 39:030. Application; qualifications for licensure; and certification levels.
201 KAR 39:040. Fees.
201 KAR 39:050. Renewal of licenses and extension of temporary licenses.
201 KAR 39:060. Reinstatement of license subject to disciplinary action.
201 KAR 39:070. Application and qualifications for temporary licensure.
201 KAR 39:080. Reciprocity.
201 KAR 39:090. Continuing education requirements.
201 KAR 39:100. Complaint procedure.
201 KAR 39:120. Code of ethics.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET: Department for Environmental Protection: Division of Water: Water Quality Standards
401 KAR 10:030. Antidegradation policy implementation methodology.
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES: Department for Community Based Services: Division of Protection and Permanency: Child Welfare
922 KAR 1:420 & E. Child fatality or near fatality investigations.
The Subcommittee adjourned at 4:10 p.m. until June 14, 2011.