Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: First, and then I have some testimony to share as well.

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Okay. Is

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: that okay?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: That's fine. Yeah. Alexis, if if you want to go ahead and introduce yourself for the record. Mhmm.

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Thank you, Chair Durfee of the committee. Really appreciate you having me here on short notice. So just to introduce myself for the record, my name is Alexis Yamashita. I'm a resident of Essex Junction, Vermont. Just to do a brief introduction about myself, I am a local seed grower here that has been working with seeds since 2017. Specifically, my work is around heirloom open pollinated and organic varieties of seed. Along with my, experience as a seed grower, I do have management experience in two different seed companies. I am also a member of the Organic Seed Alliance and a new board member of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association of Vermont.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: All right. What would you like to share with us today?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Thank you, chair. Yes. So I also just wanted to mention, I had sent an email early this morning to the committee and what I wanted to share is in scanning the proposed changes in S. Three twenty three with the SEED policy and also reading the letter submitted by the American Sea Trade Association. In my personal feelings, I think it raises some significant questions about the possible impacts of the recommendations, not only in ASCA's letter, but some of the proposed changes in S. Three twenty three. For what I specifically wanted to flag is around the changes of the inclusion around non language, around noncommercial sharing. So I think, to highlight, two examples, looking at the main, the changes proposed to changing the definition of, distribute and distributor to including noncommercial activities. And also, the section about, it's section subsection a, that reads, this section and to facilitate uniform seed requirements, the secretary may apply any other term or definition that the American sorry, the Association of American Seed Control Officials adopted in its recommended uniform state seed law as amended. It's page 16, line five. So reading these things, again, I think it raises significant question. And what I wanted to ask today is if the committee would be willing to consider striking the language of the changes from the S. Three twenty three policy to allow for more time and consideration on how the language changes in policy, especially around noncommercial seeds, and really to get, community members involved that are involved in local seed work, to have diversified feedback on, you know, how these changes might impact Vermont seed. So really, again, what I'm advocating for is to have more time to deeply consider the proposed changes. And really, if it's helpful to explain why I have a lot of questions around how noncommercial sharing is being defined in the current proposed policy changes. It's really questioning how this could have unintended consequences on supporting seed biodiversity and the strength of our local ag systems and really equitable access to seed. Because I know we all want, you know, to ensure that we have a supportive policy landscape that does support different ways to access seeds. Also with looking at the non commercial seed changes to that language, also wanting to make sure that there is space to really support community based seed saving and traditional oh, sorry, stewardship of traditional seed varieties by the communities that those seeds are part of. So to kind of bring this all together, in reading some of the proposed changes in S. Three twenty three, it looks, from my understanding, including in the definition of distributing non commercial pathways, it looks like there could be implications as far as like additional regulations that may be imposed on non commercial seed activities. So again, really my ask of the committee today is again to strike the language changes for now so we can have more of a community process to seek diversified feedback or to ensure we're seeking diversified feedback from everybody that really is engaged in our local seed systems and that do support our local access to seeds.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Alexis, I want to try and clarify something because you referred to some written testimony that we received from the Sea Trade Association suggesting some changes. We haven't made, we haven't considered and are not at this point, we're not intending consider those changes. But I'm not sure whether the concerns that you're raising today are about that language or about the language in the s three twenty three?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Yes. Think

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: you Possibly both. So if you could just make that clear.

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Thank you, chair. And yes, it is both. So reading ASTA's letter, again, there were there were things in there that raised questions about, like, how this, you know, would actually unfold. And I understand and I appreciate the clarification that there are things in the letter that are different than the policy. My also concerns are with S. Three twenty three and seeing some of the language changes and policy changes that are advocated in the policy too. So again, for example, the looking at including noncommercial seed activities in the definition of distribute and distributor being one of them. And also, again, that subsection A with the secretary may apply terms from the American sorry, the Association of American Seed Control Officials. So just to clarify, Chair, it is concerns for both or questions from both the ASTA letter and also what is being listed as proposed policy changes in S. 23.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. So I would say for the purposes of our conversation, let's leave out the ASTA letter. Okay. That's confusing things. We're not looking at that letter or that language. Can you just say again what and I don't know if you have the bill handy or not, but if you do, if you could just point to the page or and pages and then the lines where your concerns are?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Yes. I can flag two of my concerns in in a more concise manner, I apologize that it's a little bit repetitive. But the first one is page 15, line 19. And that's the definition of distribute and distributor. And seeing that the proposed new definition wants to include noncommercial activities such as bartering.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So we're on page 15.

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: I think it's okay.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Is that what you said? I think.

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: I think it might be page 19. I just opened the bill.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: Can chime in?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Hi. Yes.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: To help clarify for the record, Maddie Kempner, NOFA Vermont. In the in the unofficial version as passed by the senate, it is page 15, line 19. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So this is a sub subsection 12, distributor means.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: And and also line 15, distribute as well.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Okay. And distribute means k. So the line line 15, distribute means to import, manufacture, produce, mix, blend, etcetera. I don't see anything there about trading or noncommercial.

