 The first item on the agenda is the new minutes of the last meeting. Representative Myers moves to the attendance of the last meeting. Is there a discussion? If not, I'll take a say. Aye. Aye. First item on the agenda, the Department of Public Service commercial buildings energy standards and speaking for the Department, Barry Murphy, Department of Public Service energy, planning and resources division. Mr. Murphy while you're taking your seat will please identify himself. I recommend the Department of Public Service. And I'm Allison Bates on with the Department of Public Service, I was on the list. I'm Senator Joe Benner from Caledonia County. Representative Linda Myers from Essex Town. Betsy and Russ, what does it account for? Mark McDonald, Senator from Orange County, filling in for the chair, Francesca Tanchman, who has yet to go out of the house. Representative Marcia Gardner from Richmond. Senator Trevor Squirrel, Pera-Honondale. Thank you for coming this morning. Floor is yours too. Thank you for having us. As I previously mentioned, Allison Bates on behalf of the Department of Public Service, I present the revised proposed commercial building energy standards or CVs as we call it. Proposal 19-P42. As the committee likely recalls, the committee objected to the department's previously proposed CVS rule on the limited grounds due to a copyright notice contained in that rule. The prior rule contained copyrighted material, the International Energy Conservation Code or IACC, integrated with non-copyrighted product specific changes to the IACC. They could be objected to the copyright notice in the rule, as it had in 2011 and 2014 as being inconsistent with federal case law. The department examined Elkar's objection when reviewed the law on this issue. The department turned the public interest was best served by resolving Elkar's grounds for adoption. The department did so by removing or attempted to do so by removing the copyrighted material from the rule. The rule now contains only the Vermont specific changes to the IACC and incorporates copyrighted material by reference. This is consistent with case on the second circuit of which Vermont is a part. The revised final proposed rule best contains no copyrighted material and no copyright notice. This was the same as that employed with the residential building energy standards which on November 14th, Elkar voted to withdraw its objection and approve that rule. So the revised CVS upon being adopted will be available on the Secretary of State's website which was a previously identified concern with Elkar. And the public will have the same level of access to the rule as it did previously meaning that there will be a free viewable copy of the Vermont specific changes fully integrated with the IACC available online. And the public can obtain free copies by contacting the department. I also should follow up about the letter that we sent yesterday. Apologies that we were not able to get it in by Tuesday but the issue was only shortly identified to us or at least one of them. So the letter that we sent yesterday identified two additional changes to make to the proposed rule. The first, which if you have questions I will defer to Mary Ann, is regarding clarifying that one option for compliance is available. And the second is changes certain language on the cover page of the rule so that the rule could track any changes to the IACC which will be forthcoming. We recently learned that there is a methodological error in the IACC that was created by the International Code Council. And the International Code Council is working to fix that error and we want our rule to incorporate the material as it may be changed to kind of be that error. Let's off of the case the technical do's and don'ts of rules often take more time and explanation than the substance. Are there any questions for the witness? Let's, our council, do you have any comments you make on the presentation? Mr. Chair, to reiterate what Ms. Wabari stated the CB's rule as revised or proposed to be revised by DPS does remove the copyright issue. That was the school grounds for this committee objecting last time. Now, as she has already stated, there is no reported copyright on this rule instead the CB's incorporates by reference a separately copyrighted material. So I do believe this address is the copyright issue that was objected to before. So we already approved the rule in balance. All we're doing now is removing our own language that's suggested to be objected to that portion that's not been approved. If you believe that the issue has been addressed, legally I do think it has been addressed like you did with RVs. The first motion would be to withdraw your objection. And then if you did want to move forward and approve the rule in its entirety, the second motion would be to approve the rule as modified. If you do want to incorporate these modifications. But in our previous approval, it's an awkward way because we didn't really approve. We had language in there that said, can we object to this particular objection? That's correct. So we have to remove that piece of language from what we did with it. You would withdraw your original objection. So move. It's been moved that the original objection to the rule that the committee withdraws the objection. