 I'm working so if the chairs run in late I don't know until the Chesapeake management arrives. We're gonna begin the meeting. First item on the agenda is to review and approve the minutes of October 31st. Is there a motion? So we'll have to approve them please. Is there any discussion? If not all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay and the minutes have been approved. First item on the agenda 19p-60 agency of human services medically complex nursing services for four witnesses and I would call first Linda Macklemore and anyone who she might wish to bring with her to testify and while the the witnesses coming forward the committee will please introduce itself. Good morning Senator Ginny Lyons representing Chippin County. Representative Trevor Squirrel representing Jericho and Undyne. Representative Marsha Gardner from Richmond. Senator Mark McDonald from Orange County. That's Anne Ras committee council. Joel Benninger from Caledonia County. Linda Meyers from Essex Town. Representative Robin Chestnutton. Out there. You couldn't have brought it to the more auspicious time. You first witness on the first bill before us. Taking a seats and will you identify yourselves for the record please. My name is Linda now Macklemore. I'm a staff attorney with AHS and I work in the Medicaid policy unit. I'm here instead of Ashley Burliner who's usually here on age car rules. She is on tranquility until March and I have with me Monica Overby. If you would just explain your relationship to the high-tech nursing school. My name is Monica Overby. I work at the health department. I'm the director of children with special health needs which is a program within the maternal and child health division. And the pediatric portion of the high-tech nursing program which is directed under the school falls under our program whereas the adults administration of the program is under care. I feel like I'm unwrapping candy in a movie theater. And it is a tree. Thank you so you have some revisions. Yes so I presented this rule along the six others at the last Elkar meeting on October 31st and since at the last Elkar I described one revision to the committee. Would you like me to refresh the committee's memory about that revision? Yes. Okay. All right. Specifically VLA had two concerns about the rule as written. The first concern was that the agency's removal of language from rule that says the case management services are covered as I testified to on October 31st. The agency proposed a rule revision that states the agency will continue to cover nurse care management oversight. That revision is consistent with current policy and practice and we talked with Vermont legal aid regarding this change and they indicated that that revision address their concerns. Thank you. The second concern was that the rules didn't adequately clarify when a family spoke carry forward unused nursing service hours to be used later. The rule is originally written silent on this issue. Last Friday the agency filed with Elkar a proposed revision to the rule that would address the VLA's concerns and that actually reflects the agency's current policy and practice. The ad issue is 4.2325B. That provision currently says payments for services will not exceed the units authorized. Any unused service units will not be carried forward or used for other services. The revision states services are prior authorized annually. Payment for services will not exceed the units are authorized and the unused service units will not be carried forward from prior authorization period to prior authorization period or used for other services. This proposed rule revision reflects current policy and practice and it will permit families the flexibility that Vermont legal aid has encouraged and we've spoken with Vermont legal aid and shared this language and indicated this would address their concerns. I do want to point to say one thing. I want to correct my testimony from last time. I testified that carry forward in this way was prohibited by the state plan which was based upon I think this information that was mistaken. And it was certainly given in good faith. But when I went back and looked, I think it was a wrong interpretation of our state plan that the real prohibition what CMS won't allow is for us to let families carry forward nursing hours during the prior authorization period and we prior authorized for the year. So at the end of that year, they can't carry forward your hours they haven't used. But in terms of week to week, month to month, we have always and continue to allow families the flexibility to do that, especially because there is a real limitation in being able to access nursing services. So my sincere apologies to the committee. Is the authorization period a calendar year or a year based on beginning of services? Great question. It's from the day that we authorized services. And I had another question with but it it sounds like this is a clarification rather than a change of policy. That's accurate. And I think is the rule was silent and now the rule will be explicitly clear that the hours can be carried forward in an prior authorization period. And is that annual period in kind of a narrow than question at this point is the annual period the best way to do it or is quarterly review would that be more efficient and the annual is is what we have and what we're capable of administering? That's a great question. So we meet with every one of these families at least once a year to review the medical records to see how their left one is doing. So in my case, their children. And just to make sure that the number of nursing hours that they've been authorized is actually appropriate to make sure they don't need more or less the same. And so at that point, then we close that loop with their provider team just to make sure we're understanding all the information and make sure we have a complete picture of their medical need. And then at that point, we authorize the services in a basically the Medicaid information system and we authorize them for the full year. If at any point they want us to reevaluate what's been authorized, we can do that at the request of a family or a medical provider. Any further questions? So I'm wondering if the points brought up in the letter from Vermont Legal Aid were all addressed. I noticed that there was a question about the definition of medically complex nursing services. And I didn't see where that was particularly addressed in your memorandum. I know we're going to hear from Vermont Legal Aid later on, but just wondering what your thoughts are on that. We do not have any other additional changes to rules based on Vermont Legal Aid's comments. We think that the definition is clear. And then prior to last LHAR, talk with Vermont Legal Aid and they specify that there are two concerns for the ones that we addressed. Okay, thank you. Okay, if there are no further questions, entertain a motion. Entertain a motion to hear from Vermont Legal Aid. Good morning. For the record, my name is Rachel Seal, I'm a staff attorney in the Disability Law Project at Vermont Legal Aid. As Ms. Michael Horst said, we are happy with the two changes that have been put in place. We think these can protect the flexibility that families need. As we were talking about the bigger picture of this program last time, that it only about half of the hours are actually being able to be used. And the updates to the rule aren't going to solve that problem. We hope that they will help with that problem. But there's more work to be done. We've been meeting with Monica and her team for almost a year now. We'll continue to do that. And we're happy to talk with with any of you or any committees further about about the work that we've been doing. Because the families who participate in both the child and adult programs, this is really a necessary service that needs to be fully provided for those families. If I can answer any questions, I'm happy to do so. Are there any questions for this way? So to clarify the two changes that have been presented today satisfy the concerns that you expressed in your letter last time? Yes. Good. So with that in mind, then it meets legislative intent. And I believe that we approve the Just before we decide, I'd like to thank the previous witnesses for correcting their test form. So if there are no further questions, all in favor, say hi. Hi. I suppose they may have approved the revisions to the rule. 19 p 60. Thank you very much. Please introduce yourself. Yeah, I'm on a special counsel at the Department of Public Service. Keith Levinson, department. So we are here presenting our revised final proposed rules of Vermont residential building energy standards as the committee problem remembers at the September 5th, I'll go rejected to the copyright notice on our proposed RBS rule. The original rule is proposed was based on the International Energy Conservation Code or IECC and the rule is proposed in court integrated that copyrighted IECC material with Vermont specific changes, which are not themselves copyrighted. Elkar objected on a limited basis to that copyright. After reviewing Elkar's rejection, as well as the case law, other states practices and the record on this issue for previous versions of the rule, the department decided to resolve Elkar's objection going forward. And the method that we developed to do that was to incorporate copyrighted material by reference. Well, our proposed rule would contain no copyrighted material and only contain the Vermont specific changes. As we believe this is consistent with the second and fifth circuit case law on that issue. So that is the substance of the proposed rule as it's now before the committee. And there were two additional changes that we found in going through it. One was