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: I think, Maddie, you might have it up on the screen quicker. I'm trying to find it in the updated version, but I believe it says bartering.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: It does say the the language that I'm looking at at least, Chittenden, he says

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Oh, barter. Okay. Yes. Yep.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: Mhmm. They'll sell barter or supply seed for the purpose of sowing in the state through any means. Mhmm.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: Which is quite broad. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So that so that, definition is a concern and then distributor, any person who distributes, there's a concern there as well?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Yes. And I echo what Maddie mentioned is looking at how broad the language is.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Okay.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: And if it's helpful, I can just elaborate on that a little bit to say that we're concerned that the definition of distribute being so broad as to include noncommercial uses extends then to distributors who are required to comply with certain labeling requirements, that start within section, it's section 11. So that's page 17 starting at line two. The labeling requirements appear to extend in that case to some noncommercial distributors. So that's a concern. We also we would be concerned if the registration requirements extended to distributors of non commercial seed, but it does not appear that that's the case. And maybe, Bradley can can make sure to clarify that. But the registration and reporting requirements, appear to have an exemption written in for non commercial purposes, but the labeling requirements do not that I could see. So that is kind of concern number one.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Okay. So

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: could that be could that be addressed by Well, what is your recommendation or your specific request then for dealing with this?

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: Alexis, do you want to speak to that? Do you want me to?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Yeah. I'm happy to speak, give some thoughts and Maddie, if you wanna chime in too. Yeah. So my specific ask is again to, not vote on this, right now. And if that means striking the proposed, changes so that we can, so that the state can have some additional feedback from stakeholders on their thoughts about the policy implementation and any potential consequences.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So short of not voting on it, let me ask whether there's specific language that you would like, like, strike this word, remove the word barter from that definition, for example, of what distribute means? Would if we remove the word barter, would that be sufficient to address the immediate concern?

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: I would recommend striking the word barter, but also clarifying that because the last or or sorry, the next clause in that sentence, supply seed for the purp also could be, I think, interpreted to to include noncommercial uses. So I think it would be important to not only strike barter, but also clarify that distribute means to I don't know exactly how you would word it, but that it means, you know, only things that would fall under the category of commercial distribution.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Okay. So that that's that's really what the interest is here that Yes. Yes. Okay. Maddie, did you was there more that you wanted to

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: There's there's more that I wanna say, which is also something Alexis already shared that I was going to reiterate, which is I think we would really we really wanna recommend striking the language that is, let's see. So it is in the same section further down. So section nine, subsection b, and that's on page 16, line five, says, in addition to the terms defined in subsection a of this section and to facilitate uniform seed requirements, the secretary may apply any other term or definition that the Association of American Seed Control Officials adopted in its recommended uniform state seed law. That provision, in our view, really opens a significant backdoor way for the secretary to adopt other seed laws without having to consult with the legislature or the broader seed community. And there are definitions in that document that's mentioned here, the recommended uniform state seed law that we are concerned would place undue burdens on similarly on noncommercial sharing of seed in an effort to protect intellectual property rights. So I would we want to recommend as NOFA that we strike that, that you strike that section entirely.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Okay. Thank you. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Jake.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Marty, what were you referring to? Intellectual property rights?

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: Well, a lot of the the language that, that we're concerned about in the ASTA letter and also in this recommended uniform state seed law document is, in our view, aimed at protecting the intellectual property rights of seed producers and seed companies, sometimes at the detriment of noncommercial seed saving and sharing. And so some of the language and it can also just extend really inappropriate requirements to folks that are looking to non commercially share and save seed, like labeling requirements, for example, that should really only apply to commercial sales.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: So if a farmer in Montana is breeding a new strain of fescue to be distributed commercially and he puts years of work in it and has multiple failures. And he finally gets a strain to hold that works, that propagates and creates a good seed. You don't think we ought to protect his right like a patent for so many years, so he can regain his cost? Is that what we're worried about? Because there it's seed breeding, as you know, takes a lot of trial and and trial and and failures and and effort to get it right. Yeah. A lot of money.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: Understood, representative Nelson, for sure. And I'm not saying that we're opposed to protecting intellectual property rights or commercial commercial rights around seed as a whole. We just don't want to be protecting putting language in that protects those and ends up in an unintended way, restricting people's ability to save and share seed amongst each other in a noncommercial way. And I think I would love to hear Alexis's response to your question as a seed grower herself.

