►
From YouTube: Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee (10-12-21)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
A
E
A
D
F
103
kr
16
320
amends
to
update
statutory
citations
and
make
changes
for
clarity.
103
kr
16
352
amends
to
update
language
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a.
103
kr1820
amends
to
update
existing
language
as
it
relates
to
employer,
withholding
specifically
under
withholding
and
over
withholding
by
the
employer.
F
103Kr1890
amends
to
update
the
type
of
information
that
shall
be
contained
in
employer
payroll,
withholding
and
exemption
certificate
records
to
conform
with
krs
chapter
13a.
The
staff
suggested
amendments
for
103k
are
16320,
16352,
1820
and
1890
all
make
changes
for
clarity
and
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a.
G
103
27050
is
being
amended
to
add
statutory
references,
update
the
promulgation
statement,
add
tangible
personal
property
sales.
Examples
provide
clarifying
language,
delete
previous
guidance
related
to
the
taxability
of
certain
sales
that
are
now
taxable
as
the
furnishing
of
landscaping
services
and
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a
requirements.
103
27
150
is
being
amended
to
add
a
definition
for
extended
warranty
services
update
the
regulation
regarding
the
tax
treatment
related
to
service
and
installation
charges
related
to
the
sale
of
tangible,
personal
property.
Digital
property
and
taxable
services.
G
Add
examples
of
transactions
where
the
repair
parts
and
materials
used
are
less
than
10
percent
in
relation
to
charges
for
labor,
delete,
outdated
tax
treatments
and
update
the
tax
treatment
of
extended
warranty
services.
103
27
230
is
being
amended
to
update
the
title.
Add
statutory
citations
update
the
necessity
function
and
conformity.
Paragraph
update
the
taxability
of
motor
vehicle
body
shops,
provide
examples
of
property
consumed
within
motor
vehicle
repair
and
body
shop
services
and
provide
guidance
on
the
application
of
the
resale
certificate
to
tangible
personal
property
purchases
within
the
motor
vehicle,
repair
and
body
shop
industries.
E
103
kar
chapter
30
regs
update
the
tax
treatment
for
farmers
for
machinery
for
new
and
expanded
industry
for
energy
and
energy,
producing
fields
for
interstate
and
foreign
commerce
and
for
property
used
in
the
publication
of
newspapers.
The
staff
amendments
amend
various
sections
to
comply
with
13a
drafting
requirements.
D
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Yes,
I
have
a
a
question
or
maybe
just
you
could
comment
if
you
could
please
on
kar
027
150,
that's
speaking
concerning
the
extended
warranty
services.
H
Yes,
representative
hale:
this
is
this:
is
richard
dobson,
so
27,
150,
repairs
and
reconditioners.
H
Yes,
one
of
the
purposes
with
with
renewing
the
and
updating
these
regulations
is
to
provide
additional
guidance
that
related
to
recent
legislative
changes
and
the
extended
warranty
provisions
that
went
into
effect
back
in
the
2018
session.
This
was,
as
a
result
of
you,
know,
extending
or
expanding
the
base
of
sales
tax.
It
created
a
lot
of
different
questions
for
the
repair
industry
and
in
other
industries
as
well,
so
this
regulation
just
just
provides
some
additional
guidance.
H
That's
related
to
these
changes
in
chapter
139,
due
to
the
legislative
expansion
of
the
sales
tax
base,.
B
H
Yes,
it's
it's
an
update,
explaining
how,
with
the
expansion
of
sales
tax
to
include
extended
warranties,
how
that
does
affect
businesses
that
are
involved
in
repairing
tangible
personal
property,
because
some
of
that
property
may
have
an
extended
warranty
and
if
there
is
an
extended
warranty
and
repairs
are
done
under
an
extended
warranty
that
was
executed
from
july
1
2018
and
there
are
different,
there's
a
different
way
to
handle
those
warranties
and
how
the
repairs
are
performed,
pre-legislation
and
post
legislation
so
that
that
goes.
This
regulation
goes
into
that
a
little
bit.
H
H
A
Yeah,
I've
got
one
question
if
someone
could
explain
it's
30140
energy
and
energy
producing
fields
in
our
summary,
it
says
under
item
2
in
our
summary
says,
provide
guidance
on
the
energy
direct
pay
exemption
for
the
utility
gross
receipts
tax.
H
H
It
previously
just
addressed
the
procedures
involving
authorization
and
eligibility
for
the
energy
direct
pay
for
sales
and
use
tax,
but
the
procedures
are
are
practically
identical
for
how
to
apply
for
the
same
authorization
as
it
relates
to
utility
gross
receipts
license
tax.
So,
as
this
regulation
is
being
amended,
we
went
ahead
and
included
the
guidance
that
relates
to
the
the
local
school
tax
as
well.
The
department
of
revenue
has
administered
this
tax
since
2005.
H
we've
had
procedures
in
place
to
ensure
that
businesses
can
qualify
and
get
the
the
partial
exemption
and
the
authorization,
but
this
regulation
just
provides
that
guidance
and
in
a
more
public
format
in
the
in
the
the
format
of
the
administrative
regulation.
So
we're
just
providing
needed
guidance
clarifying
and
everything
being
adopted
here
is
what
we
already
have
in
our
internal
procedures.
E
This
regulation
amends
to
allow
use
of
department-provided
face
coverings
to
prevent
or
mitigate
the
spread
of
disease
to
prohibit
livestock
from
state
facilities
and
grounds
that
are
not
designed
for
that
purpose.
To
establish
safety
standards
for
deadly
weapons
that
are
openly
carried
at
state
facilities
and
grounds
and
decla
add
clarifying
language
and
definitions.
E
It
also
amends
section
2
to
authorize
similar
delegation
for
the
rental
application.
It
amends
section
3
to
remove
the
requirement
that
face
coverings,
worn
to
prevent
disease,
be
department
provided
as
long
as
they
satisfy
the
components
of
the
new
definition
and
amends
various
sections
to
comply
with
13a
drafting
and
formatting
requirements.
A
Their
staff
amendment
is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendment.
We
have
a
motion.
We
have
a
second
without
objection,
so
ordered.
Are
there
any?
I
have
a
few
but
I'll
open
it
up
to
the
committee.
First
from
members
on
this
set
of
regulations,
okay,
go
into
detail
on
what
each
part
is
doing.
So
when
I
say
each
part,
I
mean
face
mask
livestock
deadly
weapons.
If
you
could
just
add
a
little
detail
for
the
the
committee
and
and
people
who
are
watching
from
home.
J
Certainly,
certainly
I'd
be
happy
to
so
as
to
the
face
mask
issue
during
the
pandemic.
The
original
regulation
that
was
passed
back
in
2019
mass
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
prohibited
by
the
original
regulation.
Reason
being
just
you
know,
health
and
safety
concerns
same
reason
that
individuals
are,
you,
know,
tend
to
be
banned
from
wearing
head
coverings
when
going
into
a
bank
or
something
of
that
nature.
But,
of
course,
kobe
changed
that
I
believe
we,
the
secretary,
issued
a
an
order.
J
The
emergence
did
temporary
order,
a
while
back
to
say
that
you
know
face
mass
would
be
allowed.
This
regulation
just
makes
that
common
sense
change
and
says
it's
something.
That's
explicitly
allowed.
We
accepted
the
amendment
from
lrc
to
say
you
know,
define
what
a
face
mask
would
be,
and
so
that's
the
face.
Mass
change
as
to
livestock.
J
A
Before
you
before
you
go
on,
so
it
doesn't
mandate,
but
just
simply
allows
face
coverings
to
be
worn
in
these
state-owned
buildings.
Correct,
correct.
J
That's
correct:
okay,
oh
and
some
may
move
on
outside
sure
sure.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
as
to
livestock
specifically
exempted
out,
of
course,
is
any
state
facility
that
is
explicitly
designed
for
livestock
purposes.
So
it's
anything
you
know
express
this.
You
know
a
fair
facility
agricultural
intended
use
exempted,
but
on
state
facilities
and
grounds
where
that's
not
intended.
Where
you
know
we
don't
have
measures
in
place
to
you
know,
pick
up
clean
up
safeguard.
J
You
know,
members
of
the
public
nearby
from
you
know
livestock
going
through
whatever
the
nature
of
the
livestock,
which
is,
you
know,
defined
elsewhere
in
statute.
It
just
says
that
in
order
to
have
them
there
you're
required
to
get
permission
from
the
from
the
department
for
facilities
and
support
services.
So
you
know
it's
still
conceivable
that
there
could
be
an
event
where
livestock
would
be
permitted,
but
all
that
does
you
know
similar
to
any
other
event
on
a
state
facility
on
state
grounds
or
in
the
state
facility.
J
Just
ensures
that
there'll
be
a
request
to
do
that,
and
you
know
proper
preparations
can
take
place
and
I
believe
your
the
last
question
went
to
the
the
deadly
weapons
all
what
we're
doing
there
essentially
is
just
they.
It
doesn't
ban
deadly
weapons,
it
doesn't
say
they're
not
permitted
at
all.
J
In
section
three
of
the
regulation
regard,
the
specific
restrictions
are
put
in
place
regarding
long
guns
and
in
handguns
specifically,
and
it
basically
just
puts
in
clear
black
and
white
standards
for
people
to
understand
about.
You
know
what
constitutes
you
know:
safe
carrying
permitted
carrying
of
a
long
gun
and
a
handgun
on
on
state
grounds,
and
so,
for
example,
it
talks
about.
J
Similarly
for
handguns
you're
going
to
have
them
in
a
in
a
holster,
and
it's
going
to
have
at
least
two
retention
mechanisms
and
I'll
admit,
that's
something
I
had
to
educate
myself
a
little
bit
on
preparing
this
regulation.