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor, set out. Aye. Aye. Let me say name. And I think council will tell us what we might do next, which is to approve the rule as is necessary and double protection. Well, we could simply remain silent. But it's the committee's pleasure. Well, I think we had a footnote, if I read all this correctly, that said, although Elkar approved these rules, that may explain to our language about what we were thinking was not appropriate, we need to remove that now. That is correct. But that's for the letters of the committee's jurisdiction. We still have this rule pending in front of you with the department's proposed modifications today. So the second motion, if one wants to make it, would be to move to approve the rule with the modifications proposed by the department. So move. Because everybody has moved to approve the rule, now that it's been cussied up in a proper fashion. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All in favor, say nay. I think it has been approved as thanks to the hard work of the department who has solved the trouble. Let us just go ahead and thank you very much. Well, thank you to Elkar and particularly to Legislative Council for her gracious help and support. It's immediately a team effort, and such things come resolved. Thank you, Council. Representative Justin Tange. Welcome. Thank you. I would like to address the amendment to the jurisdiction now, Senator Venning was bringing up. Yes. So did we? Yeah, in very much. Thank you. So, Council's prepared a letter. Would you like me to address this? Yes. So you have in your packet the draft letter to the committees of jurisdiction that sets forth the issues that were raised during testimony on the RV. And as Senator Venning had already brought up, this current draft memo was the one that you had already seen, which at the time, at the state of those rules, you had objected to those copyright portions. So as I indicated in my email to you, and thank you to Charley for providing that, now you have withdrawn both objections and you've approved both of the rules. So as I noted in my email, now that you've done that, you could amend this memo to say, although Elkar approved these rules, Elkar's review rules as a limited scope, so that highlighted text in the first paragraph of that memo could be revised to read, although Elkar approved these rules, instead of although Elkar approved the majority of these rules. And also you would delete the footnote that referred to your objection. So moved. Is there an- Go ahead, Robin. I think Council has stated that it's an elephant. Any discussion? Not? And I'm going to send a motion to revise our letter to committees of jurisdiction as indicated. And to send to them? And to send to them. So. A motion to approve. To approve modification of the letter to committees of jurisdiction. I'm sending. Okay, let's hear you 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. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay, so a rule in front of you, you actually saw the emergency rule that we brought to you that looked similar. However, you gave us some great feedback on that rule so this does look slightly different. Just to refresh everybody's memory, the purpose of this rule is to update the way in which we approve the credentials of individuals seeking a medical license in Vermont if they were foreign trained. And what happened was we were basing that on a list compiled in by the Board of Medical Practices in California and they stopped updating that. And so now we needed a new methodology to ensure that individuals seeking licensure in Vermont who were properly trained to get a license for practice here. I'll explain the modification that was made since you last saw this. There was also a list of unapproved schools that was maintained by California. And we had a Senator Benning pointed out confusing way of having that included in the emergency rule. And upon review and discussion with other states and with practitioners, we removed that. So now it's very straightforward. It's just that it has to have been on the California list or on the new list. So we changed the grammatical structure of the paragraph so that it was more straightforward. I'm in. I know. I just want to pause a moment. Was I right? Was that what you meant? I think. Do I have to say that? No. You made it excellent. Quiet. Do you want to put that in words? That's the substance of the matter. I have a question in your letter. The section in the rules would be 2.6.3. And that's the last sentence. Someone who meets all eligibility requirements for such certification and is only lacking current licensure. Yes. And I guess I'm assuming that implicit in that is that they will then get the licensure that's missing. You got it. It probably doesn't need spelling out there. Yeah, but that's exactly what that means. That was my only point that if people have questions. How to overproveal? Senator Bennett held the question for you. Okay. You had indicated that California's no longer holds a list or produces a list. Did I understand that correctly? Right. Okay. The amitated text version on page one has definitions of a board approved medical school. It means a medical school. That has been 2.6.1 and says it appears on the official California recognized medical schools list. Is there still a list that's kept? So let me clarify that. There is still a list that exists. It is not being updated. Okay. Right. And some of the newer lists didn't exist when somebody might have gone to school. Okay. That particular rabbit hole, if a medical school drops out of accreditation, are they removed if the list is not maintained or are they removed from that list? So the California list would not change. So if I went to school in 1985 and that school was accredited and on the California list that time, then I would be fine if that school then subsequently dropped off and my grandson went to school, that same school, and it was no longer accredited and it wasn't on the new list at the time of accreditation, then it would not count. But if the list is not maintained, will it be removed