that a lag time regarding previous approval previously approved projects was inconsistent with statute. And the other was regarding air tightness and ventilation standards and we corrected the identifiers of those changes in our October 22nd. And so we would hope that based on these revisions, that Elkar will provide such action to the proposed RBF with this council to weigh in. Sure. Thank you just to repeat a lot of what I was one of already said. So the first time you read the rule, it was like other RVs rules that have been proposed where it had a copyright in the name of the IECC. And a big picture about that issue was that a copyright on the rule itself purported to give ownership or control of a public law to a private entity. And case law had indicated that that's not appropriate because the public owns the law. So what the department has done instead of this revision is to not place a copyright on the rule. Instead it incorporates by reference the existing RVs and then makes Vermont specific revisions to that incorporated by reference material. And one of us already indicated the second circuit of which Vermont is a member of Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals has stated as held that it's legally permissible for a rule to incorporate by reference copyrighted material, which is what this is doing. The revision does not purport to place a copyright on the rule itself. So I do think it addresses the copyright issue that Elkar had raised in his objection letter. Thank you. Are there any questions? Who was appointed this problem out to us? Let's counsel. I have a question tangentially related to this that there were I appreciate you going through and finding the the omissions and correcting those. There were two other particular concerns about the content. One was related to insulation and thin exterior insulation with a concern about that trapping vapor inside the wall and actually became buildings rather than preserving them. And the other was lighting, but I forget the specific things were both raised by by numerous witnesses. And I'm wondering if there's any intention to go to continue to look at the policy with critical or the rule with the poli? Absolutely. The rule itself is based on the ICC, as we mentioned earlier. So the basis of it, we can't really address. However, for Vermont specific code, we definitely feel that it's important to address that. And the most important, the way most Vermont builders interact with the code is through the code handbook. So we're putting a lot of effort into making those issues clear and providing guidance to builders in Vermont to prevent exactly the situation is raised. I'm not remembering the lighting issue. If anybody else can refresh my memory, but I presume it's similar situation. If it's a technical issue, we'll be able to address that in the handbook, which is the primary way that builders will follow the code. And that will provide clear and lay language to enable them to follow the code without having a building deteriorate over time. But the code allows this practice as one of four packages? It allows it, yes, correct. There are other pathways that will allow variations to those packages. And the issues of durability of the building is where we'll provide guidance in the handbook. And I don't want to keep going on this because it's not the issue at hand, but I did want to raise it, bro. Thank you. While you're here. And we are concerned about that. Can you remind me how code enforcement occurs? That's separate from the code and it's a legislative issue. So I don't want to... Do we have code enforcement involved? It's enforced in through the civil code. So in other words, at point of sale of a building, it's not a title defect, but the buyer is allowed to, in civil court, file suit if Arby's is not in that. Does that go through you or does that go through public safety? Where does that go? What? It's a self-certification process. So the builder signs the certificate and then it needs to be filed with the town and with us. Also, if any town that requires certificate of occupancies, they have to submit the certificate before certificate of occupancy is issued. So that's really the main mechanism where the enforcement is happening. If I'm the third owner of the building and I discover that the code hasn't been met, do I still have recourse? I believe there's a civil action limit of five years, six years. I don't think it is based on the original owner of the building. Call in efficiency. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Quick question. So thanks for threading a needle solving the challenge. But I just wanted to make sure I think one of the things we talked about last time was copyrighted material couldn't be downloaded unless you had some membership of paid fee or something like that. So I'm just wondering about accessibility of the code. I know you're saying most people rely on the handbook because that's kind of a more user-friendly translation of it. Will the monitors be able to act as the full code in some way at no charge? Yes. We have an agreement, a signed agreement with the International Code Council that we actually are going to do an integrated all-in code with both the copyright language and our changes to it. And that will be available for free download or not free download, free viewable. We also will be purchasing a number of, we usually start with like a thousand of the commercial and then we print the handbooks on the residential side to provide it for free for our car copies for free. But it will always be free viewable on the ICC website. And this is the state level of access that is previously available. Just have them on specific changes as they are and actually the formal rule are separated out. And if we solve the challenge of having the Secretary of State's website be able to also provide access? Yes. We have an agreement with ICC. It also says that we need to post all the Vermont amendments because there are amendments on less of less of assets and on the state of the Specter State website. So I don't think we really need their permission because it doesn't have the copyright language on it but just be extra sure and check that box we have it. Any further questions? I make a motion that we approve the rule. Is it better to withdraw our objection? I think yeah I think there's two motions. There's a motion first if you want to withdraw your previous objection. I'll back up the stuff. Make a motion that we withdraw our previous objection. That's what I thought you said. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those in favor say aye. Thank you for this Senate. Is that ready Matt Needle? For those who haven't met me before my name is Dan Whipple. I'm the Bolshevik Program Manager. I'd like to introduce Bailey Hemelow. Bailey is our relatively newly promoted compliance supervisor. So I wanted to be able to come along to kind of get sort of a good look at the rules making process and things like that. So I thought that was kind of neat for her to come in. So this particular rule is a modification of an existing rule that we had submitted in the past number of years ago. It deals with operator training and certification for crane operators. To say this has been a highly contentious rule in the past nationally is probably an understatement. It was continually saved by Federal OSHA because when it initially passed, there were not a volume of entities that were able to provide the level of training that OSHA required in existence. And it took a number of years for that to happen. As a result of that, and it continually stays, they took a look at the rules and they found ways that they could streamline the expectations of training. One of the key ones that they were able to affect was the requirement for certification of operators for different types of cranes. So if you had a particular type of crane, you can imagine different types of cranes, everything from tower cranes that you see in the big cities to hydraulic cranes, lattice boom type cranes. So there's many, many different types of cranes. And the old rule, the old adage of code rule required that not only were operators required to be certified on different types of cranes, but they were also required to be pulled to different certifications or separate certifications for different weight limits of cranes. So if you had, for instance, a hydraulic crane that was a 15 ton crane, which is pretty common on most job sites, an operator would be required to hold a certification to operate that crane. But if there were a 60 ton hydraulic crane, which is basically the same type of crane, it was just a different weight limit than the operator would be required to hold a separate certification. And that was a pretty significant, you know, encumbrance on an employer to make sure that that happened because getting a separate certification required, you know, the operator to attend a certified educational program. And it was, you know, those are at a pretty significant cost. So the main crux of this rule actually allows the employer to be able to have one, an operator with one certification to operate the same type of crane. So if it's a hydraulic boom crane, no matter what the weight limit is, they would only need one certification. They would have to prove their, you know, ability to the employer to operate that particular crane, but that certification would be valid for that type of crane. If there were a lattice boom, just another type of crane, a lattice boom crane, then that operator would have to hold this certification for that particular type of crane because it's a different type. So by doing that, they really try to sort of streamline the certification requirements and also to kind of make it a little easier