We
had
the
assistance
of
the
ksp
and
for
preparing
it.
You
know,
for
anyone,
who's
seen
an
officer
walking
around
with
a
holster
firearm.
What
that
is
is
there's
in
the
firearms
when
it's
for
individuals,
knowledge
about
firearms.
J
There
are
levels
of
protection
to
make
sure
that,
for
example,
if
a
police
officer
is
carrying
around
a
firearm,
someone
can't
grab
it
and
take
it
after
holster.
One
of
those,
a
very
basic
one,
is
just
the
friction
of
the
holster
itself.
That's
one
level
protection,
one
that
you
might
also
have
seen
have
been
like
a
a
leather
strap
that
snaps
down
over
the
handgun,
so
it
can't
be
quickly
drawn.
My
understanding
is,
it
goes.
You
know
from
level
one
up
to
level
four
level.
J
Four
being
the
level
of
you
know,
it's
impossible
for
even
officer
is
knocked
out
and
unconscious
for
someone
else
to
draw
that
firearm
out
and
you
know,
use
it
against
them,
and
so
you
know
these
are
been
working
with
ksp.
You
know
what
what
we
believe
would
be
good
ideas
here
to
help
balance.
You
know
the
rights
of
people
who
want
or
have
our
firearm
owners
with.
You
know,
health
and
safety
not
only
of
the
general
public,
but
also
the
firearm
owners
themselves.
J
If
the
committee
will
indulge
me,
I
would
analogize
it
to
in
when
people
are
driving,
something
like
airbags
where
it
doesn't
impede.
Your
right
to
drive
a
vehicle
to
have
a
vehicle.
It
just
slows
down
the
interaction
to
keep
people
safer.
You
know
similarly
we're
slowing
down.
You
know
the
rate
of
some
things
would
happen.
If
people
have
safeties
on
they're,
not
pointing
guns
at
people
there
might
it
prevents
misunderstandings
from
escalating
too
quickly,
and
you
know
we'll,
I
think,
serve
everyone
better.
A
J
I
don't
want
to
misrepresent
myself
as
an
expert
on
this
issue,
but
my
understanding
from
looking
into
it
was
that
police
officers
generally
have
at
least
what's
called
a
level
a
level
two
level
where
they
have.
You
know
the
friction
of
their
holster
and
then
the
one
I've
seen
the
most
is
just
the
the
leather
snap
over,
but
they
go
up
from
there.
Okay,
so
but
yeah
and
my
understanding
is
level
two
is
you
know
the
minimum
expected
from
most
police.
A
And
on
to
back
to
the
livestock
question,
so
we
there
was
a.
I
think
there
was
a
gentleman
last
year
that
was
protesting
and
he
was
riding
a
horse
on
the
grounds
across
the
street.
A
So
is
it
your
opinion
that
that
gentleman
would
be
restricted
under
this
new
regulation
from
bringing
his
horse
to
the
capitol
and
protesting?
In
that
way,
I
guess.
J
Well,
on
the
text
itself,
I
think
the
what
the
regulation
would
require
is
that
he
would
just
have
to
put
in
a
request
to
bring
the
horse.
You
know
on
to
state
grounds
and
then
just
like
any
other.
First
amendment
activity
or
demonstration
or
event
on
state
grounds.
It
would
be
reviewed
by
the
commissioner
by
the
department,
and
you
know
they
would
make
a
decision.
You
know
they
could
you
know,
grant
that
that's.
That
would
be.
J
That
would
be
an
execution
issue
more
for
the
commissioner,
but
you
know
in
in
making
it
you
would
be
looking
at
the
regulation
if
you'd
be
considering.
J
It
was
for
this
facilities
or
grounds
or
any
other.
You
know
the
capability
of
the
of
that
area
to
deal
with
it
versus
you
know
the
interest
or
by
bringing
it
on.
But
of
course,
you
know
there'd
always
be
the
normal
recourse
too.
You
know
it
should
be
subject
and
content
neutral,
it'll
be
just
based
upon
the
baseline
restrictions
in
the
regulation.
B
Okay,
I
just
have
one
question:
if
you
don't
mind,
mr
chair,
I
understand
with
the
livestock
on
state
grounds.
You
know
a
lot
of
us
live
in
rural
areas
and
communities.
Would
this
require
our
constituents,
such
as
those
of
the
amish
or
mennonite
beliefs,
that
only
use
horses
to
have
to
get
permission
before
they
go
to
any
state-owned
facility,
such
as
a
courthouse
health
department?
J
That's
an
excellent
question
and
you
know
that's
that's
not
something
we've
gotten
a
comment
about,
but
it
certainly
bears
consideration.
C
If
I
can,
if
I
can
address
that,
so
this
is
brian
thomas
for,
for
example,
a
courthouse
you
would,
you
would
travel
on
the
you
know,
public
roads
and
so
whatever
either
livestock
or
other
vehicles
are
authorized
on
the
you
know,
public
streets
that
would
still
be
available
to
people
in
addition
to
that,
finance
does
not
dictate
the
use
of
the
administrative
office
of
the
court's
facilities,
and
so
at
least
for
that
particular
example.
C
When
we
talk
about,
you
know,
facilities
and
grounds
we
are
literally
talking
about.
You
know:
state
property
itself,
you
know
it's,
the
the
ingress
and
egress
is
is
not
generally
considered
part
of
that.
If
that,
if
that
is
the
question.
B
Well
I
understand
you're
you're
talking
about
the
the
county
on
property
whatever,
but
would
that
prohibit?
Let
me
make
it
more
specific.
Would,
with
the
people
of
kentucky
that
use
horses
and
buggies,
would
they
be
able
to
come
to
the
state
capitol.
C
So
again,
I
I
believe
they
they
would.
I
guessed.
C
Anything
that
that
be
you
know
that
is
considered
part
of
the
public
street.
This
this
regulation
does
not
impact.
If
there
was
going
to
be
an
event
with
livestock,
you
know
horses,
even
horses
and
buggies.
Then
you
know
on
state
facility
grounds.
Then
they
would
need
to
submit
an
application
to
hold
sessions.
Debt.
B
A
I'll
let
them
answer,
I
think
what
they're
saying
is
that
the
public
street
would
be
okay,
but
I
get
your
quest
to
your
question:
where
does
the
public
street
begin
and
end?
Yes,
sir
yeah
so
proceed
cabinet?
If
you
would.
C
I
am
aware
that
an
event
like
that
took
place,
but
so,
if,
if
the
livestock
is
being,
you
know
he's
on
state
property
on
the
lawn
et
cetera,
which
I
believe
that
that
gentleman
was,
he
would
need
to
submit
an
application
to
get
approval
for
those
events
and
when
facilities
responded.
C
I
believe
that
they
would.
You
know,
request
that
you
know
that
person
clean
up
after
after
the
livestock
that
you
know
that,
if,
if
if
there
was
a
belief
that
there
would
be
property
damage
that
you
know,
that
would
be
avoided.
But
again
that
person
would
submit
an
application
just
like
any
other.
J
Re
reinforcing
what
brian
was
just
saying.
Well,
I
think
you
know
we
could
always
provide
further
clarification.
I
think
there
is
a
distinction
between
you
know
the
primary
intended
focus
of
this
regulation,
which
is
talking
about
you,
know,
events
and
using
state
facilities
and
state
grounds,
and
then
you
know
what
was
the
the
situation
it
was
raised,
which
talks
about
horses
livestock
more
as
a
form
of
transportation.
I
J
J
Where
other
you
know,
people
are
going
to
be,
whereas
in
the
in
the
hypothetical
that
was
raised-
and
I
I
understand
it's
a
realistic
hypothetical-
you
know
you're
talking
about
someone
who's
taking
a
horse
as
a
form
of
transportation
and
again
I'm
not
an
expert
on
this
subject,
but
I
would
imagine
they're
going
to
be
leaving
that
you
know
that
horse.
You
know
hooked
up
to
a
buggy
or
nearby
it
in
you
know
a
state
park
in
the
state
parking
lot
or
you
know
parking
facilities
and
so
well.
You
know
I
will
agree.
J
It
could
be
something
we
could
issue
further
clarification
on
at
the
present
moment.
I
think
if
someone
who
you
know
a
member
of
the
amish
community,
mennonite
community
was
bringing
their
you
know
using
their
horse
of
form
of
transportation
and
their
intended
use
was
limited
to
they're
going
to
leave
it.
You
know
in
a
parking
type
area
on
state
grounds,
then
subject
for
clarification.
It's
unlikely
that
the
the
regulation
will
be
applied
against
them.
In
that
instance,.
L
So
again
I
pre.
I
got
you
just
that
last
statement
kind
of
clarified.
My
question
was:
are
the
is
the
parking
lot
considered
part
of
the
road
or
is
it
part
of
capital
grounds?
So
I
mean,
if
you,
let's
again
just
using
this
example,
because
I
think
it's
a
legitimate
one.
If
someone
is
amish,
brings
her
buggy
they're
going
to
have
to
have
if
they're
going
to
come
for
some
event
and
leave
their
buggy
and
their
animals
somewhere.
It
have
to
be
on
in
the
parking
lot.
L
I
would
imagine
and
find
a
place
to
secure
that
animal
there
they're
not
just
going
to
come
through
for
a
leisurely
ride
and
and
go
back
wherever
you
know
home,
wherever
they're
going
to
go
to
after
they're
here
at
the
capitol
grounds.