from the list? So it's temporal. So you know, the lists are give you the timing, right? So you know when the person graduated or got their diploma or whatever. I think that's what you get from a medical school. Good diploma. That's cool. When you graduate, that is the time at which it's important that that school was accredited. So we don't want to take off the California list. No, I understand. Because the other lists don't have the type of quality. If your grandson graduates from a school, five years from now, from a school that is on the list now, but in five years no longer meets those guidelines, that's my understanding is because the list is not maintained, that school would not be removed from the list. And therefore, all they have to do is graduate from a school that's on the list. Right, but it's not an accurate, no longer an accurate. But we won't use the California list for somebody graduating today. Okay. Right, so somebody graduating today would use the maintained list, the list that are current. But those current lists didn't exist in 85, the California list or California list. But the California list existed at that point. And so it is a temporal issue, right? But the only way for you to determine whether they are valid or not is to ask the question, what school did you go to? And you refer to the California list, it is not currently being maintained. And if that school subsequently does not meet the criteria, how would you know that the individual graduating from said school is actually eligible under our criteria now if what you're doing is enabling them to come in under this particular rule as it's written? Let me, hold on, I'm not explaining it well. Let me think about it, I don't want to explain it. So, can I take a shot at it? Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. So looking at someone who was graduated from a foreign medical school in 2022, you would not refer to the California list. Right. Because that list was only maintained up until 2020. Right. So going forward, you refer to the other lists, the California list is only prior to this date. Right. It might be somebody who's, you know, who's applying for a woman-mount license today who graduated in 85 and then we would use the California list to verify. Yeah. So we need it there still, even though that's annoying because it'd be great if we could just take it off altogether. But the reason we didn't want to keep the point that you had made was we don't want to keep the unapproved list because that was so confusing because it could have been on an unapproved list and now it's approved. And that just muddy the waters in a way that wasn't. Yeah, so the question is, not been wise to have a statement to the effect that they appear on the official California recognized medical schools list as of ex-date, whatever that is. We could put that in there, but that's not, I mean, so when we talk to other states, that's not how they have done it. And then that's not when we talk to the provider groups and the medical practice board. The concern was another issue that you find is that somebody went to a school and it wasn't accredited while they were there. Then it got accredited right before they graduated. And in that, and so you want to be able to leave these rooms so that there is flexibility for the board to recognize somebody who is truly qualified and trained. The cut date for exactly when California did or didn't stop doing their updating is less critical than knowing that the school was actually accredited at that time. And not something that, well, I understand this committee has been grappling with the best way of word in practice is very straightforward. It's not a complicated, like I graduated at this date and you look at the list, you say, great, that school was approved at that period. Rope center. So let me see if I understand this. Yes. You not only ask the person, what school did you graduate from? You also ask what year. Right. And that's what you look at. Was that school accredited at that time? At that time. Thank you. Got it. Can I ask how you learn that? In the application. No, I mean, once you have decided what school they went to and what year, does the board actually go into the history of the school to determine at that year that they were actually accredited? Okay. The staff do. But yes. But yes, they do. And we don't have, the other thing for the community, no, we don't have hundreds of these applications. It's not like this is some huge workload. It's not, yeah. So Legislative Council just pointed out that that is addressed in 15.2.5 years? Then that was another comment from the senator. And this has been the last time around. I know that was a while ago. I actually asked David Harlehy if we could show you the application. You have to have a log in, whatever. Nothing too much of a hassle. But it would be fun. Okay, with that, Mr. Chair, I'll move the program. Is there any further discussion? I have a motion to approve the rules for the mental practice that has been recommended. All those in favor, say hi. Hi. Hi. As opposed to the name. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, this year we were great on the schedule. Next year, it's 1967, Department of Health, the Vital Records Rule. Good morning. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Brendan Atwood. I'm a policy advisor with the Department of Health. And with this rulemaking, the department is proposing to amend the Vital Records Rule. The purpose of the Vital Records Rule is to establish the requirements for creating, painting, storing, and disposing of birth and death certificates in Vermont. And with this rulemaking, the department is improving access to these records for those who need them in the following weeks. First, this rulemaking would incorporate the changes made in the existing emergency rule that expand the list of alternate means of identification in order to make it easier for inmates and former inmates to apply for a certified copy of a birth certificate. And this will help these folks more easily attain a driver's license or employment. And this change was made in accordance with Act 80 of 2019. This rulemaking will also allow Vermont state employees to use their state employee identification to request and obtain birth and death certificates when conducting official business. This was a change made at the request of DCF and DVUT, whose employees need access to these records for issues related to custody adoption and the provision of benefits. And this essentially reestablishes what had been the status quo prior to Act 46 of 2017. And then this rulemaking would also establish a process through which an individual experiencing homelessness can work with a homeless services provider to apply for a certified copy of a birth certificate. Again, this will make it easier for these folks to obtain a driver's license or employment. And this was an issue that was brought to our attention by a number of town clerks and a state representative. And then finally, a number of formatting, citation, or visions have been made. And in drafting this rulemaking, the department worked with the Department of Corrections, the Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasures Association, as well as the Vermont Coalition on Homelessness. So they've all reviewed these changes and provided support throughout the rulemaking process. And so with that, I'll be happy to take any questions that you may have. I want to note that we have a letter from Senator White. He's enthusiastically stating that this meets legislative intent or statutory intent. I do have one question. If you look at the annotated rule, it's the first definition, 3.1, about the after-day of homelessness status. Yes. So it's used to verify an individual status for the purpose of obtaining versatility. So is that a temporary designation? How long does it last? How long? When is someone not a homeless person? It's just used essentially as another form of identification, whereby a homeless services provider is essentially verifying that person's, both their identity and their status is homeless. And so one of the requirements of the identification is that it establishes an address. And so these folks, in most cases, don't have an address unless they're at a shelter. So it would only be for the purposes of that single request for that certified copy of a birth certificate. So it's not like an ID card? No, it's not. And do you have a copy if it would be helpful to see what the after-day of it looks like? I'm curious, but I think it's not necessary. Okay, examine it. Representative Gordon. You may not know this, but I'll just question that. Anyway, how is the Department of Health coming along with the database as far as a statewide accessible database of all births and deaths? I don't know the answer to any questions. Thank you. I know there were a few hiccups along the way. Yeah, and if you have specific questions, I'll be happy to get them to the right people and get answers for you. Okay, thank you. Any further questions? If not, entertain a motion to approve the rule. So much. I thought I'd throw that out there once. Yeah, I don't think it's an exclusive right. Unless there are further questions. There's a motion to approve the rule as presented. Will those in favor say aye? Aye. Those opposed say nay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next up is 19P71E, Department of Financial Regulation, Insurance Regulatory Sandbox, Organization of Labor Regulation. A little early there. Sandbox will come to the table first. I don't have any holy questions. I don't know about that. That's one of my questions. He's not going to give me any questions. Okay. Sometimes we will object to that rule. In the meantime, Department of Health, again, I'm going to go to piece 68, Disorder Treatment Certification. So, hello again. I'm going to go first. I was part of some of that testimony, not related to the sandbox specifically, but in that bill last year, and I had all of those same questions, and then I walked into that. So, what you have in front of you is almost exclusively a cleanup. Department Head updated this rule, and we're doing it again to try to really simplify it and make it easier to follow for those seeking, for those in the alcohol and drug abuse treatment programs. So, this is how we certify treatment at the Health Department in order for them to receive state and federal dollars. So, this is not a licensure. You can still operate as a substance abuse treatment provider in Vermont without this certification. This certification is simply if you are seeking taxpayer funding for your work. The one substantive change that I will note is that we are doing a similar thing that we did in our iDrift rule, the impaired driving rule, where we are changing the requirements for individuals who can supervise for substance abuse treatment to make it uniform across the system before it was bearing the arrow and it was only for licensed alcohol and drug abuse providers, and now you can have other licenses as long as, of course, your specialty is still substance abuse treatment. So, that now mirrors what's in iDrift. It mirrors the practices and many of the designated agencies, and it's a move to really try to address the workforce challenges that we're facing in Vermont without in any way compromising any of the treatment to be received by Vermonters seeking care. So, that's