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Yes. Thank you, Maddie. And I echo what Maddie says is definitely we do want to be careful to protect the rights to work that goes into variety improvement. And really one thing I wanna reiterate is the main concern is with the inclusion of the non commercial language and pulling that into distributing and the broader language that just really, you know, again feels very broad. But definitely wanna emphasize and, you know, agree with Maddie that we do also wanna support what it means to protect, you know, interest from our farmers in the improvement of seeds.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: And, you know, the the labeling requirements provisions in this this section, I look at it as consumer protection. When you get a bag of red clover seed, you want to know you're getting a bag of red clover seed that contains 99% red clover seed and 1% in herbs, less than a certain percentage of wheat seed. And you know, and where it came from. So you, you know, what, what you're buying and what you're using is what it says it is. That's that's how I read that that on the label and, you know, every product we buy has a label on it.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: If if you're buying it, representative Nelson, I agree. I want to give an example that might help clarify the circumstance that we're thinking of that might be really burdened by this language if the definition continues to include non commercial sharing of seed. For example, at NOFA's annual winter conference, we host a seed swap. There's always a table at the conference where people can bring seeds from their home gardens to share with other people. There's no monetary exchange. And the seeds are labeled for variety, always. But the requirements for commercial seed like you're talking about, the percentage of inerts and the things that are really relevant and super important we understand for farmers like yourself to have on those seed labels, I don't think should extend to things like the NOFA Winter Conference seed swap. That would be a burden that would hinder that kind of very casual seed sharing That's really important to folks in our community who gardening and home setting, not commercially farming.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So I think I understand what the interest is and we would like to find a way to accommodate that interest, but also accommodate the intellectual property right interest. From your perspective, if we were to rewrite the definition of distribute, to take out, barter, and then the all other sort of catchall clause, is that going to be, Alexis, as somebody who is also in the seed development business, going to hamper intellectual property rights?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: I don't feel like it would hamper intellectual property rights. And also wanna echo what Maddie is saying too, of the importance in commercial seed and having proper labeling and making sure that as it's being said that farmers are getting the seed, you know, and you know, good quality seed that they need is absolutely important. And so I wanna also clarify from, you know, my feedback that that is something I think is important and to protect. And I do agree that if we were to take out the bartering and just kind of the very broad, know, for lack of better way to say catch all part of the definition at the end, that it would not infringe on intellectual property rights and those protections.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Thank you very much, Greg.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Thank you, Chair. I mean, when you read the definition of distribute, you can, because it's the word for it's again not and. Distribute means to, if you want to take one part, a couple parts of it, distribute means to produce seed for the purpose of sowing the state through any means, if you want to. That is part of the definition. Even you wouldn't even need to barter it in order to fall under, you could be producing it for your own means. And you would be a distributor according to this definition, which that is very broad. Because I don't think you're distributing seed yourself at that point. I think we need to take a look

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: at it. We'll have the Ledge Council come up in a minute and we can get some reactions. Go ahead. You all set, Greg? Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Yeah. No. I read that. Distribute means to import, manufacture, produce, mix, blend, offer for sale, sell barter, or supply seed. And and so if we struck out barter and and maybe supply. But if you're if you're if you're selling it, if you're, you know, does that make sense to you to you folks on the big screen? If we just tweak that a little bit. I understand your your swaps and whatnot and and, you know, the the the community that you have with those things and and that's, you know, that is a small, you know, the small piece of the seed world, if you will. Not to belittle it, a bit, but it is a small piece of the seed world. And, you know, here in our committee, I bought a package of watermelon radish and 300 seeds in it. And I didn't bother or sell, I gave away without expecting any return, everybody 30 seeds, so we could all have some watermelon radishes. The distributor now. Yeah, well. Yeah, but you know, it's so I understand that where you're coming from. And I I don't want you to think I'm being a heavy on the other comments I was making. And I think we could work with some language here with alleged counsel to make that amendable to everybody.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Representative Reagan.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: So being the new guy, has this been a problem?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: We had testimony early on from the agency indicating that they wanted to clean things up. So I don't want to try and recollect exactly how they framed it, but this was something they asked us to do.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: So we're not going overboard, are we?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Well, hopefully not. But I think we have here some legitimate concerns here.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Thing I can personally point to for a reason for maybe language along these lines, I don't know if anybody else get a packet of seeds in the mail maybe a few years ago?

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Years ago. Exactly. That came from who knows where, and then immediately, the bulletin was put out, destroy them. Right.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: Seats were laid.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: I don't even remember. Wildflowers? No, under the yeah. But it was strange.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Yeah, it was Obviously an anomaly, but I wonder if part of the Obviously the agency would have to speak to that, but I wonder if there's some merit in having some laws that would protect against Unrequested. Right. If those were nauseous weed seeds, and people just, oh, look at this, I'll put it in my garden. I could see where A little

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: bit of

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: biosecurity potentially there. Do our witnesses recall anything related to that or want to comment?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Could you repeat that one more time, Chair?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So sometime in the past couple of years, reports of citizens receiving unsolicited in the mail seed packets and not knowing where they'd come from or what they were, they didn't buy them. They weren't sold. No money shaded hands. They were mailed. So, when you're thinking about the definition of distribute, and there was some concern that the seeds might be for some reason, a safety concern or health

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: care. Yes,

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: I can say I have heard recently a little bit and some of the seed policy work that I'm involved in have raised questions about biosecurity. I guess to answer concisely of the thoughts that come to mind right now is I feel like what Maddie and I are proposing changes to the proposed language and really what we're addressing the issue of non commercial sharing. If it is helpful in my personal experiences, with being a seed grower and again, with seed companies, I don't feel like this would invite any more risk as far as biosecurity goes to our state. And but I also do want to recognize too that, this is a very valid concern that needs to be addressed. And perhaps, I wonder if there might be a possibility of, you know, of in the future, in the not too distant future, looking at other policy mechanisms that may, you know, protect our state, from bio security threats with seeds. But just to reiterate, I don't feel the changes that Maddie and I are advocating for would make what we're seeing happen, open us up to new threats.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: I would like to, the balance between protecting intellectual property rights and allowing people to freely grow their own seed and yes, borrow share. I think that's important because I've watched documentaries myself on seed growers in the Midwest in particular who large seed companies have gone after them for the most minute things and put them out of business. So I think it's a it's I I I hadn't even thought of that when we went through the bill the first time, but this is bringing up some pretty important stuff.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: When I buy a bag, currency or total currency, it says right on there that I will not propagate this seed for resale purposes. Right. Just won't do it. That's right. It it is and and if I don't agree to that, they don't sell it to me. Right. Okay. So we can agree that that's that's out there. Alright, but on this, you know, someone buys 300 watermelon radish seeds, they only want a 100, they ought to be able to swap with, you know, they'd want to be able to swap with their friend for a 100 rub you know, not rhubarb, but They're the big Swiss chard Swiss chard seeds or whatever, you know, and and and so, you know, we you know, we stealing someone's intellectual property because I got 300 watermelon radish seeds. Just, you know, you're you're not talking swapping trailer loads of seeds. You know? I I mean, we could put, you know, small quantities. I I you know, to protect that, to to protect the commercial interest because they they do deserve protected. But things like they do, I don't think are nefarious. I don't think they're I don't think they do it in bad faith to the companies that that are doing it.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Let's let's take another question. If there's no other discussion, we could have lunch counsel come up and have get some input there too.

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: John? I just wondered about whether this would catch up also inadvertent distribution of seeds, say like I sell Richard hay or I sell my brother-in-law excavator molce, and their seeds and things like that. So would labeling be required for that sort of inadvertent distribution of seed?

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: Can I react to that? Mean, think that could be really easily solved by including the word intentionally in the definition of distribute. I don't see that as as what this language is is aimed at, but I think if you wanted to prevent, it expanding to apply to that, you could include in the word intentionally. I also just wanna say I appreciate representative Burtt's point about this being or language and I actually had not been interpreting it that way. So I would appreciate that maybe I'll bring that to Ledge Council to get clarified too because I think, yeah, if producing seed in and of itself for noncommercial purposes also brings you under the definition of a distributor, that would be concerned to us too.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So possibly striking the word produce from line 15 there in the definition of distribute strike produce.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: I think produce could stay in as long as it was tied to commercial sale. I think that all of those import manufacture produce mix blend makes sense as long as they are clearly tied to commercial operations.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Yes, if it's all of those things are leading up to selling it to somebody. But if you're producing your own seed to sell yourself, which in this current definition would follow a distributor if I'm reading it right, obviously. It's the Ledge Council on that one, but it looks to me because of the word 'or' You would have any clarification that you can produce and sow your own seed on your own farm. So let's have Bradley come up, who's

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: been listening. I do

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: have one more question actually.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Yeah, go ahead. Bradley, you can come up while we're here.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Alexis, I'm just curious if there's any other things. You said you sell seed, is that correct?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: So to clarify, I have worked as a manager for two different seed companies. So as far as my own seed growing right now, to clarify, I don't currently sell seed, from my seed growing activities I'm doing right now in Vermont, but I do have a relationship, with, you know, being for, sorry, being familiar with commercial landscape through my prior work experiences being with two seed companies.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: And so from your experience with those seed companies, since they are companies that are in the business of selling seed, does the language look good otherwise? Do you need to bill to you someone who's set up to actually sell and distribute seed for sale? Is there anything that pops up in that case or does it look pretty straightforward to you?

[Alexis Yamashita — Essex Junction resident and seed grower]: Thank you for asking. From what I have reviewed in the policy changes, I think if we are if the committee is open as we're discussing, again, to make sure that we're staying really specific about the language pertaining to commercial seed activities and again, noncommercial seed activities, nothing comes to mind as additional concerns at this moment.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: All right. Thank you. You're welcome to stay on while we chat with our legislative council. Bradley, I wonder whether having listened to the conversation, you have any thoughts whether it seems straightforward or any concerns that what we've been discussing might not be as straightforward as we'd like it to be?

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Bradley Schommel, Office of Legislative Counsel. So first, to representative O'Brien's point, usually, when you are enforcing a law, it requires some knowledge of the activity that you're doing. And and so usually inadvertent inclusion of seed, if you're selling something else and there's, like, some seeds there and it's just not your intent, you would not fall under the statute. So this isn't necessarily like a strict liability statute, right? So a strict liability statute would be no matter what, whatever it is that you're doing. If you sell a seed and there's like one seed, like, on your little cup that you sell, you might be in trouble. And and that's not the statute. So and I say the word likely because sometimes people and if it ever became an issue, you know, sometimes judges can can make interesting decisions. But in a situation where someone is selling product x that's not seed, like, hey, and there's some seeds there, they probably have not triggered the labeling requirement without any additional language or anything at the statute. So that would be my take on that piece. The committee brings up a lot of interesting points. I'll just share my screen and bring up the language just so we could look at it. And to give a preview of what I'm thinking while I do this is adding a definition of noncommercial seed might be the best way to go. Could talk about it.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. And There it is.