But
if
they're
going
to
leave
that
animal
somewhere,
what
you're
saying
is
they'd
have
to
get
permission
to
bring
that
animal
on
to
leave
it
in
the
parking
lot
effectively,
because
that
isn't
part
of
the
main
road,
and
I
have
to
be
able
to
tie
that
up
there.
That's,
I
guess
the
main.
L
That
is
a
legitimate
question,
I
think,
is
what
they
have
to
get
permission
number
one
you're
saying
it
would
be
unlikely
that
anything
would
happen
to
them.
That's
that's
fine!
That's
a
very
loyal
response,
but
I
mean
we're
passing
a
regulation
that
has
some
definitive
language
in
it.
So
that's
the
curiosity
is
it
possible
they
could
be
cited
or
have
something
done
against
them
or
animal
taken
away.
L
C
So
again,
this
regulation
does
not
finance,
does
not
have
the
ability
to
you
know
impound,
someone's
livestock
or
horse,
you
know,
or
or
otherwise
take
possession
of
it.
So
this
this
regulation
requires
applications
for
for
capital
events
and
other
uses,
the
ingress
and
egress
you
know
onto
on
and
off
of
state
property
for
the
for
the
purpose
of
transportation,
you
know
does
not
qualify
as
as
an
event
as
contemplated
by
this
regulation.
J
If
I
could
add
to
that
and
again
understanding
the
committee's
concerns
to
the
extent
there's
a
concern
about
ambiguity
in
this
regulation
regarding
that
type
of
scenario,
while
you
know
there
could
be
a
clarification,
you
know
within
the
structure
of
this
regulation,
I
think
equally
likely
and
perhaps
better
suited
to
a
clarification
and
augmentation
of
the
finance
regulation
that
deals
explicitly
with
vehicle
parking
and
traffic
control,
which
is
200,
kr
3010,
which
is
work
right
before
the
the
regulation
at
issue.
J
Today
you
know
to
the
extent
of
someone
who
was
bringing
their
horse,
you
know
using
them
for
transport
to
state
facilities.
J
You
know,
I
think
they'd
be
more
they'd,
be
likely
to
look
at
that
regulation
as
to
what
they're
going
to
do
with
it
once
they're
here
and
admittedly,
the
regulation
doesn't
contemplate
that
scenario,
but
the
you
know
the
regulation
on
you
know
visitation
this
one
here
at
visitation
to
state
facilities
and
visitation
estate
grounds.
It.
H
J
B
F
B
C
Thank
you
representative.
So,
when
facilities
receives
applications
for
state
use,
we
look
at.
You
know
the
particular
uses
that
are
contemplated
by
the
applicant,
and
you
know
in
in
those
situations
where
livestock
was
going
to
be,
you
know,
brought
onto
state
grounds.
One
of
the
provisions
would
be
that
that
the
applicant
make
provisions
to
clean
up
after
after
said,
livestock.
J
And
within
this
regulation,
under
section
31b,
specifically,
it
does
talk
about
the
responsibility
of
all
visitors
when
they're
on
stage
to
state
grounds
or
in
the
state
facilities
that
they're
going
to
be
responsible
for
vandalism,
damage,
breakage
and
other
loss
or
destruction.
And
you
know
I
think
that
could
include
the
cost
of
cleanup.
A
I
don't
mean
to
beat
a
dead
horse
with
this
line
of
questioning,
but
I'm
sitting
here
reading
the
actual
regulation
itself
and
it
says
livestock
shall
be
prohibited,
except
at
facilities
designated
for
livestock
related.
A
C
Not
to
not,
to
my
knowledge,
the
way
the
way
this
regulation
is
contemplated
is
that
livestock
would
be
prohibited
unless
an
application
was
submitted
and
they
received
appointment
and
just
to
to
add
to
that
a
little
bit
that
the
current
version
of
this
regulation
and
the
the
current
materials
incorporated
by
reference
also
bans
livestock
from
the
capital
event.
J
I
I
would
just
add
to
that:
not
you
know,
in
support
of
what
brian
was
saying
there
that
when
you
talk
about
the
prohibition-
and
you
know
please
correct
me-
if
I'm
misquoting
language
or
you
know,
citing
the
non-amended
version
under
the
language
on
livestock
under
section
3,
1
q-
says
livestock
shall
be
prohibited.
J
Clause
1,
except
at
facilities
designated
for
livestock
related
purposes,
comma,
unless
express
written
approval
is
granted
by
the
division.
So
that
was
what
I
was
trying
to
speak
to
and
not
to
be
misleading
on
it.
That's
what
it
is
intended.
Someone
can
request
permission
from
the
division
of
you
know.
Facilities
to
that
gentleman
with
the
horse,
for
example,
can
express
connect,
request
permission
and,
to
the
extent
that
there
was
anything
unbelievable
and
I
apologize
for
it
that
doesn't
limit
it
necessarily
to
I'm
having
an
event
and
part
of
it
is
horses.
J
J
J
The
amish
and
bringing
horses
onto
park
you
know,
understand,
they're,
probably
not
going
to
send
an
email,
they
could
send
a
letter,
send
a
written
request.
They
can
make
a
request,
it
doesn't
have
to
have
to
be
informed,
hey
me
and
my
family
are
going
to
come
and
visit
the
capitol
we
want.
You
know
to
show
our
kids
that
you
know
the
kentucky
government
do
we
have
permission
to
bring
a
horse
on
park,
our
buggy
and
tour.
J
The
k,
while
we
tour
the
capitol
with
our
family
and
the
division,
would
have
the
authority
under
the
existing
regulation
without
any
augmentation.
To
look
at
that
and
just
say:
okay,
yes,
you're
bringing
your
horse
on
here's
where
you
park
it,
we
have
a
post
or
whatever
up
for
you
to
secure
it
to
and
and
that's
fine,
you
know,
we'd
be.
The
existing
regulation
has
that
ability.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
from
members.
I
just
got
one
quick
comment.
I
I
think
this
regulation
was
aimed
at
the
gentleman
who
rode
the
horse
on
capitol
grounds
last
year
and
I
don't
know
of
any
complaints
or
issues.
Maybe
there
are
some
horse-dropping
issues,
maybe
I
don't
know,
but
I
hope
this
regulation
wasn't
intended
pointed
at
one
individual.
So
that's
my
comment,
any
other
questions.
F
201
kr
2057
amends
to
delete
references
to
a
repealed
statute.
Add
that
an
aprn
is
required
to
register
for
a
casper
account
within
30
days
of
obtaining
a
dea,
controlled
substance
registration
certificate
via
an
online
portal
and
at
a
grace
period
of
prescriptive
authority
for
30
days
for
non-controlled
substances.
F
If
the
kappa
ns
ends
unexpectedly
but
requires
prescribing
controlled
substances
to
end
if
the
kappa
cs
collaborative
agreement
unexpectedly
ends
until
the
kappa
cs
is
resumed
or
the
aprn
enters
into
a
new
cap
ses.
The
staff
suggested
amendment
amends
various
sections
to
comply
with
karis
chapter
13a.
A
A
D
G
These
regulations
are
being
amended
to
clarify
the
requirements
for
the
official
seal
of
the
board
of
chiropractic
examiners,
delete
the
vice
president
of
the
board
from
the
provision
concerning
issuing
an
emergency
order
to
suspend
or
limit
a
license,
clarify
language
concerning
the
national
board
of
chiropractic.
Examiner's
examination
make
technical
changes
and
clarify
the
requirements
for
documentation
of
a
patient
visit
and
request
for
records.
The
staff
suggested
amendments
amend
various
sections
to
comply
with
the
drafting
requirements
of
krs
chapter
13a
and
make
technical
changes.
A
Would
you
please
identify
yourself
with
the
record
august
posgay
board
council
for
the
kentucky
board
of
chiropractic
examiners
good
afternoon
good
afternoon?
There
are
staff
amendments.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
staff
amendments?
We
have
a
motion.
We
have
a
second
without
objection,
is
so
ordered
any
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
on
this
set
of
regulations.
K
A
A
D
D
A
D
K
A
I
A
Thank
you.
There
are
no
amendments
on
this
set
of
regulations.
If
you
could,
I
know
as
a
legislative
legislator,
whenever
I
hear
procurement
procedures,
my
ears
perk
up
a
little
bit
so
could
you
explain
what
this
set
of
regulations
is
doing.
I
I
This
is
our
second
group
of
amendments
and
there
there
are
several
amendments,
but
we're
applying
the
best
value
criteria
to
our
request
for
quotes
not
just
to
ips
and
rfps.
This
is
pretty
technical
stuff.
I
The
preference
for
invitation
for
bids
is
deleted
to
reflect
current
practice
that
an
rfp
is
just
as
good
as
a
invitation
for
bids.
The
probably
the
most
critical
change
we
made
was
to
increase
our
small
purchase
limit
under
which
we
can
buy
a
product
or
service
with
three
quotes
from
twenty
thousand
to
thirty
thousand.
That's
been
that's
been
modified
over
the
years,
and
this
is
a
modification
that
was
authorized
by
statute.
I
As
inflation
creeps
up,
then
it
makes
sense
to
raise
some
of
these
limits,
so
source
procurements
have
to
be
approved,
have
to
be
justified
by
the
user
departments.
I
There's
some
information
in
the
amendment
about
cooperative
purchasing
and
when
that
would
be
in
the
best
interest
of
the
klc,
there's
a
provision
that
modifies
the
prohibition
against
contingent
fees
since,
according
to
recent
attorney
general
opinions
and
statute,
that's
sometimes
allowed
and
finally,
there's
a
provision
in
there
about
employees
working
while
they're,
also
at
the
lottery
that
provision
was
deleted,
because
that
is
also
addressed
in
our
ethics
regulation.