the only thing that would change practice in this role. So, it appears to me that this revision bifurcated the existing rule. So, there's certification and operation separate. Well, looking at annotated text, or I guess you could want to, but the 2.0, the purpose. I'm sorry. Yes. This rule provides substance use disorder treatment certification for preferred providers. They previously used to say certification and operational requirements. So, where are those operational requirements? Yeah, so they are still in here. That, the program, we talked about the purpose in trying to clean it up. Many of the operational requirements before this change, I mean, in current practice, and after are in the guidance documents and the grant requirements that they receive. And so it seemed a little misleading to say that they were in this role specifically because they are not. They're in the guidance documents and the grants and contracts that those providers get. Some of those operations specific things. It's, again, not actually changing the rule itself was directing in terms of operations. Largely. Okay, yeah. So there's no operational rule. There's a certification rule and then operations are guidelines. I always have them. I think we, I don't know what that was in there before. I'll be honest. Other questions? Representative Cardin? Was there a public hearing? Oh, yes. I know it says in here that there was going to be. Were there any comments from that? No. Okay, thank you. Yeah, we didn't receive comments. Again, we sent it, we also sent it proactively up to the providers. And we didn't receive any public comment during the public comment process. I did want to just mention that legislative council caught our mistakes as they do, which is wonderful. And so I hope you do have this brief memo with those minor changes. They were, one of them actually is more than totally tiny minor, but that was that we wanted, they pointed out that the definition that we were using for sudden use disorder wanted that to be consistent with statute and other rules, which of course we did too. And so we updated that. Again, it won't change practice on the ground, but for consistency, that was important. So thank you to legislative council. Senator Benning. Yeah, I'd like to go back to the chairs questions. Yeah. I understood you to say that the operational requirements are not in the rule. It may just be the vernacular that I'm not used to, but on page five of the annotated version, the old rule 3.0 had requirements for certification, which included organizational capacity and accountability. That's being struck. To me, that's short, but on page five of the annotated version, 3.0, requirements for certification, language for certification, got it. What follows thereafter appears to me to be an operational governance of some kind in the application process. Does that still exist somewhere else? Okay. So that's a great question. So this, one of the reasons these were struck from this section is, and I'm just going to use 3.1.1 as my example, if that's acceptable. That is, it's restating what is true regardless. And one of the things that we've heard from just generally, not about this rule specifically, but when we're trying to update these rules, is to try to make them as streamlined and specific as possible so that those reading them don't get sort of mired in a lot of text. And we struck that section because it is required in a different section, and it's, hold on, I know, is required that they abide by the guidelines already in the rule. And so this was, is repetitive of that, and that they also abide by regulations is law and they're gotten repetitive. So that's a lot of the wording that we see struck. It's not that it's no longer true, it's that it, it is the law or it is the fact of how you have to operate in order to meet requirements. So an example of that would be sometimes in some rules we had like you have to follow all DEC regulations or you have to follow all, you know, and we've tried to really hone that down to say, you know, in order to get a license, you have to follow all other state and local laws and regulations. I'm kind of trying to cut out all of this extra language around, you know, and also so that we're not confusing the applicants where they're like, well, you said I had to follow DEC's rags and I did, but it turns out that you weren't following or Fish and Wildlife rags too and they can get nitpicky there about listing versus trying to reference it. That's the big, but I mean, I guess the substance there, the piece that's substantive there is those service guidelines and that is still required in the current rule. For operations, yeah, and that's where the operations are in there. I think I know where you're streamlining and removing Chair's question, the operational section does still have operational requirements, it's just that they're umbrellaed under the word certification. You got it. I'm our coffee before I came here this morning. Are there any other questions, clarifications concerns? The purpose was to provide more people in the workforce. Right, so going back to why do this rule now, it was about specifically making it clear who can be a supervisor and opening that up to more individuals, for example, somebody with an MSW with a specialization and substance use disorder, even if they did not have an LADC licensed specifically, we want those people to be able to work there. And as we do every time, of course, we could have made that tiny change to nothing else. I'm always in favor of streamlining any concerns. If there is no further discussion, I will take a motion to approve the rules. I make a motion to approve Rule 19, P68. Oh, yes. As modified. As