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: Just wondering, where did this language come from? Was it the agency provided it to us or did they put their heads together with ASTA, for example, for this?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Well, I don't know. The agency gave us this language maybe word for word, Bradley. I don't know if we had any if you took it and massaged it at all. But before that, I don't know whether it came where it came from.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. And I mean,

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: it seems like almost like a boilerplate thing that was borrowed from somewhere.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Yeah.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that is a good question. I mean, this language came from the agency, I don't recall touching it. So I I none of my handiwork is in there. And I'm I have the the national standards up, but I'm just kinda doing a quick control find for the word for the definition of distribute, and I actually don't see it in theirs, but they might use some other term. So so I'm my my hunch is that this is a my hunch is that this is a from the from the agency based on kind of their analysis. If I find it later in the, the national standards, which we will go to when we look at noncommercial seeds, I'll let you folks know. So the committee raised a couple of interesting and good points. The committee and the witnesses raised some interesting good points here. Because I don't think taking out the word barter or supply would necessarily get at what would necessarily kind of reach the goal. So based on what I'm hearing, I think the goal is to allow individuals to share seeds with no expectation of anything in return. Right? And so someone can give someone seeds for one thing and you're not even expecting something back. Right? So, mean, I guess technically bartering means you expect something back. So, you're bartering for some other seeds. If I give you my corn seeds, you'll give me your watermelon seeds. So, that is bartering. And so, someone seeds, though, might itself fall under the definition of distribute here. And I'm not sure that that's necessarily the intent. So the way that representative Nelson just gave

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: us seeds as a gift.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Potentially, because the word supply oftentimes has a financial context, but, you know, doesn't necessarily have a financial context. That's not 100% certain. And so I think narrowing to, have a definition of whether it's a definition of noncommercial seeds or gifting or or something of that sort. Representative Burtt also made an interesting point too. Can you produce your own seeds for your own farm? And that is an interesting question because it raises a couple more issues. One, you know, if we're envisioning just someone who doesn't have a farm and they just are planting things out in their backyard and then they have their own seeds and then they kind of grow and grow and grow, but they're not farming, right? It's just kind of a hobbyist thing. That might be one thing. But if you have a large scale farm that is in the business of producing seeds, but it's also a farmer, is that a different scenario, And so someone's in the business of producing seeds, and can they take their own seeds and essentially give it or sell it to themselves as the farmer? And do we want to capture that in this labeling requirement? So, there's a touch of a distinction there. And obviously, that's a policy decision of what the committee would want to envision in that scenario. Suffice to say, at minimum, I do recommend some kind of definition of non commercial seeds and have that be an exception from distribute.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: And then together, those things would address what you think you've heard.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think so. Think so. The other issue I heard was and this bill does use the word non commercial.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: And that's not defined, I think.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: And yes.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: And that is point that the I think that the trade association was bringing up that it wasn't a definition.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. Right. Right. And so and and that's 100% correct. And so Page 21. Yes. It is page 21, line four. And so this is an exemption. I'm I'm scrolling up now. So on page 19, page 19, section six forty eight is registration and reporting. And then so no person shall distribute c without registering annually. And then a subsection a, subsection b, the following shall be except for registration requirements. Seed not intended for sowing purposes, seed in storage or consigned to a seed cleaning or processing establishment, seeds grown, sold, and delivered by a producer and on the producer's own premises. Oh, okay. For seeding purposes, they wouldn't necessarily have to register. So the ultimate consumer providing such seeds has neither been advertised for sale nor been delivered by a commercial carrier and provided the seed contains no prohibited prohibited noxious weed seeds, and is that, more than 2,000 seeds. And and so this is the addition here that we're discussing today. Interpersonal sharing of seed for home, educational, charitable, or personal noncommercial use. So, they'd be already exempt from the registration requirement. And it sounds like adding exemption from the labeling requirement might also be something the committee isn't interested in doing. And so, that could be done with a similar exemption from the labeling requirement, and then also adding a definition of non commercial seeds to the definition section of the bill.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: All right. Well, why don't we then charge you, Bradley, when you have an opportunity in the near future to bring us back some proposed changes there. Yeah, John.

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: I just wonder, was seed defined in this too?

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, different kinds of seeds are defined in the I wonder,

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: like seed potatoes, do they fall into this?

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Excuse me? Potatoes. Seed potatoes.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: Starter potatoes.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, I see, I see, I see. I would have to kind of examine the definitions of seeds because we have agricultural seed, flower seed, weed seed, noxious weed seeds, and then there's some other definitions that are currently in statute. So I'd have to, my hunch is, I would have to just dig into that piece a little bit more just to make sure because there are just different categories of things here.