I
That's
a
summary
of
our
of
our
amendments
and
I'd
also
like
to
say
that,
as
I
said,
our
procurement
procedures
are
consistent
with
the
model
procurement
code,
but
that
being
said,
the
lottery
is
unique
in
that
we
have
a
board
of
directors.
We
have
to
talk
about
how
our
regulation
interacts
with
the
model
procurement
code.
So
it's
consistent
with
the
model
procurement
code,
but
it's
tailored
for
the
lottery.
A
So,
if
you're
going
to
deviate
from
the
model
procurement
code,
what
what
problems
were
you
having?
That
would
cause
you
not
to
adhere
to
the
model
procurement
code?
And
obviously
I
know
you
know
the
lower
the
lower
level
amounts.
That's
one
thing
you
know
the
twenty
thousand
thirty
thousand.
I
can
see
that
contingency
fees
for
attorneys
that's
a
little
bit
different,
but
as
far
as
the
getting
three
bids
and
running
it
through
the
you
know
the
process.
What's
what
seemed
to
be
the
problem
there.
I
There
is
no
problem
there.
As
I
said,
we
opted
to
adopt
procedures
that
are
consistent
with
the
model
procurement
code,
but
it
was
necessary
to
tailor
our
procedures
because
we
we're
not
a
state
agency,
and
we
have
some
features
that
are
different
from
state
agencies
that
had
to
be
addressed
in
our
procurement
procedures,
such
as
we
have
a
board
of
directors,
that's
not
addressed
in
the
model
procurement
code.
We
also
have
some
standing
not
feasible
to
solicit
determinations
that
were
necessary.
I
The
the
model
procurement
code
allows
for
not
feasible
to
solicit
determinations,
but
we
have
a
couple
of
special
ones
for
media
buys
and
advertising
and
advertising
production
as
an
example,
for
instance,
if
you
want
to
advertise
in
a
paper
or
if
you
want
to
advertise
on
a
certain
billboard,
it
really
doesn't
make
sense
to
go
through
a
bid
process.
You
know
you,
the
our
marketing
department
wants
the
ad
where
they
want
it
want
it
in
the
newspaper
where
they
want
it.
You
know
items
like
that.
I
That
makes
the
lottery
unique,
where
we
couldn't
just
use
the
model
procurement
code,
because
we
have,
we
have
features
that
make
us
unique.
So
we
had
to,
I
like
to
say,
tailor
our
procedures
to
tailor
the
model
procurement
code
to
our
procedures.
A
And
I
apologize,
I
may
have
misunderstood
what
you
were
saying.
I
thought
you
meant.
You
said
that
you
know
you.
Can
you
get
the
three
bids,
but
you
don't
necessarily
have
to
abide
by
the
current
code
as
it
pertains
to
the
three
bids
you
can
make.
You
know,
make
your
own
choice
or
decision
at
that
time.
I
Well,
I'm
I'm
sorry
if
you
misunderstood,.
A
G
D
E
B
L
Thank
you
very
much.
Just
I'm
curious
if
you
could
comment
as
to
the
need
for
this.
We've
had
other
legislation
when
it
comes
to
other
medical
providers
in
terms
of
the
costs
of
and
that
are
associated
with
having
to
reproduce
records.
I'm
just
hoping
you
might
be
able
to
comment
a
bit
further
on
the
need
for
this.
Why
that
we're
having
to
increase
the
fees
and
if
there's
been
a
large
request
from
different
individuals
and
who
are
the
people
that
are
typically
asking
for
these
records
to
be
reproduced.
B
Many
times
it's
litigation,
it's
also
people
who
are
like
possibly
media.
It's
people
who
are
wanting
additional
copies.
They
go
directly
to
the
county
attorney.
There
are
free
copies
given
to
the
government
entities
that
are
responsible
for
the
corners.
It
hasn't
been
updated
in
years,
so
the
cost
of
the
reproductions
have
have
gone
up
quite
a
bit
since
this
regulation
was
redone.
A
L
That
might
be
there's
been
a
bill
that
I've
proposed
in
the
past
similar
to
this
just
in
the
medical
industry.
So
it's
good
to
hear
that
the
state
government's
saying
hey,
there's
an
increased
cost.
We
have
to
cover
it.
I
think
a
lot
of
our
medical
providers
out
there
who
are
getting
numerous
kinds
of
requests
from
through
an
individual
but
again
through
litigation
and
lots
of
things.
People
fishing
often
for
ways
of
filing
litigation
have
used
this.
L
F
787
kr
1
10,
20,
60,
80,
90
and
110
all
men
to
make
technical
changes
and
other
changes
for
clarity,
update
language
to
match
what
is
currently
utilized
by
the
office
update,
statutory
citations
and
update
language
to
reflect
the
office
is
now
the
office
of
unemployment
insurance
within
the
labor
cabinet.
Additionally,
787
kr
110
updates
material
incorporated
by
reference
and
clarifies
that
some
reports
may
be
filed
electronically,
787
kr1,
020,
updates
notices
shall
be
provided
to
the
office.
787
kr
160
provides
a
portal
in
which
employers
can
provide
required
notice
and
protest.
F
787
kr1
110
includes
the
definition
of
interested
party
787
kr1
140
updates
language
to
include
direct
deposit
information
to
be
on
the
benefit
payment
register,
787,
kr,
180
and
1
140
are
okay.
Without
further
amendment,
the
staff
suggested
amendments
for
787
kr1,
1010,
1020,
1060,
109
and
1
110,
all
amended
to
make
changes
to
comply
with
keras
chapter
13
a
additionally.
The
staff
amendments
for
1,
10
and
1020
amend
section
1
to
correct
the
link
to
the
unemployment
self-service
web
portal.
K
787150
through
310
amend
unemployment
insurance
provisions,
including
arrangements
with
other
states,
employer
contribution
rates,
reports
and
deadlines,
voluntary
election
to
cover
employment,
not
otherwise
covered
contract,
construction
for
purpose
of
rate
assignment
conditions
for
an
employing
unit
to
succeed,
another
and
profiling
claimants
to
identify
those
likely
to
exhaust
regular
benefits.
The
staff
suggested
amendments
for
150
210,
220,
260,
300
and
310
them
in
various
sections
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a.
A
Thank
you.
There
are
staff
amendments.
Is
there
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendments?
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
without
objection
is
so
ordered
any
questions
from
members
seeing
none.
I've
got
a
quick
question
on
109-0,
where
we
remove
the
requirement
for
unemployed
workers
to
complete
a
form
ui
480.,
I'm
assuming
they're.
A
Those
people
would
be
required
to
fill
out
a
form
online
and
if
you
could
comment
on
that
and
basically
what
I'm
getting
at
is.
C
I
can
speak
to
it
also.
Basically
we're
just
making
it
easier
for
claimants
to
you
know,
send
an
email
send
a
written
request
instead
of
doing
a
form.
L
B
E
This
regulation
amends
to
add
definitions,
remove
duplicative
requirements
for
supply
lines
and
excessive
safety
belts,
lanyards
and
lifelines
and
roll
over
protective
structures
and
overhead
protection
and
to
comply
with
13a
drafting
requirements.
The
staff
suggested
amendment
and
then
sections
3-3
to
remove
standards
relating
to
breaks
because
they
are
outdated
and
no
longer
publicly
available,
and
it
means
various
sections
to
comply
with
13a.
A
Okay,
I've
got
some
other
people
on
my
list,
but
but
I
I
think
we're
fine
with
with
these
members
and
I
think
they
may
have
been
presenting
on
the
next
reg
on
the
list
which
has
been
deferred.
Okay,
is
there
there
are
staff
amendments.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendment.
A
There
is
there's
a
motion
and
a
second
with
that
objection,
disorder
any
comments
or
questions
by
members
on
kr2325.
F
806
kr
17
240
amends
to
update
definitions,
add
references
to
annual
report.
8
and
9
require
insurers
to
report
total
claims
paid
by
insurers
for
various
medical
and
surgical
services
and
mental
health
and
substance
use
disorder.
Services
make
technical
and
other
changes
to
comply
with
karis
chapter
13a
and
update
material
incorporate
incorporated
by
reference.
806
kr17270
amends
to
update,
claim
forms
and
make
technical
changes.
F
806
care
17470
amends
to
make
technical
changes.
The
staff
suggests
amendments
amendments
for
these
806
kr
17
regulations
all
make
changes
for
clarity
and
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a.
Additionally,
the
staff
amendment
for
806
kr
17280
amends
section
1
to
add
a
definition
of
health
benefit
plan
and
to
use
a
broader
definition
of
insurer.
B
A
A
B
K
807
5015
establishes
procedures
for
psc
to
regulate
rates,
terms
and
conditions
for
utility,
pole
attachments
and
access
to
other
utility
facilities.
The
amended
after
comments
version
revises
definitions,
clarifies
overlashing
requirements
and
extends
from
90
to
120
the
days
for
a
poll
owner
to
submit
an
invoice
to
an
attacher.
The
staff
suggested
amendments,
various
sections
to
comply
with
krs
chapter
13a.
B
Yes,
my
name
is
linda
bridwell,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
public
service
commission
with
me
today
is
jeb
penny
our
executive
advisor
and
ben
bellamy.
The
staff
attorney.
A
We
have
a
staff
amendment.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendment?
We
have
a
motion
we
have.
Second
without
objection
is
so
ordered
this
is
this
regulation
has
generated
some
interest
I'll
put
it
that
way.
A
So
if
let's
start
out
with
the
psc
and
if
you
could
just
give
us
the
just
a
quick
two
minute-
one
to
two
minute
version
of
what
what
this
regulation
is
doing.