modified. Thank you. Any further questions? All those in favor of approving Rule as modified, we say hi. Hi. Thank you very much. Chair, if anybody's interested in my people, back to the Marais, 100,000 relates to a footnote to that comment. Who's Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War initiated a policy making more soldiers available to fight. Did you read his book? Yes. Quite powerful. Also a book about his staff. I have a question. Is this related to the Five of Hot Collies? We would be in the same syllabus. Do we have folks from the Department of Financial Regulations here? I know we're running ahead of schedule. Yeah, I emailed Sadash. Okay. So the one rule, the other thing is the discussion on various tracks. For that, I don't see Deputy Secretary here. So again, we're way ahead of schedule. I don't know. We're ahead of schedule. I'd like to have a schedule. I should relate more often. I'd like to raise the question of the next meeting, the 19th. We have two rules scheduled. I don't know what we're looking at, how busy it's looking for the 9th, January 9th. I don't have that one. And I will be away at the time and I'd like to propose if we can postpone both of those rules until January 9th regular meeting. And if anyone has concerns about that there. We require an extension to do that. You'd have to express an extension of the administration for both or one? No, just for one. The first one is the B-66 ends on 1-4. Right. The administration would have to follow the rules. Extend the request and extensions if they are willing to do that. Just to make sure I'm understanding. Are you proposing cancelling the meeting and moving or just postponing the date because you have a motion? I'm proposing. Because those are the only two rules on the agenda. I'm postponing. Proposing to cancel that meeting. And ask for an extension. Just one on me. Sure. Perhaps we would cancel but would that mean that we would move to send a letter to be and ask for them to make a decision by a certain time. So to know whether or not we were still obliged to do it on the 19th or we would be freed from that obligation. Yes, we would. Charlene and I will call them to that. Charlene's normal practice. She even has a memo that would be ready to go if they'd be willing to extend your review period to say to the 11th like the other one. Next meeting is on January 9th. Next meeting is on January 9th. I would move that we schedule a next meeting for January 9th with the provision that that depends on the administration sending us a letter to. Well, there are eight months of adoption period and extension. And that if in the event that they go we would be find ourselves pledged to come back on the 19th. Just a question. What's our schedule look like otherwise? Showing such as receiving no rules for the night? No rules. The deadline isn't until the deadline for the rules for the January 9th is December 31st. So I still have plenty of time for the rules to come in. Well, the only reason I'm nervous for my benefit is my first committee starts at 8.30. And in general, during session we'll start for the one-hour meetings. It feels safer to address to hold the meeting on the 19th as scheduled. We'll throw the dice and we'll scope the 19th after the 19th jam. Thank you. Do we need a motion to do that? So Senator McDonald. A motion to ask the send a letter requesting extension for that as necessary for that rule. And should we receive one? We would not need to go on. Or should we be assured by the Chancellor to resolve that that was you going. Okay, we have a motion on the table. I do most likely cancel the meeting on the 19th. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. As opposed, say nay. Consideration of this accommodation. Just means I had to start my Christmas show earlier. Yeah, you have a morning to do it. So, in terms of the rules remaining. There's only one. The rule remaining. So are we still waiting? We are. I can't get into just seeing if they sent me something. We have some. Can you go down the stairs? Okay. We got a title of Mr. Chairman agenda about the last subject for discussion. We'll get 155. I hope it is. Did I do that? Yeah, I did. We missed that. We were thinking it might be very long. Oh my God. That's why you go along with it. I'm very bad with names. Your members names. Your name triggers the song. And so, they called them and all right. I hear that one. I actually named after a different song, but I hear that one. That one. That's my daughter's middle name. Nora. What's your song? The song is from the The Cruisers 2 by Joan Catherine of Beaver Brown Band. Don't know. I don't know. I have one. Mr. Chairman, while we're waiting, can I ask a question or two of council? So on the this section 5.1 of the rule we're looking at, 5.1 and 5.2, the highlighted area, highlighted material is things that have brought up questions that we're going to be discussing, correct? But the language overall has not changed. It's just a question of interpretation and enforcement, but there's no change to the rule. That's my understanding. I didn't provide this document. I actually don't know where this came from. Senator Benning, did you provide this document? And it's just highlighting the parts of the rule by race concern. Looking at 5.1.9, another definition of civil twilight. One? I don't think it's a defined term. It's the communist one. So far, that particular language hasn't been an issue for anybody thus far. Seeing expand on that subject, that's what we're trying to do. It's a demolition derby. Would that be uncivil twilight? Interesting question. Actually, I probably would have said that areas shall be illuminated as opposed to light. Would you like to Google? Yes. Civil