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: And some seeds like black sunflower seed or corn for cattle or seeds, Not

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: intended for sowing. So it's not not in its definition. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's not in its definition.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: And one thing I did wanna show the committee, and it's gonna require me to stop sharing and then reshare because I'll just I just wanted to show the definition of noncommercial. I'll just share my screen for a minute. And so this is the These are the Association of American Seeds recommended uniform state seed law. It's what yeah. Yeah. And so, the noncommercial seed sharing was That was shared with the committee by a different witness earlier. That's the same definition here. I don't know if that person mentioned it, but the definition of noncommercial seed is what you saw earlier. It means no monetary consideration or compensation may be transferred in return for receiving seeds. Additionally, anyone distributing seeds under these rules, the rules of this definition may not expect or create expectation that seeds must be returned in exchange for receiving seeds. Right? And so just giving them without the expectation that you're going to get something in return, that's different. And if distribution of seeds is found to be in anticipation of connection to money paid for work or services rendered by the same person distributing seeds, such distribution shall not be considered non commercial with these rules.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: So I just wanted to check. So the seed swap that Maddie talked about at the NOFA conference, that would be, I mean, the table's full of seeds and you might put seeds in, or you might just pick some up, but you might get some in exchange for yours. So it's not that you can't get something, you just can't require it if you're doing it under that informal methodology.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that's right. I think that's right. Because usually when you're bartering, a contract can be oral. You can have an oral contract. I'll give you X, you give me Y. And those seed conferences, as far as I understand them, that's not the case. You go there and you might strike gold and say, hey, this is what I want. I've been wanting this forever. And then you might go there and you're just like, well, is They had a lot of business. Good.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Okay. So you'll find something. But you you you there is no the legal term is consideration. Right? So but there's no tit for tat. Yeah. And you could walk away with nothing or you could walk away with a a big bag. And and that's just kinda luck of the draw, and I think that that would not be covered.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So hang on a second. I just went before we leave this, and then John had a question too. The language on page 16, Bradley, and you don't need to pull it up unless you've got it handy again there, but so this is where the farm seed law is referred to. The of a related concern that I think our producers just shared was the broad ability here that we would be giving the Secretary to apply any other term or definition. Striking that, I think was one suggestion that they had. And I don't know whether the committee supports that or not, but I just want to flag that too, where we've cited that. But John? Just wondering, a scenario of where you're sharing an order.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So let's say Richard buys a bag of seed when he eats half a bag of seed and I need to have a bag of seed, he pays a $100 for it. He takes his half bag and sells me the other half for 15. Would be both. Is that bartering or is that non commercial sharing

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: or something else?

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that's commercial sharing, right?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's not a commercial transaction that he's got a bag and he's just selling me what's left and that we've agreed ahead of time. He only needs half a bag, need and he's gonna make the order.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah. And I think that that's an interesting question because you could see that two ways. One is you could see it as representative Nelson making the purchase and then you Venmoing him a 100 he got he did a $100 purchase and you Venmoing him half and then he gives you half. And the purchase is actually from a third party. And the arrangement that the two of you have isn't necessarily its own sale. Yeah. You could. You're essentially splitting the cost of one sale, right, as opposed to representative Nelson buys seed and then is in turns around and sells it to you. I think if we had a scenario where the agreement isn't necessarily to split the cost outright and, you know, and I buy a thousand dollars worth of seed and I only need a $100 worth of seed, so I have $900 worth of seeds left over and I'm selling it, I might be responsible for ensuring that there's those seeds are labeled. And I might also have to register because I'm now potentially a commercial seller.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: And if it were a seed that had intellectual property rights, you might not be able to do that

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: at Yeah, might not be able to do that at all. So I would have to also follow a whole bunch of other laws to make sure that I am selling something lawfully.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: This happens actually, there's happened in our community, not with seed, but with onion starts. One guy who had a whole big order and people from all over town go to him and they pay for their little share of that pile of onion starts. He's not a distributor, he's just had an order and but

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: It happens. Yeah, I'm working cooperatively. Represent Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Can you go back to the definition of non commercial?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Okay. So noncommercial seats, Sharon. No money consideration or compensation may be transferred and returned from receiving seats. So you're you're under the if we put this definition in that what they do with the NOFA thing would be allowed.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I would say yes.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Okay. And I agree with you. And then this teach me for getting arrested for giving away watermelon tea. Hope you get the rest. But, know, but, you know, that's the fun that's the sarcastic part of me, but it it would allow people to have weddings that give away the wildflower packet seeds, you know, sow these wildflowers in honor of our nuptials, and you'll be reminded of them every June when they bloom and and whatnot. So I you know, or, you know, food is good, and they get a bunch of seeds, and they give them away to people so they can have a small container garden at their house. I I think we should include this language because it would cover it could cover what NOFA does, along with a few other changes.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: You may wanna hear from NOFA because I think that this is the language that had been suggested by the seed association and more concerned about the language. So we rather than find ourselves tomorrow back here dealing with it, maybe we can try and work that out before we put the language in. And I'm not able to say what it is that the concern was specifically here. Representative Basilie?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: Yeah. I know there there was a situation some years ago in India where there were genetically modified sort of superfoods that the farmers would get these seeds and they were really productive, but they weren't allowed to save the seed because it was considered, I think, a violation of copyright or whatever the intellectual property rights. And it was really problematic because historically that was how people got their seed was they saved their seed and they were told, no, you can't save seed. And so I just want to make sure if we're making any changes that we're not making it so that we can't save and share our own seeds. Because to me, seeds are a thing from nature. Nature. And it's one thing if somebody is making some genetically modified thing and they don't want you to resell that one. But there are lots of seeds that just come from the things that we plant. And if I take a bunch of seeds out of my butternut squash and I have a bunch of them that are dry and I'm like, wow, I had a great crop of butternut squash this year. I'm gonna use my own seeds. Like, I just don't want us to be doing something that's going to make it harder for people to grow their food because that's what we're supposed to be supporting on this committee.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So as