O
Thank
you
chairman.
My
name
is
jeb
penny
and
I'm
the
executive
advisor
to
the
commission
just
a
little
bit
of
background
and
that
that
in
1983,
the
commission,
pursuant
to
federal
law,
reverse
preempted,
meaning
we
were.
We
preempted
the
fcc
to
regulate
the
poll
attachments
for
cable
and
television
attachments.
O
O
You
know
the
poll
attachers
the
poll
owners
and
through
a
series
of
public
meetings
where
we
took
comment-
and
this
is
outside
the
promulgation
process.
We
took
several
comments
and
crafted
regulations
we
ultimately
filed
with
the
lrc
and
then,
while
the
commission
was
doing
this,
the
general
assembly
enacted
house
bill
320,
which
established
a
deadline
for
the
commission
of
december
31st
to
promulgate
these
regulations.
O
This
is
just
a
culmination
of
years
of
work
and
I
think
most
stakeholders
are
largely
accepting
of
the
regulation.
Some
stakeholders
may
have
quibbles
with
certain
parts
of
it,
but
this
is
a
sea
change
in
how
the
commission
has
approached
this
and,
broadly
speaking,
this
proposed
regulation
creates
a
uniform
process
by
imposing
on
poll
owners.
O
There's
a
few
highlights
to
the
regulation,
one
of
which
is
it
establishes
a
formal
complaint
process
specific
to
poll
attachments
to
the
commission.
Another
one
is
it
codifies
one
touch
make
ready
work.
What
that
means
is
that
if
a
new
attacher
comes
into
a
poll-
and
it
doesn't
require
complex
work,
it
can
go
ahead
and
move
other
attachers
equipment
so
that
they
can.
The
new
attacher
can
then
attach
their
pole.
O
This
is
something
that
I
think
google
fiber
tried
or
had
the
louisville
metro
council
adopt
several
years
ago
as
an
ordinance
and
it's
in
its
popular
among
other
states
to
speed
up
the
deployment
of
broadband.
O
Another
thing
it
does.
It
streamlines
an
opportunity
for
attachers
to
request
what
we
call
high
volume
requests.
If
the
attacher
comes
into
an
area
it
wants
to
attach
to
say
more
than
a
thousand
polls
or
more
than
one
percent
of
the
polls,
it
addresses
how
that
can
be
handled.
It
expands
the
limits
under
what
some
other
utilities
in
our
terrorists
have
limited
it
to,
for
those
that
might
live
in
lexington
metronet
has
been
rolling
out
fiber
and
they
have
had
large
volume
orders
with
wind
stream
and
kentucky
utilities
in
that
area.
O
It
also
creates
procedures
for
overlashing,
and
this
is
something
that
the
commission
added
into
the
regulation
behest
of
the
kentucky
cable
and
broadband
association,
where
the
commission
essentially
took
language
from
the
fcc's
statute,
addressing
or
regulation
addressing
overlashing
and
made
a
few
modifications
that
place
it
in
this
statute.
And
what
overlashing
is
is
when
a
new
attacher
can
come
and
actually
lash
their
equipment
over
an
existing
attacher.
It
doesn't
require
additional
space
on
the
pole
and
then.
O
And
what
I
mean
in
this
situation
is
that,
if
a
if
an
attacher
comes
in
and
wants
to
attach
to
a
utility
pole,
but
there's
no
space
in
the
pole
and
that
utility
has
to
put
in
a
new
pole,
that
might
be
a
larger
pole.
The
new
attacher,
as
the
cost
causer,
would
have
to
pay
for
that
cost
of
the
poll.
However,
one
of
the
concerns
of
the
attachers
in
this
situation
and
the
commission
has
instilled
safeguards
for
this-
is
to
prevent
the
utility
from
opposing
the
cost
of
replacing
a
pole.
O
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
explanation,
really
good
explanation.
We
we
now
have
some
speakers
signed
up
against
four
and
in
between
so
we're
going
to
start
with
my
list,
which
is
dan
reinhardt,
representing
a
t
kentucky.
P
Good
afternoon,
chairman
west
and
chairman
hale
committee
members,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
this
afternoon.
Att
is
very
very
appreciative
of
the
staff's
efforts
in
having
pulled
this
rule
together.
P
It's
been
a
long
process
and,
while
not
all
of
a
t's,
suggestions
were
adopted
by
the
commission
rule
and
we
would
obviously
like
to
have
some
more
of
those
adopted.
P
My
comments
today
are
going
to
focus
only
on
one
specific
area,
and
that
is
the
area
of
whether
or
not
the
rule
is
discriminatory
against
incumbent
local
telephone
companies
ilex.
Like
a
t,
we
believe
that
the
rule
itself,
as
drafted
right
now,
is
discriminatory,
specifically
against
incumbent
local
exchange
carriers
and
we'll
go
into
a
little
bit
about.
Why
it's
to
be
clear,
this
isn't
really
about
just
ensuring
fairness
from
a
big
big
picture
perspective.
P
P
To
achieve
the
goal
of
expanding
broadband
in
the
commonwealth
house
bills,
320
require
the
commission
to
promulgate
rules
which
is
now
done,
but
importantly
in
house
bill
320,
the
the
the
legislature
defined
the
term
broadband
as
any
wireline
fixed
wireless
or
fixed
terrestrial
technology,
having
the
capacity
to
transmit
data
to
or
from
the
internet,
with
within
specific
speeds-
and
it's
very
clear
att
has
been
and
is
a
a
broadband
provider.
We
are
also
a
local
telephone
service
provider,
but
the
the
rule
as
promulgated
has
three
definitions.
P
In
section
one
definition:
two
defines
broadband
internet
providers
definition
9
identifies
new
attachers
and
definition.
11
identifies
telecommunications
carriers,
as
I've
mentioned
we're
atg's.
Obviously,
a
telecommunications
carrier
att
is
also
obviously
a
broadband
provider.
However,
those
three
three
definitions
expressly
include
language.
That
says
that
says
that
if
a
company
like
att,
has
what's
known
as
a
joint
use
agreement
with
a
power
company
I'll
get
into
that
in
a
moment,
then
it
no
longer
qualifies
as
a
broadband
internet
provider,
a
telecom
carrier
or
a
new
attacher.
P
So,
by
by
the
definition,
an
applicability
of
the
specific
insertion
of
exclusion
of
companies
with
joint
use
agreements
from
the
rule,
the
rule
effectively
doesn't
apply
to
at
t
in
large
part.
So
what
are
joint
use
agreements
in
essence?
Joint
use
agreements
are
contractual
arrangements
between
poll
owners.
A
tnt
is
a
poll
owner.
The
the
power
companies
which,
with
whom
we
have
joint
use
agreements,
are
also
poll
owners
and
the
the
joint
use
agreements.
P
Those
these
contractual
relationships
are
are
set
up
so
that
there
are
terms
and
conditions
of
our
work
together
and
in
in
often
times
those
agreements
also
address
attachment
rates.
P
Now,
at
the
same
time,
the
power
companies
that
are
subject
to
this
rule
and
at
t
we
have
tariff
rates
out
there
for
cable
company
attachers
broadband
attachers
and
what
are
known
as
competitive
local
exchange
carriers
as
attachers
to
our
polls.
Those
are
tariff
rates
they're
submitted
to
the
commission
and
in
many
cases,
particularly
with
the
power
companies,
they
are
established
in
a
general
rate
case
where
the
costs
are
looked
at.
P
So
in
many
cases,
the
the
joint
use
agreements
with
atnt
are
tens
of
years
decades
and
sometimes
even
longer
old
and
in
large
part,
the
rates
that
are
embedded
in
those
agreements
tend
to
exceed
the
the
rates
that
have
been
approved
by
the
commission,
reviewed
by
the
commission
as
appropriate
as
to
recover
costs
and
the
rates
that
we're
paying
in
the
joint
use
agreements
are
often
quite
a
bit
higher.
P
My
latest
analysis
suggests
that
we
pay
somewhere
between
five
and
seven
times
the
average
tariff
rate
in
our
joint
use
agreements.
That's
a
broad
across
a
broad
range
of
them,
so
you
know
the
the
issues
then
become.
What
is
that?
What
does
that?
Do
to
a
t
in
a
competitive
environment
house,
bill,
320,
encouraged
power
companies
and
particularly
cooperative
power
companies,
to
establish
broadband
affiliates
to
go
into
the
broadband
business
and
under
the
the
rule
is
promulgated?
P
On
the
flip
side,
the
parent
companies
of
those
those
of
those
incipient
or
new
entrant
broadband
providers
have
a
full
attachment
agreements
with
us
or
joint
use
agreements
with
us
and
tariffs
at
lower
rates,
but
the,
but
we,
under
the
terms
of
the
rule,
wouldn't
qualify
for
the
the
lower
tariff
rates.
P
We
see
this
as
a
competitive
disadvantage,
particularly
with
the
expansion
of
federal
funding
for
the
expansion
of
broadband
into
unserved
and
underserved
areas.
To
the
extent
att
would
be
in
a
bidding
situation
to
expand
broadband
into
underserved
or
unserved
areas.
Att
would
be
expressly
disadvantaged
by
being
forced
to
stay
with
point
use
rates.
P
Especially
considering
that
the
rates
have
been
around
for
some
time-
and
we
know
that
they've
been
high,
but
what
we've
run
into
in
in
this,
even
in
this
year,
we've
we've
tried
to
enter
into
negotiations
with
cooperative
power
companies
with
at
least
one
investor
owned
utility
and
the
response
from
the
investor
owned
utility.