twilight is a scientific term and we define it as the period after sunset of a forced sunrise, ending or beginning when the sun is about 6 degrees below the horizon, and during which on clear days there is enough light for ordinary outdoor occupations. I don't know if 6 degrees is below the horizon. That's very special. We have a very small ladder. Too much in the wings. But it is a scientific term. Interesting. We've reached a point where somebody can call up on their computer, bring their telephone, and get that information. It's really scary when you go to give a presentation to a group of school kids and they're all sitting there with their laptops. They know more about you before you open your mouth. Wait a minute, you voted this way on that question. Is that what you mean? Actually, while we're waiting, oh, she's not here, we could discuss the schedule, which is also on our actual schedule for this year. It's probably way too short. Oh, I was just wondering if Titty just wants a refresher on what your authority is in regard to reviewing existing rules. I was going to ask that question. What are our options? So, Elkar, how do you authority to review existing rules? It's set for the APA under 3DSA 817 subsection D. In addition to your powers under 2DSA 822 of the APA, which is your authority to object to proposed rules, the statute provides the committee may in similar manner conduct public hearings, object, and file objections concerning existing rules. And so, your authority's the same. You don't have the authority to amend a rule, for example, like you don't have the authority to review the agency consents, but you could object to an existing rule under your same objection standards that you have for proposed rules. And that doesn't mean that the rule goes away, that just means that if the rule is subsequently challenged, that the burden shifts to the agency to prove that the rule does not meet any of the grounds for objection. That's not arbitrary or contrary to legislative intent, for example. It goes on to say that a rule reviewed under this subsection remains in effect until amended or repealed, in accordance with that same principle that the rule can't stop a rule from applying, unless the agency takes another step to propose an amendment to it. I think this is an important discussion to have, but I'm a little uncomfortable not having Chris Winter here during the explanation. And actually, I see that the speaking Sebastian is here now for the sandbox rule. Do you know what are the authorizing legislation for this? So, I would like the Secretary of State's office to confirm, but I am looking at the racing statute, and I'm seeing, this is in Title 26, where many of our professional regulations statutes are, and in 26 VSA, 4811, under the racing statute, this statute, 4811, is safety standards. And in subdivision 1, it provides that the outside portion of all tracks shall be a reasonable distance from spectators. So, I think that is the applicable language from which these rules are derived. But I would like the Secretary of State's office to confirm that there is no more specific language for demolition dirties. I haven't been able to find more specific language yet, but I'm continuing to search through this enabling statutory language. Thank you. As we now have the Council from Department of Financial Regulation here. Yes. Would you join us at the table when we can take up rule 19 71? Please introduce yourself. We'll give you a brief overview. My name is Sebastian R. And I represent the Department of Financial Regulation. And here this morning, we represent to you our proposed rule I in 1903, the Insurance Regulatory Sandbox Innovation Weaver Regulation. And this regulation is being adopted under 8th DSA 15 Little A which was added during the last legislative session. And it allows the Commissioner of Financial Regulation to grant weavers to entities with respects to certain areas of Vermont's laws for entities you can demonstrate that the application below would inhibit the entity's ability to bring innovative products or services to market that the public policy goals the law or regulation that's being waived could be effectively achieved by other means and that the waiver won't substantially or unreasonably increase the risk to consumers. And finally the Commissioner has to find that the waiver is in the public interest. So our regulation allows entities to apply to the Commissioner for a waiver and incorporates a process by which the Commissioner has a period of time to review the waiver application and any supporting documents provided by the entity and to take public input prior to either granting the waiver or denying it. This regulation is very much a temporary measure as was envisioned by statute in 2023 our ability to grant weavers sunsets and new entities that want to receive waivers will not be able to after that time and any entities that want to renew a waiver won't be able to and my understanding from the committee process last year is that the committees of jurisdiction after 2023 hope to review the waiver process and see if this regulation actually did succeed in bringing new and innovative insurance products into Vermont that could potentially offer small businesses different coverages but lower prices than what is currently available. What is the range of insurance this covers does that include health? It doesn't include health. This is for property casualty and limited lines and just to give you an example of the sort of products that are being contemplated in the state which has had a waiver process for insurance technology and financial technology products. There are insurance companies that in the life market target