for employers to be able to adhere to that. Especially in today's construction sites where, you know, there are many different sizes of the same type of cranes that are available, depending on what the need is. So that's basically the crux of this rule change. Representative Barton. I see that ICAR recommended that you have a public hearing, but my understanding is that none was held locally and that there was quite a conversation federally and it was, I guess, assumed that that would be the vehicle by which Vermonters could put their input or give input. To this, can you comment on why there was no public hearing? There was a public hearing. We held it in Montpelier and there was a call in number that was provided as well for Vermonters in specific. And in addition, we contacted specific construction groups like AGCE and I think AGCE was the primary one. I think we put the word out for the state of Vermont for VTrans in case that they have cranes on their projects as well so that they could know what sort of training records to demand of their contractors. Federal comment is a vehicle which anyone can submit comments to and that's always in place. We did have a public hearing. It was just not too often long ago. Public hearing was September 30th, 2019. It was our public hearing. Thank you. My error, but it does say in the paperwork that I received point number 19, a hearing was not held. Oh, it could be that that wasn't updated at the time that that paperwork was submitted and then just, but I have in my, in my, and I know I was at the public hearing. So, and I know I did hold it, but it was actually specifically 9.30 of 2019. And were there a number of comments? Were there any issues? No, we didn't receive any comments. Thank you. Senator Bragg. I just said there is, one of the very last pages, the proposed rule posting anyway. There's a short summary, not much impact, and there's $1.7 million savings. Can you say a little bit about how those savings are key? Well, the primarily the achieving of that savings would be, and this is a federal figure. I got it from the, because I, because it would be hard for us to quantify what that means for Vermont, because, you know, it's hard to know exactly how many crane operator and cranes are in Vermont. But, but they, but they figured that based on the lack of having to resend an operator to a crane certification training, which one course could cost thousands of dollars for one particular operator or a group of operators. That's primarily the, if you look back in the filing paperwork, that's primarily how they arrived at that. And you don't have any concern that this will mean that operators aren't somebody less trained? No, in particular I don't. Sometimes the feds will do something that I don't particularly like. But I think in this, I think this actually makes sense. This actually does make sense. I think, you know, these cranes, even though they have a different weight limit, they operate the same way. They use the same theory and same mechanics. And the inspection requirements, the information, the safety requirements of these cranes are all the same, whether it's a 20-ton crane or a 100-ton crane. So the theories are the same. And to have to spend, you know, three or four thousand dollars to send somebody back to get trained on a higher weight level, when the only real difference is the higher weight level, I didn't think that made a whole lot of sense anyways. So I think, I'm comfortable with it as far as it's easy. Thank you. I have a question in the, it was in the cover material, my economic impact analysis. It says, VOSHA is obligated to adopt rules promulgated and adopted by federal VOSHA. And are we obligated to adopt those rules or rules that are at least no more lenient than that? Can we adopt stricter rules? Yes, yes. And we should have refused to, because it could be seen as we were more, by keeping the old rule, we would be more restrictive than the federal government. In the case of this particular rule, because it's actually seen as an easing up on employers a little bit. And we could have said, no, we're not satisfied with that and we're not going to adopt that. But we thought that it made sense. I mean, one area where we have pushed back is chemical exposures, right? So we, you know, when federal VOSHA back in the 1990s got sued and had to, you know, drop out of their adoption of updated chemical exposure limits, VOSHA chose to keep the more restrictive exposure limits. And so we have our own exposure limits now. So there are places where we are more restrictive. And so we could have said, no, we don't want to adopt this and kept the old rule and we would have been okay. But I thought, when I read it over, I thought it made sense to do that. I talked with my director about it and, you know, we came to an agreement that it was a good idea to adopt. Because the other thing, too, is we want to try to maintain a consistency of an even playing field for folks, because many employers don't only operate in Vermont, they operate out of state as well. So it's important to have that consistency for them. Senator Alliance. So you get an incident report if there's an accident with any of these cranes? Yes. Yeah. Well, if the accident causes injury, then they're required to report it. But not damage to the equipment. Right. Not damage to the equipment. Most of the time, because these are so dramatic of an event, we'll catch wind of it. I mean, we very seldom will miss somebody dumping a crane. We usually, we'll have a couple a year, about a couple a year that we... And the media usually covers them as well. So if we don't get a direct report from employer, then some outlet is reporting it and we find out. They call us. Yeah, but somebody takes a crane over, that's a pretty... It's not as bad as if they were in Boston, but it's still a pretty dramatic event. And we usually will hear about those types of things. Fire departments will be called and we have good relationships with the most fire departments. They'll say, hey, do you know somebody dumped this crane over here? Right. Oh, thank you very much. But it doesn't relate to fire department tower trucks. And that was kind of, it's really just simply cranes. Right. Right, yeah. And tower trucks specifically are not cranes because they're personnel elevating devices. Right. Well, for the record, I'm just taking my work with the Department of Housing, Community Developers, Community Planning, and Provider of Safety and Visitors. My name is Chris Stockham. I'm the director of the planning and the buying position. I was taken. I'm Gail Azaria. I'm the general counsel for the Department of Housing and Community Policy. Please tell us about this rule. Yeah, so this is a rule that guides the funding for the regional planning commission. So all the members of the planning commission is around the city. It's been around for quite a long time and we're looking and we did some housekeeping or proposing some housekeeping so that the rules reflect the current entities, for instance, of references in the Department of Housing, Community Affairs, and so on, Department of Housing and Community Development. It mentions in our PC there's no longer in existence the, like, subpoena region. And we also have some administrative efficiencies that have been prepared in cooperation with the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies that represents the regional planning commission, such as posting their audits online to increase transparency. Is this, last year there was legislative session, there was discussion about re-rooting the funding for conservation districts through regional planning commissions. Is that part of this? Not part of this. This is annually the regional planning commissions get an allocation of funding from the state through the property transfer tracks. The ACC sometimes basically has passed the agency. This governs how these measures are distributed and split into regional planning commissions. Again, it's been on the books since forever and these are just housekeeping changes. Any questions from the center representative? I see that Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies and Montlake of Cities and Towns submitted comments, but were they included in this? They are. They are. They're right at the end of the blue. Oh, at the end of the blue. Okay, that approached me. Okay, thank you. There's a package in the bar here. Here, I'd love to send it to you, Bray. A quick question on funding. So the $2.9 million gets allocated up to the 11 million. And then there's a note that talks about leveraging the additional $8 million. Is that the federal money that's put in? It's a mix, and that changes every year. Some of the RPCs are more entrepreneurial. And they really hustle and get a lot of grants. So it's going to be a year when we're out. Some of that leverage may be in the water funding. Federal funding, it could be just whatever opportunities that present. And then there's the municipal business that may find the clever municipalities to the regional financial commissions. I noticed your hearing was convened at 11 o'clock and adjourned at 11.02. It's a short hearing with one person. We give out numbers and everybody's really efficient. Any further questions? I move approval of 19, 232. In favor? Signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. We approve 19 P-50s. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next rule of 19 P-65. Child support guidelines? No. I'll have one of the witnesses here. They're working so efficiently. Our witnesses are right there. Yeah. They're still getting their coffee. Yeah. We'll have the next six years vaccines. We'll have the next six years vaccines. We'll have the next six years vaccines. Yeah. Yeah. Dick had a question about... Mm-hmm. Dick sirs had a question about everything. Every how- That's got to go back to his committee. Yeah. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record. I'm Kyle Hatt. I'm the officer of Child Support for the lawyer in the southeast region based in Springfield. You're welcome. Thank you. Please let us know what this rule, the changes to this rule do. This rule in summary updates the Child Support Guidelines in two ways. The first being to update the tax conversion tables which convert parent's monthly gross income into after tax income and ultimately income available to potentially pay Child Support. The second is to update the impact family expenditures table, the table which is used at the back end of the Child Support Guideline calculation to determine the monthly Child Support obligation. The main update to that part of the guideline rule is to adjust for current price levels. No. I was just thinking, reflecting on going through these numbers. Not that I went through every single number. You know, I went okay. I was going to say 914 on page eight. No. I hate 914 on page eight because you're troublesome. Yeah. I know what. I did have a question and I don't find the source of my note now, but somewhere in here I read that the information that this analysis was based on is a decade old. The rule was last modified in 2016, but the information is 10 years old. Is that really the most, the best data that we have? So if you could try to point me to, so are you referring to the submitted proposed rule or to the supporting report? The filing information on the final proposed rule filing. Page three, number 14, the concise summary. Last line of that says the expenditures table has been revised to reflect the most recently available detailed information on household expenditures by using the 2010 Besson Rothbard estimates. And I'm just thinking if we're using estimates nine years old, almost a decade old by definition those are out of date. I'm sorry, I'm still trying to find. Okay, back in there. I might page three. Page three. Yeah. The first. The bottom line of the biggest paragraph. Number 14. Rothbard. Okay. So in general for an explanation about the economic analysis that underpins the guideline updates, I would refer to you to the report of Dr. James Menor that's referenced in the same document that you just referenced. There's a detailed explanation of the economic justification for the guideline updates. And I think in particular page 16 is where the report itself gets into the detail analysis of the basis for the updates. Can we say page 16? I'm not sure. Page 16 of the report. So if you don't have the report in front of you it won't be possible to read a look at that. So there's a. Economic impact statement? No. So the general structure of the submission is that there's the proposed rule that appears you all have in front of you, but reference. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So there's a. Who is it? It's sub nine on our page three and it's titled sufficiency. It's actually the second page three. Yeah. Right. The report is available online. I think that's the reference document that says economic impact statement. Right. Right. That's the addendum to our. Since 2016. Is that right? Most of the answer to your question more for today's purposes. If you would like a detailed explanation of writing as to the freshness of the economic analysis, what you'd be happy to follow up with your writing about that. But the report explains that Vermont like 26 other states relies upon this methodology that was developed by a professor named David Betson. And this methodology, the measurements that the professor Betson. They are updated periodically when he pays funding in essence to do it. And the methodology we've chosen is a policy decision and the analysis we have is the most up to date version of that analysis. As to the freshness of. I guess I'm not sure exactly. I'd like you to clarify your questions of which part of the 2010 aspect is potentially Betson. Right. And so the. So my my concern is not with the methodology. It's looking at the. The first page three. Summary again number 14. It says the table has been revised to reflect the most recently available detailed information on household expenditures by using the 2010 Betson Rothbard estimates. And my concern is. We're using 2010 estimates those. Would appear would appear to me to be badly out of date. And I'm wondering if those are really the best estimates we have and we collect economic data annually. And so I'm not I don't understand why we're using. Estimates almost a decade. So I think again generally for a justification of the. Your form of analysis that we've used are referring to the report that's. Reference in the post rule but I'm happy to follow up and submit a written explanation in writing about. That question in particular I think it would call for. Is there a. An expiration date on the estimates. So. Sorry. A sell by date that you get on your. Package of chicken. I'm not sure it's that simple I think that. I don't know if there's an expiration date on a point at which you would say that. Estimates have used in the past or no longer. Five. Maybe that there are certain estimates are viable longer than others. I'm just. Wondering if perhaps the first page three has. Some. Misunderstanding what actually is going on. As I understand it. Dr. It was actually updating that twenty ten. Calculation if I'm reading her economic impact statement correctly. She was citing. Changes to the tax tables. They became effective in January of twenty eighteen. And. Mr. Chair by understanding your. Initial thought that are we all got. Kyle I don't know if we know this we got a note from our. Senate judiciary chair. He thought it would be more helpful to have these looked at more frequently. I'm not sure if those two issues are related the same way I think they are but. I suspect that this first. Page three. Should have said something along the lines of we're updating from the twenty ten. Benson Rothbart estimates based on the changes to the tax code. Could be totally wrong and how I'm reading that but that's the way it looks. Reading the economic impact statement. Dendum. Where the doctor is bringing us up to speed the latest tax. Changes. And I understand the calculations. This entire project got sparked by. The tax cuts. That forced us all to take another look at how child support was being used. I don't know if I'm being helpful or. I hope that's correct and maybe the two. It does it's if you read the first page of the economic impact statement. The. Up to date. Analysis is presented. And it leaves me correct with the clear impression that we're bringing it up to what was done in January. And I think that's why Dick Sears red flagged and said this is. Something we ought to take a look at a little bit more often. The methodology. I'm not sure the methodology changes all that much unless there is a. Triggering device like the changes in the tax codes. Where there's some economic impact across the board that people then. Are affected differently. For those of you that are not familiar with the child support calculations. If you are in a couple that is separating. And you have children there is a presumption that X amount of your combined incomes goes for the benefit of the children. And the expectation is we try to maintain that for the benefit of the children. After you have split. But it essentially takes both of your gross income and files it down through this. Process to arrive at an expectation of what you would normally be spending for the benefit of your kids. I don't think the methodology has methodology has changed. In the almost 30 years now since we originally had this come down. When you have a major tax cut there is an impact on this. Evolving analysis. I'm pretty sure that's how this all got sparked. And I'm reading the economic impact statement to say we're now bringing that up to speed from the last time we examined this back in 2010. Looks like we have some clarification. Yeah, I know some Sarah has a time to managing attorney. I think to Kyle's point I think that you're right Senator Benning the methodology has not changed. Dr. Vanors report in detail I think as Kyle has said we're happy to go through the report and say exactly how. But Dr. Vanors report speaks to why that methodology is still sound. Essentially we're employing that methodology as Senator Benning indicates to update the 2009 tax tables that were implicated because the tax cuts and jobs act. I would say in terms of Senator Sears concern the so statutorily the guidelines are reviewed quadrennally as an aside. As a result of the passage of the amount. We know that we're going to have to be looking specifically some guidelines implications that have resulted because of the passage of that act. So I do think we will be looking at the guidelines sort of more pervasively throughout the next couple of legislative sessions because of the act. But personally the statute they are quadrennally currently. Senator Alliance. I have a last council question. So given that and is there anything in our statutes maybe APA that says that there are conditions under which rules will be reviewed more frequently than statute allows? Or is it only? Well I think you would look both the APA and the specific enabling law in this case. And this one is for every four years but is there anything that sort of. Well specifically this enabling law says the secretary may amend the guideline from time to time as maybe necessary but not less than once every four years. So there's already there's flexibility built into that. So Senator Shearer's concern is covered as long as the department is aware. So it sounds like it may be a misunderstanding