Was
you
don't
like
the
rates
file,
a
complaint?
P
If,
if
the
any,
the
reaction
from
the
cooperative
power
companies
actually
have
ranged
from
talk
to
us
after
the
the
rules
are
dealt
with
at
the
at
the
legislature
and
the
commission
to
another
company
who,
even
after
probably,
four
or
five
attempts
of
communications
with
them,
including
sending
certified
letters
to
them,
we
received
absolutely
no
response
to
our
requesting
of
to
negotiate
and
in
in
that
environment.
P
Att
will
be
left
with
only
one
option
if
the
rules
go
in
as
has
proposed,
and
that
is
to
file
complaints
against
these
companies
for
unjust,
unreasonable
rates
which
the
the
commission
has
already
acknowledged
in
previous
cases,
or
a
previous
case,
at
least
that
the
the
rates
that
the
telephone
companies
ought
to
be
paying
for
attachments
to
power
company
pools
ought
to
be
similar
to
what
cable,
tv
and
and
competitive
local
exchange
carriers
should
pay.
P
So
what's
the
what's
the
solution,
I
think
the
solution
is
very
simple:
in
definitions,
2,
9
and
11
that
are
on
page
318
and
319
of
your
review
packet
this
afternoon
we
would
propose
the
the
removal
of
any
language
that
ties
or
limits
or
restricts
the
definition
that
would
exclude
carriers
with
joint
use
agreements.
P
Second,
in
section
three
of
the
of
the
proposed
rule
subsection
seven,
it
requires
filing
of
compliance
tariffs
in
the
spring
of
next
year,
filing
by
february
28,
with
proposed
effective
dates.
The
end
of
april
end
of
march
att
has
provided
a
letter
to
the
committee
on
the
8th
of
october
that
he
has
specific
language,
but
just
for
the
record,
we
would
propose
adding
language
to
the
end
of
that
subsection.
That
says,
and
I'll
read
the
whole
subsection
tariffs
conforming
to
the
requirements
of
this
administrative
regulation
and
with
proposed
effective
date.
P
P
So,
in
short,
att
wants
to
save
the
commission
a
lot
of
administrative
headache
by
avoiding
a
t
having
and
other
carriers
having
to
come
to
the
commission
repeatedly
and
individually
on
a
on
a
company
by
company
basis
to
obtain
just
reasonable
equitable
rates
that
are
available
to
compete
to
competitors
of
at
t.
A
A
G
To
floor,
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
committee.
My
name
is
eric
langley
and
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
lg
and
eku
kentucky
power
and
duke
energy
kentucky
and
mr
reinhard
laid
out
a
lot
just
then
that
will
require
some
unpacking,
but
I'm
going
to
attempt
to
do
it
as
efficiently
as
possible,
and
let
me
start
by
saying
this.
G
The
premise
of
what
mr
reinhardt
just
said
is
that
atnt
is
no
different
than
the
cable,
television
and
sealac
attachers
on
utility
poles,
that
is,
that
isn't
just
untrue.
In
a
general
sense,
it
has
been
found
to
be
untrue
in
the
preceding
in
the
underlying
proceeding
before
the
commission.
It's
also
been
found
to
be
untrue
in
every
case
tested
on
this
issue
within
the
fcc.
G
Mr
rinehart
referenced
one
case
from
the
commission
from
probably
15
years
ago.
Actually,
it
was
a
series
of
cases
in
which
the
kentucky
public
service
commission
rendered,
I
believe,
four
separate
opinions
where
they
found
in
one
instance
that
a
cooperative
telephone
company's
attachments
were
similar
enough
to
cable
tv
attachments
that
they
should
be
treated
the
same
for
rape
purposes.
G
But
the
commission,
the
kentucky
public
service
commission,
also
went
out
of
its
way
to
say
that
that
was
by
no
means
a
broad
finding
about
the
similarities
between
ilec
attachments
and
catv
attachments
as
a
general
matter,
and
also
specifically
said
that
that
holding
shouldn't
be
interpreted
beyond
the
specific
parties.
To
that
case,
I
understand
where
mr
reinhardt
and
atnt
are
coming
from
when
they
talk
about
wanting
non-discriminatory
rates
terms
and
conditions.
G
The
problem,
though,
is
if
these
regulations
treat
entities
like
at
t
for
tariff
and
access
purposes,
the
same
as
catvs
and
selects,
which
are
the
entities
that
historically
taken
service
through
the
tariff.
It
would
discriminate
against
those
entities,
because
companies
like
atnt
and
winstream
and
the
other
ilacs
have
gained
access
to
utility
poles
on
decidedly
different
and
more
favorable
terms
and
conditions
than
their
so-called
competitors.
G
And
this
is
why
the
kentucky
public
service
commission
has
always
treated
these
joint
use
agreements
differently.
Not
only
are
joint
use
agreements
different
as
a
general
rule
from
the
entities
that
take
service
under
the
tariff,
but
joint
use
agreements
themselves
are
variable,
which
is
why
a
one-size-fits-all
regulation
would
never
work
for
these
agreements
and
mr
reinhardt
referenced
the
rates,
which
is
by
the
way,
one
component
of
a
sophisticated
multi-part
agreement
as
being
five
to
seven
times
higher.
I
don't
know
exactly
what
weights
he's
referring
to,
but
in
many
instances
they
are
significantly
lower.
G
In
that
way,
and
so
the
the
regulation,
as
amended
by
the
commission,
specifically
recognizes
all
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
just
raised
with
the
position
taken
by
at
t
in
this
matter,
which
is
why
it
is
necessary
to
exclude
them
as
they
are
in
the
current
version
of
the
reg,
from
the
definition
of
broadband
provider
and
from
the
definition
of
telecommunications
carrier.
G
G
G
M
How's
that
that's
better.
Thank
you
great!
Thank
you.
My
name
is
jason
keller,
I'm
vice
president
of
government
affairs
and
regulatory
strategy
for
for
charter
communications,
and
I
also
serve
as
chairman
of
the
kentucky
broadband
and
cable
association,
which
represents
numerous
cable
providers
that
offer
high-speed,
reliable
internet
service
to
more
than
1.5
million
kentucky
families
and
businesses.
M
Although
my
company
has
invested
billions
into
a
network
that
spans
more
than
10
000
miles
of
fiber
across
the
commonwealth,
we
recognize
that
more
needs
to
be
done
to
expand
service
to
areas
where
broadband
is
not
available.
That's
why
charter
was
proud
to
recently
announce
an
investment
of
more
than
150
million
dollars,
including
over
a
hundred
million
dollars
in
private
capital
and
fifty
eight
million
dollar
award
from
the
federal
communications
commission
to
extend
service
to
more
than
thirty
thousand
kentucky
homes
and
businesses
that
don't
have
access
to
broadband
today.
M
But
the
funding
is
just
one
element
of
expanding
broadband
service
in
rural
areas.
An
equally
important
component
is
building
the
broadband
infrastructure
in
a
timely,
efficient
manner.
For
many
months,
we've
talked
about
the
critical
role
that
poll
attachments
play
in
constructing
broadband
infrastructure
and
that's
because
approximately
90
percent
of
our
planned
expansion
of
fiber
across
kentucky
is
expected
to
be
aerial
or
put
more
succinctly.
M
The
fiber
that
hangs
from
poles
that
traverse
the
commonwealth's
rural
areas
and
that's
why
I'm
here
today
to
comment
on
the
poll
attachment
regulations
recently
released
by
the
psc,
and
I
want
to
first
think
say
that
we're
grateful
to
the
commission
for
taking
up
this
important
issue.
Currently,
there
is
no
one
set
of
rules
by
which
broadband
providers,
like
my
company,
must
follow
to
attach
to
utility
poles.
M
The
various
owners
of
these
polls
across
the
state
have
often
have
different
sets
of
rules
and
processes
for
attaching
to
polls
creating
a
patchwork
of
standards
and
processes.
The
commission's
work
has,
to
a
large
degree,
address
this
problem.
The
proposed
regulations
in
front
of
you
establish
reasonable,
permitting
standards,
fair
provisions
related
to
overlashing
fiber
lines,
solid
dispute
resolution
timetables,
one
take
one
touch,
make
ready
provisions
and
the
regulations
took
an
important
first
step
towards
addressing
the
critical
issue
of
replacing
old,
outdated
utility
poles.
M
We
appreciate
the
work
that
the
commission
has
done
to
tackle
these
issues,
as
the
focus
now
turns
towards
the
important
process
of
implementing
the
regulations,
and
we
look
forward
to
continue
working
with
the
commission
and
utility
poll
owners
to
ensure
the
regulations
are
implemented
with
clarity
and
uniformity,
particularly
in
how
the
important
poll
replacement
provisions
are
applied
and
as
our
rural
broadband
build
out,
continues
and
expands.
We
look
forward
to
engaging
with
the
general
assembly
regarding
ways
to
ensure
service
is
deployed
more
quickly.
M
This
includes
the
possibility,
as
other
states
have
now
done,
of
establishing
a
new
fund
specifically
to
address
the
costs
of
replacing
aging
utility
infrastructure
in
rural
areas.
The
work
of
deploying
broadband
rural
areas
has
never
been
more
important
and
that's
why
I
want
to
again
extend
our
thanks
to
the
psc
for
its
for
its
work
on
this
important
issue
and
to
this
committee
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
comment.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
might
want
to
stay
close
there.
There
is
no
one
else
on
my
list.
Is
anyone
else
prepared
to
speak
on
the
issue
for
or
against.
A
L
The
the
one
thing
that
caught
my
eye
with
the
regulation
that
we
use
the
term
overlashing
and
it
was
described
well
obviously,
when
you
kind
of
described
it
here,
but
there's
no
definite.