riskier populations such as older smokers and then gives them an app by which they can report back to the insurer on their progress with respect to quitting smoking or adopting healthier habits and through the app the insurer dynamically lowers the insurance premiums which wouldn't be allowed under our current insurance law which requires a set premium for a set amount of time. Does that also allow raising the premiums if the apps indicate some increasing risky behavior? Right. That was also part of their product. The idea behind that particular product is by gamifying healthier habits and tying that to premiums that they would encourage insurance to be healthier and thus enjoy lower premiums if they succeeded and there's the stick there's also a higher premiums if they smoke more or are less healthy in their lifestyle. That's just one example of the kind of product that could be brought to market under this regulation and of course the commissioner would have full process for reviewing those products before coming to market. Other questions? I just have a Senator McDonough. This is for the technology used in delivering the product. Right. Not the behavior or nature of the policy. That's right. And the technology that's being used to bring products varies pretty significantly. For example Tesla has looked into offering car insurance that's based off of the telemetry data they receive from the car and the idea is they know how fast you drive when you drive, where you drive so by incorporating all of that data they can offer an auto insurance product using a different actuarial method than a traditional car insurance. Senator Brandt. That's a good question. Did the department receive any inquiries about this ending rule? I'm just wondering if there's been a response to it yet. We have received positive feedback from industry. We haven't received any specific interest from insurers that want to bring a specific product to Vermont but we did receive a letter in support of the regulation from the Property and Casualty Insurance Association. I'm just noticing between the rules and the underlying statute no extensions can be granted after July 1, 2021 I'm sorry that is correct and then you can only get salt months on your initials so there's really from January 1 of this year to July 1 of this year to put something in that could ever extend beyond get an extension. That's right. So type guardrails. Yes and I think that the underlying statute was enacted with the idea that the committees of jurisdiction would revisit this in two years to see if it is working and if it is to extend it and if not to pull it back but this is very much meant to be a short term trial I know this is far beyond the scope of this rule and your department but I'm wondering if there's been any discussion of safeguards on data collection sales use sharing Yes that will be something that we anticipate looking at when entities apply for waivers as part of the application process we're going to be requesting all of the technical documents that serve as the background for the insurers actuarial calculations or how they price the product and use customer data and we intend to incorporate safeguards against the use and abuse of customer data in the application process Senator Bray when we're done with questions I move that we approve Rule 19 for further questions are there further questions I'd like to know about the term sandbox the term sandbox is sort of a term of art to mean that we are creating a space for these products without wholesale change to the rest of the insurance laws so in effect it is a sandbox where we can try out new ideas without disrupting the larger market I notice it's actually in the underlying legislation yes but it is not as fun as an actual sandbox it was great I certainly hope not unless there are further questions even if there are further questions we have a motion on the table to approve Senator McDonald I'm under committee jurisdiction where this passed I had reservations that your individual experiments ought to be authorized by the legislature this has been delegated it's in statute and concerns me I believe it to be in statute and I hope the committee has served on if there are no further questions or comments on those in favor approving the rule say aye aye thank you for your time thank you so so Senator McDonald I'm sure you're concerned but the guardrails are so so tight and well-defined hopefully no sand gets kicked out of the sandbox hopefully I'll buy it at Tesla so while awaiting the secretary of state deputy secretary of state we can look at the post schedule meeting of the session and Senator Bannon thank you for catching the town meeting schedule date March 5th do you need a motion to approve the schedule as presented today okay sure why not I support but not meeting on March 5th though so we're not going to meet on March 5th is that no I took that out yeah there's a revised oh I must have the old one I'm sorry there it is I have March 5th this is I took something out we'll look at it as much okay I don't know that we can ever shut down Elkhart but these May dates just reminding me of when we're in those final days in the session and things are so it's sometimes pretty challenging to you know in Elkhart we have an obligation to be available to respond to rules and keep them moving just looking at this it looks like March 19th yeah that's it so so what's going to be February 27th March 12th, March 19th right I'll send you a new file and I'll just say hearing no objection without the moving schedule and generally meeting on May 10th otherwise noted I'm just trying to show you what you're doing I'm getting a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a