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: long as that transaction is non commercial, I don't see additional requirements in this bill. Non commercial and we make the changes that we're talking about. I don't see this bill requiring some additional work or on behalf of the person who's growing a butternut squash

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: And sharing the

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: seeds with friends.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: It's a good prop.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: So but the caveat is, is if there is a some intellectual property right in the seed, there might be an intellectual property interest that would prevent someone from reselling the seed or distributing it in some way. That might be an intellectual property right above and beyond what we're talking about in this bill here. And I'm not familiar with the nuts and bolts of how that might work. But I can imagine someone with a patent on something that if you reproduce that thing through a natural process, them starting that process by sending you a cease and desist letter saying stop sharing all of these seeds. They're my seeds. And having that play out, I think that that's a possibility both under current law and if this passes. I don't think this does anything to change that other than requiring labeling, which is kind of a consumer protection piece in addition to protecting intellectual property because it tells you what's in it. And if you're selling the seed, you're required to disclose what's in the thing. And so I think that that is at least in part the intellectual property protection. But whether someone can say, those are actually my seeds and whether you grew them yourself based on the product that you got, you can't sell that. And I think potentially someone could have a problem with that.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: So, yeah, I don't know that we can write statute that violates or that somehow interferes with IP rights. So we'll make sure we don't do that or do our best to avoid doing that while at the same time not granting any more rights to a seed company than we want on behalf. I think that's what we're trying to do here. I think that's right. I wonder whether we can adjust the concerns that were heard without including a definition, if that's possible. If it's not, then we'll need to come back and figure out what that data needs to be. But I think the definition that's here was problematic from their standpoint. Okay.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Bradley,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: the exemptions that are listed in page 20. Yep,

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: page 20. The B is where the exemption start. And this would be exemptions from registering annually.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Registering annually. But this isn't exemptions for labeling. That's correct. Technically, the watermelon radish seeds that the Red Nelson gave us, we should have been labeled.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Potentially according to this, according to literally

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: It says watermelon radish.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Okay. You

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: might want to look and see if you have to put, you know Block number.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: QR code. So

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: really it only has to do with registration. Is there a way to just include exemptions for the labeling as well?

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's what we were discussing. Yeah. But I think that that would require a definition of noncommercial seats. And so I think if the definition from Russell is problematic, I think the committee should potentially try and perhaps take testimony on a language that would not be problematic or identify what is problematic with that language. Because I think just striking the word barter or supply does not as cleanly get at the issues. I think barter is essentially a commercial transaction of a different kind. You know, I I think that that would be more in the kind of more traditional contract realm. So what representative Nelson did with the watermelon seeds is not necessarily bartering. It's a gift. And but I think that could apply under supply, the word supply. If you take the word supply out, does that have unintended consequences on the commercial side? Potentially, maybe not. You know, there's there's a question mark over that. So if we took out the word supply, I think you could get away with gifting under the statue. But I would really have to chew on whether something could get through on the commercial side. Exactly. Exactly. So, my recommendation would be finding a definition of noncommercial seed, putting that in the definition section. That also defines it for the registration exemption and then adding an exemption for the labeling requirement, I think would be the good way to keep the committee's goals here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Got it. The noncommercial definition, though, says no money. So that doesn't help me when I buy my half bag of seed. So that's where the barter word tends to come out.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: I'll be right back. John, point that the vice counsel was making that you're pop sharing on the seat. You're not actually buying them. I think he would be paying him for the seat.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Yeah. You're I don't see how to talk to you're a problem. You know, we're looking at a lot of problems and, you know, we don't have a lot of seed cops in the state.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: I know. Well, we don't wanna make it any more work for the agency. I mean, they they didn't on municipal bylaw, they didn't want to have to go out to everybody's backyard, right? Count chickens. Yeah, they don't want to count seeds either. But I do think, in the case of something like seed packet coming in the mail from an unknown source, there might want to be some sort of language about it, if the secretary deems it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to be a biosecurity.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: I don't know.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: So and then yeah,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: that's that's all want to make.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: It says right here that, you know, it talks about noxious weed seeds and prohibited and and then you know if you're growing your own seed for yourself right you know on page 20, line 15 down near the bottom, know, you provide, you know, the seed contains no more, no prohibited noxious weed seeds or or not more than one restricted noxious weed seed per two two thousand seeds, you know, and you know, when you when you buy seed, it'll say, you know, you'll have an exemption for that point 02% of seed that may not be what you want. Now it's not like cleaning off the top of

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: the rotary

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: bore June when the Timothy's all headed out and you get all that seed there, which people have been known to take scattering to bald spots in the field. Yeah. For themselves.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, sounds like legislative council has some ideas about language. Wait