I
mean
for
a
person
like
myself
who,
if
I
didn't,
hear
that
definition
today,
it's
not
mentioned
in
the
regulation.
I
know
there's
several
other
terms
that
are
defined
and
I
know
we're
referencing
kind
of
a
federal.
I
think
you
mentioned
we're
referencing
federal
language
and
that
might
be
defined
in
federal
regulations
or
statutes
somewhere.
O
There's
something
that
the
commission
could
take
into
account,
but
this
is
also
a
fairly
niche
industry
and
I
think
that
anybody,
that's
availing
themselves
with
the
tariff,
would
understand
what
overlashing
is
and
we,
but
we
could
take
a
look,
I'm
not
sure
if
the
federal
government
has
a
its
own
definition
of
overlashing,
but
I
I
I
don't.
I
do
not
have
a
ready
answer,
whether
or
not
that
the
definition
is
necessary
for
this
regulation.
A
We
can
come
back
senator
john
rod
if
you
have
additional
questions.
I
do
believe
mr
langley
wants
to
maybe
respond
or
speak
on
issues
as
they
pertain
to
cable
providers.
Is
that.
G
True
senator
west:
no,
if
what
you're
referring
to
is
mr
keller's
comments,
I
have.
I
have
no
response.
A
A
Yeah
so,
for
instance,
if
I'm
assuming
these
joint
use,
agreements
are
contracts.
Yes,
they
are
it's
a
contract
between
a
t
and
electric
co-op
or
ku
or
someone
of
that
nature,
and
so
would
those
be
10-year
agreements
or
five-year
agreements
or
20-year
agreements.
What's
a
normal
jua.
P
Yeah,
there's
almost
no
normal
with
the
joint
use
agreements.
We
have
agreements
that
that
originated
in
the
1970s
and
prior
we
have
one
that's
with
a
large
investor
owned
company
that
was
originally
written
in
1917,
often
times
they
are
set
up
with
either
a
short
specified
term,
one
three
or
five
years,
and
then
they
tend
to
be
annually
automatically
renewable
on
a
notice
basis.
P
But
an
awful
lot
of
them
also
have
clauses
in
them
that,
if
you
terminate
the
agreement
or
if
you're
negotiating
the
agreement-
and
you
cannot
reach
a
negotiated
settlement
on
what
the
rates
ought
to
be
or
what
other
terms
and
conditions
should
be-
that
the
that
there
becomes
a
stasis
imposed
under
the
current
exit
under
the
current
writing
of
them,
that
the
agreement
will
stay
in
place
for
a
couple
extra
years
until
you
have
more
time
to
talk
about
the
rates
so
largely
their
late
90s
early
2000s,
with
one
to
three
to
five
year
terms
with
annual
renewable
after
the
initial
term.
A
A
Would
atnt
start
paying
ku
a
tariff
rate
on
that
poll
or,
or
is
I
guess
my
main
question
is?
Is
it
across
the
board?
You
accept
the
new
rates,
the
new
tariff
rates
and
do
away
with
joint
use
agreements,
or
is
it
a
case-by-case
basis?
It.
P
Would
be
more
of
a
case-by-case
basis
chairman?
The
concept
that
we've
proposed
in
the
language
would
be
that
absent
and
express
agreement
by
the
contracting
parties
to
ratify
different
rates.
The
tariff
rates
would
apply
so
joint
use
agreements.
Special
contracts
that
are
mentioned
in
the
in
the
rules
are
permissible
ways
of
not
having
to
have
the
tariff
rates
terms
and
conditions.
P
Mr
lang,
so
in
essence
we
would.
If
we
chose
to
negotiate
open
open
under
the
suggested
change,
we
would
contact
each
one
of
the
companies.
We
would
either
either
reach
agreement
on
the
rates
or
the
rates
as
they
are,
or
as
they
would
change
to
to
be
equivalent
to
the
tariff.
It
would
be
a
company
by
company
basis.
A
Thank
you
right
now,
we'll
pause
with
questions
from
members
and
open
it
back
up
to
speakers.
Do
any
of
the
speakers
want
to
comment.
O
O
I
just
want
to
make
a
brief
response
to
what
mr
reinhart
had
said
and
one
thing
to
take
into
account
and
the
fcc
acknowledges
this.
Actually,
let
me
take
one
quick
step
back
when
I
said
that
the
commission
reverse
preempted
the
fcc
on
poll
attachment
regulations.
O
It
joined
a
group
of
21
other
states,
plus
the
district
of
columbia
of
states
that
set
their
own
rules
for
poll
attachments,
and
so
they
have.
They
have
various
rules,
but
the
fcc
is
often
looked
to
for
the
rules
and
regulations
of
poll
attachments
and
what
they
have
said
about
incumbent
local
exchange
carriers
like
atnt,
is
that,
while
incumbent
local
exchange
carriers
are
entitled
to
fair,
just
and
reasonable
rates,
they're
entitled
to
fair,
just
and
reasonable
rates
for
poll
attachments,
but
they
are
not.
O
O
O
Other
broadband
providers
do
not
have
the
infrastructure
in
place
that
the
incumbent,
local
exchange
carriers,
provide,
and
that's
why
the
fcc
hasn't
gone
so
far
as
to
mandate
access
to
electric
polls
for
incumbent,
local
exchange
carriers,
and
it's
with
that
eye.
The
commission
also
excluded
the
parties
to
joint
use
agreements
to
the
poll
attachment
regulations.
O
Now
I
will
point
out
that
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
long
a
t
kentucky
or
it's
its
predecessors
have
been
operating
kentucky,
but
I
will
say
that
I
know
that
they
have
a
statewide
franchise
as
of
the
last
kentucky
state
constitution,
so
they've
been
around
for
a
while,
and
the
poll
attachment
regulations
of
the
poll
attachment
jurisdiction
of
the
commission
has
been
in
effect
since
1983
and
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
during
that
period
of
time,
att
has
not
approached
or
any
incumbent.
O
The
commission
still
has
that
authority
to
take
those
complaints
and
to
look
at
the
the
rates
and
terms
and
conditions
of
the
joint
use
agreements,
so
the
incumbents
are
protected
and,
furthermore,
I
do
know
that
the
incumbents
have
participated,
in
various
rate
cases
with
the
electric
utilities
to
reach
agreements
and
even
to
install
certain
terms
and
conditions
into
the
tariffs
or
the
utilities
with
poll
attachments.
And
so
that's
that's
a
look
into
the
commission's
philosophy
and
why
incumbents
are
excluded
from
the
definition
of
new
integer
or
internet
broadband
provider,
and
thank
you
very
much.
P
Yeah
chairman
west
chairman
hale
dan
reinhart,
with
atnt
I've.
I
understand
mr
penny's
and
mr
langley's
positions,
but
one
of
the
things
about
the
attachment
complaints
in
terms
of
att's
active
approaching
the
commission
with
potential
complaints.
They
are
lengthy,
administrative,
difficult,
time-consuming,
costly
things
to
do
and
we
see
the
getting
the
access
to
reasonable
poll
attachment
rates
through
these
regulations
as
a
way
of
saving
the
commission
significant
amounts
of
time
money
and
effort,
as
well
as
att
and
the
power
companies.
P
While
the
power
companies
might
disagree
with
the
the
rate
outcome,
we
believe
that
it
would
be
beneficial
to
have
access
to
it
in
terms
of
what
the
fcc
has
done
relative
to
the
telephone
company
access
to
power
company
polls.
There
is
federal
legislation
that,
over
that
overtly
carves
out
in
incumbent
telephone
companies
from
certain
access.
P
P
So,
while
we
don't
have
a
statutory
right
of
access,
the
commission,
the
fcc,
has
overtly
said
that
we
do
have
a
a
a
statutory
right
to
just
and
reasonable
rates,
and
mr
penny's
reference
to
the
2007
case,
mr
langley's
reference
to
that.
As
a
single
exception.
P
P
So
with
that,
we
would
still
argue
that
the
definitions
that
exclude
a
t
from
being
defined
as
a
broadband
provider,
a
local
carrier
cetera,
be
modified
and
that
we
would
ask
for
access
to
the
tariff
rates
through
these
rules.
Thank
you.
A
A
B
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
We've
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this
regulation,
which
that's
that's
perfectly
fine.
Mr
mr
penny
and
mr
langley
and
mr
keller
have
gave
some
very
good
testimony
and
it
seems
like
there
has
been
a
lot
of
time
put
into
this
and
a
lot
of
research
and
studied
on
this
and
mr
reinhardt.
I
I'm
just
going
to
ask
you
this
question.
If,
if
you
don't
mind,
sir,
having
hearing
all
that,
what
what
are
you
really
asking
this
committee
to
do?
P
Chairman
hale,
the
the
it's
very
simple
one
would
be
to
modify
the
three
definitions
that
would
overtly
exclude
incumbent
local
telephone
companies
from
the
the
applicability
of
this
rule
as
a
broadband
provider
in
a
local
telephone
company,
etc,
and
then,
second,
to
modify
section
three
paragraphs,
subparagraph
seven,
to
allow
for
att
to
obtain
tariff
rates
that
are
identified
as
just
reasonable
for
the
power
companies.
E
A
B
The
deer
happens
to
be
a
deer.
I
guess
that
came
from
mark
gilfoy.
A
I'm
assuming
yeah,
I
assumed
that
was
the
case.
Really
nice
deer.
A
There
is
a
staff
amendment.
Is
there
a
motion
for
approval
of
the
staff
amendment
a
motion.
A
second
without
objection
is
so
ordered
this.