on my part about methodology versus data. And if you could clarify just. So there's two main things going on. One is updating as Senator Bennett said the tax conversion tables based upon changes to the federal tax code and incorporating response to that as well. But also updating the intact family expenditures tables which as to speak to what Senator Bennett said the underlying methodology for that is not something that's new. And then the justification for relying upon the data that is relied upon to update that table to explain the detail of the report. Representative Myers. What it strikes me as is that if we're talking about the 2010 Bets in Rothbard estimates that's to me that means that somebody sat down. And Mr. Bets in Rothbard sat down and said this is the method by which we should compute how the money should be distributed. If it happened in 2010 if it happened in 1900 but the method is always the same. What this does now is it brings it up to all tax issues that are current and puts it in the method puts it into the numbers but that doesn't have anything to do with the numbers that were in existence in 2010. At least that's how I'm looking at it. Based on doing it that way you adjust it periodically. So the underlying methodology of the Bets in Rothbard methodology is not a new methodology and the analysis done as to that part of the update is meant to update the intact family expenditures table using the most current numbers available that would be used in that analysis. And that analysis is explained in detail starting on page nine of the supporting report by Dr. Benoit. If you came up with an analysis in 2010 the average income in the United States has changed in a way that had not changed previous to that and the immediate income has changed in a way that had not changed in the previous few years. So an analysis based on, I just don't know how an analysis based on those sort of numbers is relevant when the changes that have taken place were ones that were not predicted and we were told we believed would not go in the directions that they've gone. Well, so I think that, again, I refer to the report if you would like us to follow up with a detailed written explanation of why the use of the economic data that's used in the estimates is pertinent currently. We're happy to provide that. I think as Kyle indicated this methodology is something that 26 other states are utilizing and calculating for child support obligations. I would appreciate that letter because I'm unclear what is the, so if the methodology dates back to 2010 what is the date of the current economic data that we're putting into that? This is it. Mr. Sherrick, can I answer Senator Brighton? Procedural, are we asking to postpone action prior to so that we can receive that report prior to approving or not the rule? Is that what you're headed? I'm not sure exactly where I'm headed with this. I was just looking at the 45 day review period on our sheet. So it's 1128. And that's Thanksgiving. And so I'm just thinking about timing. If we delay action in order to receive a report, we need to make other adjustments. So I am not asking for a delay because it appears to me that I'm asking for a clarification and I think that will blame my concerns. And the concern that was expressed by Senator Sears has been, at least from my perspective, adequately addressed. And Representative Grad has approved that it's consistent. So I'm fine with where we are. I do think having that information so we better understand what's here would be helpful. Representative Martin. Just one quick question for my own knowledge. So are you saying basically that the Betson Rothbard estimates are basically a formula? So what the page 9 of this report that I keep talking about, there's an explanation of what Dr. Betson's analysis is, the Betson Rothbard analysis. It essentially looks at a comparison of expenditures on a certain thing that should happen to be adult clothing in the Rothbard version of this methodology. And it looks at families you have children and families you don't. And it looks at the difference between the amount of money spent on adult clothing in those two scenarios. And presumably the difference is attributable to expenditures for children. And it uses that as a way of assessing how much a family that's intact will spend on children. And that is the way in which Vermont, along with other states, develops this table, the intact family expenditures table, to figure out how much, assuming at a certain income level, once you get to a certain income level through the tax conversion process and other factors, you look at the table and say a family at that income level will spend that amount of money on children per month. And then that is in essence how you get to the monthly child support obligation. So that's a summary of what this Betson Rothbard analysis is. It's a way of calculating how much an intact family will spend on children once you've determined that family's income level. So any data could be inputted into it, any current numbers? Data regarding what specifically? Clothing. It's based on the current after-tax conversion rates based on the 2019... You're basing it on current rates. The income available for support is based upon the current tax structure, federally and in the state. So there's two aspects of the guideline calculation before you figure out if a person has the ability to pay it. One is to figure out the income available to pay child support. And then you take that information and you then use the intact family expenditures table to determine what the monthly support amount payable will be. And so the first part of that is updated in a senator betting spoke about it's updated to incorporate changes to the federal and state tax law. And that is the information that's current based upon the current tax law. Senator McDumb. So in your explanation, clothing is one of a whole list of percentages that are calculated? So this is addressing, again, Dr. Vanore's report, but economists have different ways of trying to assess child return costs. One methodology, this is the one that's obviously the one that Dr. Betzen... Betzen Rothbard analysis employees uses expenditures on adult clothing as a way of getting to that issue. And the other methodology... Alone? So that methodology uses that as a proxy as I understand it. And so there's another study that's referenced where it talks about expenditures on food as a way of getting at child expenditures. And so there's an analysis, there's a discussion of the justification for using that that's in the report starting on page nine. And so there's different ways of getting at this question that economists can use. And this is the methodology that Vermont's used for a long time and that other states use. It's more accurate than the iPhone analysis. I would assume that someone has come up with the pie and it includes rent and clothing and eat and electricity and food and various things. And that's what is generally to believe to be the case. What was the case in 2010 as median incomes have fallen is that the slices of the pie are different than they used to be. And we're going to continue to use the... Unless I'm off on the wrong track, we're going to continue... How long are we going to continue to use the slices of a pie nine years ago as the Great Recession was still in effect? I think that the most... Well, as the report references, the most... I'm actually quoting from this now. The most recent Bets and Roth bar BR measurements were produced in 2010 based on the 2004-2009 CES. So the... Dr. Vinore is relying upon the most recently obtained data that employs this Bets and Roth bar analysis. So I would assume that if this was updated in the future and there was an updated analysis done at that time, then they would use the most current analysis available at that time. So I think that, again, the studies that undergo these analyses are updated themselves periodically, and we would use the most updated version of those supporting analysis that we had available to us. Senator Benning. So Mark, just to try to answer your question, according to Dr. Vinore's impact statement, price levels have increased 8.3% since the existing guidelines table was developed. I am assuming she took into account all of the questions from clothing to everything else. Kyle, I'll ask you directly. Has this new rule taken into account her statement for the purpose of developing these new guidelines? The updates to the tax conversion tables and the intact family expenditure tables are based upon Dr. Vinore's analysis. Okay. She also goes on to say the elimination of the personal exemption for minor children and an increase to the child tax credit since, it looks like December 2017 became effective January 1. Those are the changes to the federal tax code that resulted in changes to our tax code if I understand that correctly. Yes. Your new guidelines take into account that as well. Yes. The only other thing that's out there is she notes that originally the intact family expenditures were given a maximum combined available income of 25,000. That's been increased to 30,000. Yes. The current tables have taken that into account as well. Yes. So another aspect I was summarizing the update to the tax conversion tables. The next aspect of what is being done this time around is that the tax conversion tables will now be traveling up to 30,000, a monthly income of $30,000 per month whereas before I think the cap was 25,000. You are now also examining this every four years. Is that correct? So as Attorney House has mentioned, this is the statute that requires it to be done at least every four years. As you spoke to, it was just detaching or spurred in a sense the updating this time around. But again, I think