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: for the profound Well,

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, to that end, I do think that the committee would benefit from sussing out the definition of noncommercial. Whether that requires taking more testimony or sussing it out here, I do think a non commercial SEED definition is probably the best way to siphon off what the committee is considering right now while also making sure that commercial activity is taken, is subject to labeling registration requirements. Before we forget, representative Durfee, your point earlier about the rulemaking piece, which I don't remember where that was now. Oh, the so what's on the screen now? The subsection b, giving the secretary authority to adopt rules and definitions from the American Association of American Seed Control officials. Russell? I mean, this this potentially I mean, if the secretary did rulemaking, the secretary could adopt the definition of noncommercial seeds, because that's in Russell. And so I think the committee doesn't necessarily have to decide now, but I would prefer some instruction about whether or not to take

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: this piece out. Yeah. Okay. All right.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Good. Are we I thought when I stepped out, everyone would have solved this.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Sure. Want to.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: We didn't back to you. Okay. And I'm not sure whether NOFA stayed on or not and was able to hear this the latter part of this conversation, but I'll check with them. They were all okay. I'll check with them. Good, thank you, everybody. I think that was a good discussion and see if we can come up with something that is more or less amenable to everybody. Just wanted to, I didn't expect to go, need to go as long in this part of the conversation. I think our afternoon floor may be not terribly long, so let's check-in

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: start at of

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: the hour, and if people can come back in the committee, can continue. If you're I don't if you're available either, Bradley. Okay.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I I think yeah. I don't think I have anything on my calendar for this afternoon. Okay. If Patricia can just ping me.

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: So we

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: I'm thinking sort of about the arc of the rest of the session. And I hadn't been thinking so much about that. I knew that at some point we were going to be leaving my full year. Possibly And because last year we stayed so late into May, May, and then came back, that we might end up in the same situation because of the education bill still being an issue. But I've been hearing now that maybe there's some positive movement and we may not be here until summer. And I don't want to be caught black footed on particularly in the municipal regulation piece. The Senate pass, or the Senate Ag Committee did pass with amendment, our nine forty one yesterday. It's a major amendment, it's a strike all amendment. And it's similar to what the agency presented to us last week. That bill will go under the Senate floor sometime. And then if it takes three days, if it does take three days, it'll be middle of next week before we get it back. They might expedite it. But short of that, we could still, I think we had to take some testimony using this bill since we still have sections one through three there. So, Bradley, I wonder whether we could have you show us kind of a side by side of what we passed and what now the Senate has amended it. And I think kind of high level doesn't necessarily be sort of line by line, but whatever is convenient for you, just so we can see what's there, what's different, what do we like about it, what would we like to change. Maybe we can do that this afternoon if there's time.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: And if not, we can find something else.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Don't we really have three versions at this point? The one that's in the Senate bill?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Yes. And the one rebassed and then their amendment. Yeah, and I'm thinking, and I say side by side, not including the one that's in sections I one through don't think that we're planning, anybody's planning to go ahead with that. But we can have it, we can certainly, if somebody wants to, we can do that. Just making sure that Yeah. Easier. Yeah. All right. Do have any Bradley, any concerns about that or

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. No. I should be able to get that by the time you folks get back.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Alright. Well, let's see. We may not it may be that it's too late in the afternoon by the time we're done there, but

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: can post and I'll be here.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: It may also only be an hour plus. Checking in on other bills. They happened to ask about the baby food bill and apparently that was voted out of committee this morning. Parapat definitely was yesterday, yep. Our municipal at 09:42 sorry, the miscellaneous 942, Greg's They

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: have some amendments that I'm in tomorrow morning on.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Okay. So that's still going.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: Mhmm. About Rancho Garden.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not familiar. That one's not

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: on the

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: That was a different into housing in general.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Maybe you can check on that. Yeah. See where that is, Michelle. Yeah. Because it'd be good to get that.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: What's the number again? Yeah,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: 537.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun — Member]: There we go.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: And then the Wood Products Manufacturers Bill is in Senate natural, and there's a small amendment there, I think. Okay. Anybody have anything else right now?

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Sometime we gotta talk about the the stakeholder KFO stakeholder.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. We're gonna well, we will just add that language in, I think, at this point. Yeah. If the commissioner, I don't think is able to testify on it. And

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: we have some questions, or maybe some One of the stakeholder group has some thoughts on the appropriation. Oh, okay. We can discuss at some time. So

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: that language, the stakeholder group proposed, maybe we could look at that quickly this afternoon too, Bradley. For the cable group? Yeah, the amendment.

[Bradley Schommel — Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. I think Mike is working on that. Was that Mike?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Right. I'll check with him. Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: If not today, tomorrow. Okay.

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: Coming back half of the floor?

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: If it's not terribly late.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: A month of little rainy.

[Rep. John O'Brien — Member]: And I don't But in your rights.

[Rep. Richard Nelson — Ranking Member]: Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt — Member]: Not that bad. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee — Chair]: Let's break that and

[Maddie Kempner — NOFA-VT]: we'll