This
is
kentucky.
So
you
know,
horses
are
very,
very
important,
so
explain
to
us
this
whole
riding
crop
issue.
I
know
it's
almost
the
end
of
the
meeting,
but
this
is
very
important
to
kentucky
and-
and
we
are
trying
to
as
a
state
and
legislature
protect
the
industry
when
it
comes
to
people
that
would
shut
down
horse
racing
co.
B
I'll
be
happy
to
this
regulatory
amendment
is
a
compromise
measure
and
the
kentucky
horse.
Racing
commission
worked
very
closely
with
not
only
the
jockeys
guild,
but
our
legislators
to
come
up
with
a
solution
that
would
allow
jockeys
to
use
the
crop
in
kentucky
in
a
safe
and
humane
fashion.
We
would
like
to
extend
our
thanks
to
not
only
the
jockeys
guild,
but
also
the
legislators
for
their
valuable
thanks
and
input
in
crafting
what
we
think
will
be
a
regulation
that
will
actually
become
the
national
crop
rule
this
particular
regulator.
B
B
It
can
always
be
used
to
avoid
or
prevent
a
dangerous
situation
to
preserve
the
safety
of
racing
participants
and
or
horses,
and,
if
necessary,
the
crop
can
be
used
in
a
backhanded
or
underhanded
fashion
from
the
3
three-eighths
pole
to
the
finish,
and
that
won't
count
toward
the
use
of
the
crop
six
times
in
the
overhand
fashion
also
allow
a
certain
amount
of
tapping
of
the
horse
in
the
shoulder
in
the
down
position.
B
As
long
as
both
hands
are
holding
the
reins
and
touching
the
horse's
neck,
as
well
as
showing
or
waving
the
crop
without
contact
to
the
horse,
we
will
never
have
an
incident
where
the
jockey
will
use
the
crop
with
his
wrist
above
the
helmet
height,
there
is
penalties
that
we
have
implemented.
Specifically,
we
will
allow
for
either
a
minimum
fine
of
500
or
a
minimum
suspension
of
three
days.
A
N
These
regulations
amend
to
update
definitions
to
incorporate
by
reference
various
applications,
including
certification
as
a
lead
hazard
inspector
risk,
assessor
supervisor,
project,
designer
abatement,
worker
or
sampling,
technician
certification
as
a
lead
hazard,
company
and
accreditation
for
lead
hazard
training.
It
additionally
amends
to
clarify
abatement
floor
plan
requirements,
site
to
epa
hazard
values
and
to
make
krs
13a
drafting
changes.
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
all
for
this.
I
think
a
lot
of
times
people
just
brush
over
these
the
importance
of
lead
control,
obviously,
for
children,
a
lot
of
anemias
that
are
out
there
a
couple
of
just
real,
quick
questions,
just
that
I
can
make
my
quick
point
is
let
a
legal
product
in
our
society.
B
I
am
going
to
defer
to
amber
for
that
question.
So
amber
is
lead
illegal,
yes,
lead
is
a
legal
product
and
that
is
used
in
industrial
paints.
It
is
just
illegal
if
it
is
in
paint
marketed
to
homes
and
areas
where
children
will
be.
L
Thank
you.
Yes,
that's
that's,
absolutely
correct.
It's
an
element,
it's
a
fundamental
chemical
element,
a
table
of
elements,
so
it
is
legal,
obviously,
as
other
things
like
arsenic,
mercury,
lots
of
other
things
that
we
have
regulations
for
in
our
industry
and
so
obviously
there's
other
things
that
some
of
us
here
in
the
legislature
have
been
pushing
for
on
other
topics
of
all
sorts
of
importance.
That
also
can
cause
secondary
harm,
even
though
they're
illegal
in
our
society,
and
so
I
thank
you
for
the
updates
on
this.
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
point.
E
B
A
Okay,
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
regulation.
If
one
of
you
could
please
just
describe
the
copay
situation
with
the
drugs
and
how
that
will
work,
we've
had
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
on
co-pays
in
this
committee.
So
if
you
could
just
touch
on
that
briefly,
please.
D
Sure
I'm
happy
to
take
that
question.
So,
in
accordance
with
a
house.
B
A
part
of
this
was
to
be
regarding.
B
Regarding
that
for
the
copay-
yes,
yes,
we
updated
it
based
on
that.
Yes,.
A
K
A
D
Under
ktap
kentucky
works
welfare
to
work,
state
supplementation,
921,
kar
2015,
with
staff
suggested
amendment
under
snap
921
ker
3060
under
energy
assistance
program,
weatherization
921,
kr4,
116,
child
welfare,
922
kr
1300,
with
an
agency
amendment
380
with
a
staff
suggested
amendment.
Additionally,
we
have
390
922
kr1390
and
922
kar
2
160
emergency.
E
N
921
kar
3060
amends
to
clarify
language
relating
to
intentional
program
violations
upon
recommendation
of
the
office
of
inspector
general
kentucky
legal
aid,
the
kentucky
equal
justice
center
and
the
usda
food
and
nutrition
service.
921
kar
4
keen
amends
to
delete
the
environment
that
air
conditioning
units
provided
through
the
program
be
window
units
only
and
to
increase
the
program.
Cooling
component
benefits
due
to
a
federal
funding
award
increase
in
the
low
income
home
energy
assistance
program,
block
grant
funds.
N
The
companion
emergency
was
reviewed
at
the
september
meeting
922
kar
1
300
amends
to
update
standards
to
conform
with
statutory
and
federal
changes
relating
to
reasonable
and
prudent
parenting
standards,
transportation,
safety
and
the
use
of
physical
management.
It
also
amends
to
increase
the
minimum
age
of
direct
care
staff
from
18
to
21
and
to
make
technical
corrections.
The
amended
after
comments
version,
amended
definitions
amended
to
make
the
age
requirement
for
employees
effective
on
july
1
2022
and
make
the
requirement
applicable
to
new
hires.
Only.
N
The
agency
amendment
amends
to
provide
an
exception
to
the
employee
age
requirement.
If
there
is
an
agreement
between
the
agency
and
a
college
or
university
to
employ
students,
it
also
amends
to
restore
language
to
the
pre-amended
after
comments
version
stating
that
the
removal
of
an
employee
shall
be
for
the
duration
of
the
employee.
Investigation
amends
to
allow
both
physician
or
a
licensed
qualified
health
care
professional
to
be
consulted
by
the
facility.
If
there's
evidence
that
the
child
may
require
medical
attention
and
to
provide
for
a
child's
medical
needs
and
to
make
clarifications,.
E
922-1380
amends
the
definition
of
child
to
include
statutory
exceptions.
The
staff
amendment
amends
various
sections
to
comply
with
13a
922-1390
amends
to
defined
treatment
professional
and
to
prohibit
the
use
of
seclusion
for
force
compliance,
retaliation
or
as
a
substitute
for
appropriate
behavioral.
Q
A
A
Seeing
none
is
their
motion
for
approval
of
the
agency
amendment
there's
motion
in
a
second
without
objection
it
is
so
ordered
my
my
only
questions
start
out.
There's
no
one
to
sign
up.
There's
no
one
signed
up
to
speak
against
these
regulations.
My
question
is:
how
were
how
did
the
public
comment
period
go
and
it
seems
like
a
lot
of
changes
to
the
child.
The
child
welfare
regs
was.
Was
there
a
lot
of
public
comment
or
how
did
those.
A
Q
One
commenter,
the
children's
alliance
commented
they
do
thoroughly
review
every
admit.
Child
welfare
related
administrative
regulation
that
we
file.
It
is
always
helpful
to
have
extra
sets
of
eyes.
As
you
know,
these
were
ordinary
administrative
regulations,
not
emergency,
so
we
were
just
glad
to
have
their
review
and
thoughts
and
we
did
make
an
almost
every
change
that
they
requested
in
their
submitted
comments.
Q
So
the
amended
after
comments
version
is
lengthy
as
well.
We
had
considered
condensing
two
very
related
administrative
regulations
prior
to
filing
the
children's
alliance,
and
their
submitted
comments
also
requested
that
we
condense
those
administrative
regulations.
So
you
will
see
that
92
kr1300
at
the
back
of
the
reg.
Q
It
looks
like
there's
a
lot
of
new
language
that
is
actually
language
that
was
in
92
kr,
1
390,
and
once
these
changes
go
into
effect
in
1
300,
we
will
repeal
or
withdraw
one
390
so
that
all
of
these
standards
are
in
one
place,
make
it
easier
on
us
and
on
the
regulated
entities,
but
the
children's
alliance.
After
we
filed
our
amended
after
comments,
the
children's
alliance
did
follow
up
with
a
few
questions
and
again
after
much
discussion.
Q
We
agreed
to
make
a
couple
more
changes,
and
that
is
why
we
propose
the
agency
amendment,
which
we
did
discuss
with
the
children's
alliance
prior
to
filing.
So
they
really
were
with
us
all
through
this
process
and
I
believe
they
did
not
sign
up
because
they
are
satisfied
with
our
changes
and
I've.
Let
them
know
that
if
they
have
any
other
concerns,
I
believe
they
know
that
they
can
come
talk
to
us
at
any
time.
A
A
That
concludes
the
october
agenda.
For
for
this
committee,
we
had
a
lengthy,
lengthy
set
of
regulations
today,
thank
you
for
all
the
members
for
getting
through
this.
Do
we
have.
D
The
november
agenda
looks
like
we're
scheduled
for
november
9th
at
1
pm,
and
we
also
should
take
a
look
at
december.
There
are
several
caucus
retreats.
A
A
Yes,
the
committee
will
stand
at
ease.