the last time they were updated was in 2013, so we were due for an update. I think in part the quadrennial updating is moving in federal law as well. The Dr. Menor's report also speaks to the federal regulations which require a host of considerations to be taken into account when updating guidelines to ensure, in essence I think what you're getting at, that there's different economic factors that are relevant in trying to figure out whether ultimately a child support guideline is representative of what families are spending on children and represent current everyday lives of parents. So the economic report that Dr. Fenor prepared goes into detail about the analysis she did and how it complies with the federal requirements for ensuring that in essence what you're getting at is whether these child support guidelines were affecting the reality of what it costs to raise children. I think the report really goes into detail about that. So Mr. Chair, report written since 2010? Yes, this is a report the date of which is June 14, 2019. So Mr. Chair, given that there are a heck of a lot of family court cases out there now pending that are going to be using these guidelines as their cases move forward and move them to approve the rule, there may be questions that the Chair or anybody else wants to have answered and I have no problem with that, but the rule itself, I don't find any reason for us to be objecting based on what we have now, so I will approve. Representative Myers had a question before. That's fine. Senator McDonald. I wrote a question to the Attorney about whether or not Senator Sears' concerns could be addressed by emergency rules. If it turned out that things were changing faster than the Department was likely to be able to calculate and your response was? Perhaps. The emergency rule statute says that an agency may adopt an emergency rule if it finds that there is an imminent peril to the public health safety or welfare. So that is every agency's emergency rulemaking authority. If the agency found that there was such an imminent peril it could adopt an emergency rule. Otherwise, as already discussed, the agency already has the ability to go through the standard rulemaking process as may be necessary aside from the four-year requirement to update these rules. Maybe we could ask him directly whether he was aware they were updating there every four years, because I think that might have been a good question. I would agree that any event that things are changing faster than the agency might be prepared to be able to solve the opportunity there is to deal with it more expeditedly. I would be prepared to respond, Julie, to an emergency peril. If there are no further comments or questions, we have a motion on the table to approve the rule as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. 16-page document. We made a lot of changes. And in doing so, we missed a couple of things that we're just here to clean up to make sure that we get back on track with it. And then the other area that we are looking to make some changes with is with the passage of H529 last year that modified the language for admissions to vehicle 16 years in ultra-vans and from OVD testing. So therefore, we had an update in manual to reflect those changes as directed in H529. So those were the changes. So the first one was on page 53. And with that, we adopted and changed the language to reflect the 16-year redemption. And with that language that we put in the periodic inspection manual, we worked with Magna O'Toole, Attorney and Staff for Department of Environmental Conservation. And as you can see, it's almost word for word out of H529. That's what we did there. Page 55 dealt with home vehicles. Also was affected by the language in references 1996 to agree with the 16-year exemption. Page 97. Exterior sun visor removed is not addressed in federal regulations. This is one of those interesting ones that at the end of doing a year-long process that when you read you scratch your head. Interestingly enough, we removed it because it's in conflict with federal regulation. So federal regulation does not prohibit the sun visor. So we figured out where our team came up with the language. And after much to do, I realized that that language that we had in there came from the Canadian Federal Motor Vehicle Carrier. So I wonder if we're going through the process, somebody put that in there as a suggestion and somehow it stayed in there through amendment. But that it's actually Canadian Federal Motor Carrier law. It is not USA federal law. So we made the changes to reflect our current federal regulation. Page 111, inspection of wheels and tires was inadvertently invented from the trailer section. So what happened here is in order to shorten the manual, streamline it, and to make it readable, we eliminated the redundancy. So in many of the sections, the criteria was the same as it was from car and truck as it was from the motorcycle as it was from the trailer as it was. So what we said was, we're pleased to refer to car and truck criteria on this. And somehow that one line, that one sentence, got made from trailers, which means there is no tire standards currently in the manual for tires because that reference was not sent back to car and truck. So by adding one sentence when they inspect a trailer tire, it's the same criteria as it would be for a pleasure car or truck. So we're just referring the rear back to that criteria. And page 112, again, to be consistent with federal regulation, 49 CFR 293.11, the wording for length of the trailer in here from 40 feet from added then 30 feet to be consistent again with federal regulation. So again, we wanted to make sure that we were consistent with federal regulation. And that was discovered post post this process. And the last one on page 148, the numbering was just off, we exchanged it to just add it. So those were the changes that that we recommended for this modification. And why are we here today, Senator Brick? I have an information question. Sure. It comes from constituents for just all my tires. Are tires allowed to project outside of the vehicle? No, they are not supposed to. No. That's why you see a lot of the vehicles to have the extenders on. In fact, one of my best friends to stay troopers got a big Chevy truck. And he wanted to get the big fancy tires so we could set up higher. Because that's the thing. You did fender extenders just go above it and have those installed so he's in compliance. Representative Carter, how much advance notice do the inspection stations receive when there is a change or a change in the inspection manual? As soon as we get them, I literally write the bulletin almost immediately there after and send it out. In this case, most of these bulletins have already been written advising our folks of changes. So for example, when 529 came out, and that went into effect immediately on July 1st, I've already done a bulletin on that. So the changes in the manual today, that manual is that bulletin's already gone out. The admission of the trailer section I sent a bulletin out letting folks know that that was an oversight and would be rectified in this APA process. So a lot of this has already gone out. I probably won't send anything out about the numeric number two instead of a one. I probably will update on the trailer length and will update on wheels and tires that it's this has been passed and send out another bulletin. But it's usually done quite, quite quickly, quite efficiently. So the July 1st changes, when did you notify the inspection station? When I had approval to do so. And that would have been a passage in effectiveness on the bill. So I think I probably would have sent it out. If I remember right, the end of June for the July 1st change. So we're Senator McDonnell approving the rules that exposed factor that you sent out already. Yeah, well, not for rule change, but for legislative change. Yeah, I was for everything on this list from here down. They haven't. I just notified them of what we had found in the manual be aware of it, that type of thing. And that we're going through the APA process for approval. But 529, that went out immediately because that was an effect you'll like first. So I'm going to editorialize for you know, some external sun visors probably had their heyday between 1947 and 1943. And we're dealing with them here in Elkar. But and fender extenders perhaps. But when it came to the inspection of motor vehicles and switching over to requiring the inspectors to buy computers and all that kind of stuff that never came here. Yeah, how does that strikes me as how did such a thing come to pass? And it was just prior to to me being in this position. My started in April of 2017. So we were about four months into the gave it process. So I'm not aware of what they did legislatively prior to to me being in this position. With regards to that, that would have occurred in the end of 2016. Prior to even taking effect in July, January 1st, 2017. Now we've been under hide and in director. Obviously, we've been unbuttoned. Yeah. You're the only person I had to beat up. Yeah, so you're solid. Yeah, I'm pretty proud of the program where it's gone and considering the amount of change that we have undergone in the last three years. I'm really impressed at where it has gone and where it continues to go because we still intend to continue to modernize this program moving forward, which I'm excited about really ultimately just bringing the inspection program that's a month into 2019. Prior to 2017, we're probably doing the same policies and procedures over the word 1939 when we started it. So to see the amount of progress and forward movement and updating manual and updating the way we collect data and how just updating the way we are able to disseminate and communicate. As representative Garner mentioned earlier, you asked the one we notify I have multiple ways now to communicate with our inspection stations. I can communicate through tablet messaging email. Prior to that, we stuffed envelopes and sent mail. So this is big, you know, for us to be able to do this and to be able to report back data, collect data. We have trigger setup that helps with investigations that helps with fraud, it helps with helping stations that helped us with crafting the manual and what should be the priority sections to look at. A lot of benefits have come out of this program, and we continue to benefit as a result. Understanding that that a lot of, you know, tires and turn signals and things like that are universal. You foresee significant changes with the anticipated increase in electric vehicles and in hybrids and electric vehicles. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, interestingly enough, when we redid the periodic inspection manual, it's funny when you go through and you read it and I came from the outside moving to DMV and I read through this manual and even not having been there. I looked at this going, there's nothing in here about ADOS adaptive control systems. There's nothing in here about lane changing monitors. And we don't even have anything about modern vehicles in here. So this first stab at this manual introduced that for the first time. So we're going to continually evolve the electric vehicles. We're going to continually evolve the manual like I want to keep up on it. And I'm sure I'll be back here at some point, the lot more discussion on electric vehicles as they continue to progress. I'm amazed every day, if you've ever had an opportunity to drive a Tesla in the amount of power and acceleration that electric vehicles have now, it's just unbelievable. The technology is amazing. So we will definitely be back here at some point, modernizing and updating and especially when we get to autonomous vehicles. That'll be a whole another dialogue when we sit here. You talk about the chicken or the egg be their first right? Is there is a you just think about something simple like a car gets into a wreck, right, and goes off the side of the road. It's an autonomous vehicle is the operator who's not really operating the vehicle responsible. Is it the manufacturer who built the vehicle? Who's responsible for that crash? There's going to be a lot of things that we're going to be sitting here and discussing in the next decade or two regarding vehicles. Since one member of the committee, I hope the discussion take places can be some jurisdiction before they come to us. Yes. Which wasn't before they come to us. Any further questions for this? If not, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. As opposed to say no. Thank you very much. Thank you. Before, general, I did. For those of you that don't know, Vermont has a motor vehicle racing commission and the racing commission has rules that talk about various things, but the rule I want to talk about right now is involving dental derbies. The rules require a setback. And until very recently, the setback, which the fair associations believe was established for places like under road, was not enforced. And suddenly a new group of inspectors has come along to seek to enforce them. I am quoting the information now that I received from Lawrence, who's the head of the Caledonia County Fair and from Jackie Folsom, who's the Believe Head of the Fair Association. They are alarmed because if the new interpretation of setbacks is enforced, five fares will be forced to eliminate their demo derby, which is one of the big fundraisers for these fares. That's as far as I know right now. But the reason that I'm bringing this up is I understand Elkar has the ability to call up a rule and have conversation about it. There are two ways of attacking this. The long way would be through statute. But unfortunately, that takes so much time that we can very much have a big problem become fair season. The other way is to have Elkar take a quick look and see if there isn't something we can do about it to bring parties to the table and have a conversation. What I would like to be able to do is call up the rule, invite the Secretary of State's office, who is now in charge of inspecting these facilities, and the fair association to let them have a conversation in front of us about the impact of the new way this is being interpreted. If there is a reason to have a rule change, I believe we have the power to ask that that is looked into. And if that is not the way to go, we obviously have the statutory way. But this apparently is causing a lot of consternation with the fair association, and they requested that I bring that to Elkar's attention. I learned about all this yesterday, just so you could get can I ask the question? So when you talk about set facts, is it a very specific number that's in statute? It's not in statute as I understand it. I understand it's in the rule only in the role. That's my understanding. But I don't want to be confirmed on that. I asked that question was told that. And I have not looked at the statute to know. You know, we don't know what the statute said. It would be interesting to see how that just so you know, the Caledonia County Fair had its grandstand burned down about 15 years ago. It was arson. They rebuilt the grandstand using what was the understood setback requirements for their dental at the time. And nobody has complained about it until recently. And this is a situation where fairs would literally have to move their grandstands in order to accommodate the setback requirements that are now being enforced by the Secretary of State's office. So back is between the track and the grandstand, not not between the facility and the in neighborhood. Yeah, and there's no grandfathering for these institutions that have been doing this for decades. The other part of that. If you if you follow the logic of why the setback requirements are there, it makes sense if you're flying around the track at 60 70 miles an hour, which is Thunder Road. But we can't even get up to eight miles an hour in a demo derby that does not necessarily translate properly. And as far as I know, there has never been anybody injured in any kind of situation that I could be wrong there. But I've never heard of any track being sued as a result of the demo derby incident. But it is alarming. They've asked me to bring it to the attention of this body. And that's what I'm doing. I hope that we can schedule something and have a conversation with the mayor differences and see what we can do about it. If anything seems to me that given where we are before the session, that it sounds like a dual track, you know, committees of jurisdiction, fairs are in institutions. They are. No. So could have a dual track, that investigation. Sorry. Thank you. I just have a question. So what something happened that precipitated this different interpretation of the regulations? Yeah, the Secretary of State's office, I understand it is now in charge of the inspections and a new group of inspectors came in and decided to enforce what they see as black and white. That had never been an issue up until very recently. And these inspectors came by and that's why everybody's up in the house. So there's no provision for just putting hay bales on the front of the van? There actually is requirements for that in the rule itself. And that's not part of the issue because that's what these groups are doing now. But it's the setback requirement specifically from where the track ends to where the grandstand begins, that is causing them all kinds of consternation. Several of them just don't have the ability to move the demo derby to some of the location and the groups that can't simply pick up the grandstand. I don't know if it's a subject worthy of consideration, but that's my request and thoughts. I guess I need to know what the statute says and then what the interpretation is. You know, before you start a whole process with Elkar. Well, I'm looking at what I think might be the safety standard in statute. It's in title 26 is 26 BSA 4811. At the end of sub one, what I'm reading is the outside portion of all tracks shall be a reasonable distance from the spectators. And then this chapter for the racing Commission does grant the authority to the director of OPR to adopt rules in accordance with the chapter. So I if I'm reading this correctly, I don't think statute addresses the distance between the track at just reasonable distance. And then I'm not familiar with the rules. But I'm incurring that the rules then provide details about what is a reasonable distance. Well, the rule says, and this is 5.1.7 B, a fence shall be placed not closer than 30 feet to the barrier required above and must restrain spectators. Inadequate barriers respectator fences will be caused for the Commission to prevent the event from taking place until such time as proper barriers or fences are in place. That's the primary obstacle. 30 feet 30 feet. What's the distance for the for septic from a property line? 25 or 20? This will be 15 right? Yeah, it's pretty low. Yeah. Yeah. I'll be happy to make that comparison. I just think a set that's right. Is there a difference? Are they use? I mean, I can see why they would require the 30 feet for like Thunder Road. But yeah, it's just that I don't understand the difference be that there's suddenly using it for demo derby down. I don't know where that where did that come from? Secretary States office? But did we see that? Well, this is why I think before we start getting into, you know, the rule change piece that some testimony ought to be taken. Maybe it's here. But maybe I think committees of jurisdiction. And what are other states doing? We don't know that. So I'm thinking I'm thinking process and timelines. Yeah, if we're looking at state fairs, which start in August. And if it's a rule change, that has to could be eight months. But as a statute passes supersedes any rule that's in place, right? We have the power to send even sending a letter to OPR to say like to have committees of jurisdiction wrestle with this cornering prior to specific enforcement. I don't know. I'm uncomfortable because OPR has suddenly stepped in and decided to enforce something that may have been on the books for a very long time. But nobody ever raised any squawk about. And so I'm trying to scope out in my own head what the smartest and easiest way to relieve the pressure in order to give appropriate time for even communities of jurisdiction to have a conversation. Well, statute says the L car can raise issues with committees of jurisdiction. I don't think anything would stop this committee from raising an issue outside of committees of jurisdiction. Other letters you've sent to committees of jurisdiction, you've CC the relevant agency as well. Let's do that. Let's do that. And can we send them letters weekly? What's the distance this week? Just trying to think of how that letter would be drafted. Pressure while the communities can hold it. Does OPR have the authority to waivers to their rules? They can write rules. The rule couldn't include a waiver. I don't know. The question is whether the rule is reasonable. Right. That's the statute is calling for reasonable. I'm interpreting this rule as not being reasonable. So do I attack that through the legislative process or through L car? Yes. I agree. You might also be a Senator White, I call, since courtyard is offered in cell box. So maybe a conversation would be helpful just in terms of a strategy. I'm happy to do that, but I don't want to pass up the opportunity to do something concrete. Yeah. I think, I mean, I think that's a great idea. But I think if we write a letter to committees of jurisdiction, that would include Gullops and would include both House and Senate. And then a CC to Secretary of State. We can think that I need some more time to think about what makes sense in terms of gathering data here versus having the committees do that work. But so as a first step, we could send. Yes, if we sent letters right to committees, I think I think that we're I think based on what Senator bedding has brought us that we are seriously considering evaluating the new rule. How is promulgated? Would you envision a statutory change, though, that specifically calls for giving a setback? That's the kind of them. And then demo degrees, not high speed, right? So if they're not distinguished between different types of lower vehicle events, doesn't seem that it's nuanced enough for one or the other. Any idea when the fairs start planning their events? The day after the fair and the welding and grinders operation garages. Except they have to. So I will move to send letters to the committees of jurisdiction and the Secretary of State's office, OPR, expressing our concern and our desire to see this matter taken up and resolved because that doesn't preclude any other further action. Is there a date of implementation? So this is a I'm trying to figure this out. Is this a new rule? Or is it just the old and now it's an enforcement issue? I believe it's an enforcement issue because new inspectors have shown up and have decided to enforce the black and white. And there's nothing in statute about, as someone said, the distinction between the type of event. Definitely a legislative. And what I'm reading in statute, it doesn't address any distinctions in the types of races. And then a separate portion of the statute. The permit commission conditions that are issued are to detail away those state safety standards that are described in statute, the reasonable distance and in rule are to be implemented. So it seems like perhaps there's also some issue, maybe with the specifics and the permit that was issued for the demo dirty. Yeah, I just. If the statute says reasonable, then we've essentially ceded the discussion over to whoever is producing the rule. And if the rule is not, if the rule is imposing a condition on entities that they cannot live with, seems to me that conversation comes back here, not to the Committee of Jurisdiction, unless we're going to override a statement about being reasonable and come up with specific guidelines. Except to the extent that it is contrary to legislative intent, I'd like to know how do we determine other than the negative impact on those institutions? How do we determine whether that's not reasonable? Well, I compare comparison with whether other states are doing what are the places have in place. I mean, look at Daytona 500 and you've got people standing on the rails. That's not a setback. Or you go Indianapolis 500. Everybody's sitting right there. And they're like it's right. This may have been prompted by the accident on the road last summer where a vehicle careened and went up into the stands and caused some serious injuries that canceled the rest of the car. Immediately, the place was closed. And fortunately, you know, the people that were injured are with us, remain with us, but it was pretty scary. But there's a difference between thunder and demolition dirt. There is. The velocity of the vehicle's load is no question about it. But that's perhaps why it's before us today. I don't think it's a whim of it. It's come to us by whim. It's perhaps a reaction to that. That's only my speculation. So maybe it's a good idea. Now, if you're seeking a recommend motion to send the letters. I made it. But also, I think maybe rather than bringing the whole ball wax in here, why don't we invite the Secretary of State and those who are enforcing the rule to talk about how that occurred? It wasn't the Thunder Road event. And do they consider differences between types of races? Maybe that is something we could ask about just so we get some clarity on the rule and the enforcement of the rule. I would very much like to see that happen just so that the Fair Association gets the feeling like there's something moving. And at least the Secretary of State's office is on notice that we've seen this and want to deal with it somehow. I would love to be able to have the Fair Association be given five minutes just to have an explanation of what the actual impact of that enforcement would be on them. I don't think this needs to take a great deal of time, but if we'd carve out 15 minutes from a meeting and let them all come in and have a conversation, it would make me feel like I'm actually accomplished. I think in the long run, I'm betting my bottom dollar it's going to end up back in here anyway because they have to draft a rule that's going to meet the legislative intent of what is reasonable. I think 30 feet is reasonable. That's in us raising. We have the authority to raise an issue on our own and which so what we can't change a rule. We can invite parties to discuss it as mentioned. Yes, your authority in the APA is to you're able to conduct public hearings, object and file objections concerning existing rules. So I would read the invite to OPR and the Fair Association as part of your authority to conduct hearings on existing rules. That was my understanding and that would be my request with the potential to object. You could you could object to the existing rule. And we will send a letter anyway. Is that still on the table to send the letter to committees of jurisdiction? Well, I made a motion so it's still on the table. Motion on the table. That's still where you want to go with this. We might change our minds after we hear from the folks and they might. Yeah, I will withdraw my motion. Do you like one of the members of the community to offer it? Well, I'm wondering whether we should have people in here and then see what prudent course of action is. So as long as it's short, you know, I don't think they need to have a hole. No, I'm talking 15 minutes. Give OPR a chance to explain why they feel it's reasonable. And the fair association will say why they feel it's not. Because we can act accordingly after that. A moment ago, you said five minutes and that's 20 laps. No, I said so. The fair is so individual. 15 minutes and 60 laps of thunder. I'm going ahead. And just want to say with Senator McDonnell also has a follow up issue to raise after this. So how about entertain a motion to invite parties in to discuss? So moved. What he said. All those at our next scheduled meeting. All those in favor say aye. And those opposed say nay. And what is our next scheduled meeting for December 4th? Let's see it's part five of the lower vehicle commission. It's the first. What's the date of next meeting? Thursday after the skimming. December 4th. I may be problematic. I'm having some eye surgery. So we'll just see how it goes. Senator McDonnell. I spoke with David Englender at the Department of Health. He's assured me if the Department of Health were to undertake the rules, they would do it in good rules having to do with rabies and inspections and and quarantining of animals that they would do it with good faith and follow through. But he my my fault that he's working on it. But it was my fault that I didn't get to it in a timely fashion. So Senator Alliance and I will perhaps continue to keep our bill requested there. If the department were to come back to us before the next meeting and say they'd like to tackle the rules, then I think we would go on with the committee recommended. So that's the beginning and end of my presentation. Apologies for not having that wrapped up by today. Any other issues or discussion? If not, I'll move adjournment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed?