Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: We are live.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Good afternoon, everyone. House government operations and military affairs. Today is Tuesday, February 17, and we are picking up committee work starting off with h six three two, an act relating to miscellaneous environmental amendments. What we're doing right now is a flyby on sections of a larger piece of legislation that's been worked on in our house environment committee. There's a couple of pieces that touch our purview. So we're gonna hear about the work, that's going on up there and take a peek at that section or sections, with counsel. But first, I'd like to invite

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Matthew here now?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. But we're live. How are you? His head's up. We're on

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: yep. Oh,

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm sorry. No worries. It's all good. Mr. Chair. Alright. So we'll start things off with Gavin. Who is the Deputy Commissioner,

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: Department of Environmental Conservation. We need more of those good folks over in my department doing good work like that.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon,

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: everybody. So for the record, Neil Kamen, I am deputy commissioner DEC. I won't take too much of your time today. I'm working on a bill in chair Sheldon's committee with a number of miscellaneous environmental modifications changes that we're seeking. The language that we want to talk about I want to talk about today actually was born last year and did not make it into our miscellaneous bill last year, although a related provision did. So let me just kind of state what this is about. At the turn of the administration, there was a tremendous amount of discussion around changes in rules, in particular environmental rules at the federal level. And there is concern at our agency that, you know, we have rules that protect Vermonters and protect Vermont's environment that are reliant on federal rules. So if those federal rules go away, then those rules that we are reliant on that we're implementing sort of the fact that they exist federally, that creates a challenge for us to be able to do that. So last year, we got some legislation through Act 57 that basically says that if the if Vermont has duly adopted a rule that contains reference to federal, that if the federal rule gets rescinded or aggregated, as long as Vermont continues to publish the federal rule provisions, so that they're available for Vermonters, that the rule sticks. So that it didn't cut out our ability to regulate good things, to preserve Vermonters' quality of life, health, and environment. There was a separate piece that we had been seeking, and that's the piece that Mr. O'Grady will speak to you about in a moment, which was an emergency rulemaking provision in the event that there was a federal change that actually materially affected the ability of Vermont to protect Vermonters and to implement current state law. So, the idea there would be if the federal government either rescinded an existing rule or set forth a new rule or executive order that directed changes that were deleterious to Vermonters, that the agency would be able to undergo an emergency rulemaking to preserve our ability to protect Vermonters for a time limited period of time. And the key language, and Mr. O'Grady, I'm sure I'll go through, is, you know, that the additional basis to initiate an urgency rulemaking would address any gaps in state protections that result from changes in federal policy that conflicts with or jeopardizes an agency's or department's ability to fulfill its statutory mandate. So, Assembly has requirements. If there are federal changes that disallow us from being able to do it, that's the basis for the emergency rule making. There's a whole process for emergency rule making, it's already in statute, so we're not asking for anything particularly new, we're just asking for an additional basis. This wouldn't change the process at all, nor would it change LCAR legislative committee on administrative rules engagement. Right? So there would always be that. Let's see. And just kind of wanna provide a couple flavors of some of the things that we've seen that do materially affect on my agency's ability to implement. The executive orders requiring federal agencies this was a federal executive order fourteen two nineteen from February. Agencies to identify unlawful regulations within sixty days and act to rescind those at the federal level. So, unlawful being fairly loosely defined. Direction from the White House to federal agencies that they bypass formal federal rulemaking and instead use a provision called good cause, which would allow an agency, a federal agency, to just eliminate the rule because some error might have been made, and hopefully, Vice Council, I'm not getting too far over my skis here. But it's very it's it's a concerning finding across shot through all agencies of state government, not just mine. But I'm gonna give you

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Yeah. Yep. Hooper.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Can you talk a little more about that? It sounds like sounds like you maybe want him to.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: What is that?

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: They can just delete rules?

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: Yeah, I think that I'm not as read in on this, but there is a there is a provision. It's like a good cause provision somewhere deep in federal Yeah. Regulation that if a rule was adopted erroneously, that an agency can abrogate that rule. It's been a while since I studied up on this.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, understand.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: We haven't seen it happen, luckily, but this is this is a thing that made us stand up and take notice. For example, we have rules on, you know, the amount of copper that cannot be in drinking water. And what if, agency, either the PA or another agency says, you know what? Yeah. We made a mistake on that rule. It's off the books. So we already have copper rules by incorporation, so last year's statute would attach, but another thing, this this would provide belt and suspenders against another prospective change. But, let me let me hit you with one that is in the news right now. Sure. EPA just the EPA just rescinded what's called the endangerment finding. And the endangerment finding was the fundamental buttress of efforts to deal with climate change. So as a result of the removal of the endangerment finding, it is very likely we're gonna see a number of rules fall off the books because they no longer have the endangerment finding as a buttress. Think auto emissions,

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: things like that.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: We don't have a lot of large emission sources in Vermont, but auto emissions is one and they do get regulated. There's a lot to that, but I was asked in in house appropriations during our budget testimony about the, you know, the endangerment finding. It is completely possible that there therefore would be changes to vehicle emissions, which then would take out our ability to, you know, manage those. So, therefore, the emergency rulemaking provision. Representative Hooper. So, so far you've leaned on elimination

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: of the foundation for our That's the Fed's just modified them significantly to a to a lower level than we're enforcing now.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: If So it's not an elimination. Yeah.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: I believe the way this language works is if if that were to happen in a way that keeps Vermont from implementing Vermont law that protects Vermonters, then we could use emergency rulemaking provision to put those back. Again, And it's time limited as Legis Council O'Grady will tell you about. When we incorporate by reference, it becomes a state rule. There's a lot of intersection between the last year's piece of of of legislation in this, and that's why I keep looking over at Ledge Council O'Grady. He understands this just a little bit better than me. We'll dive into that in more detail with

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So the

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: the way we would do this is, you know, we would implement emergency rulemaking. When we do that, the rules would go into effect immediately, but only for 180 period of time, while we worked to actually bring the rule proper, through the proper process. Legislative committee on on rules always has the ability to object, and if they do, they have. It's okay. And I'm sorry. You said a hundred and eighty days? Yeah. So that's the way emergency rulemaking works, is you have a hundred eighty once we file an emergency rule, PFAS and drinking water in Bennington a while back. Right? So we needed to deal with that, and we needed to deal with it fast. But then

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: we went through and

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: Understood. So I get it's a little bit it's a little bit policy meaty, but you are a policy committee, so no worries there. I appreciate it. Robert Hooper, Rowenton.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: So just to be the issue to death, if as the Feds seem to be a to do this round, they basically said it, we're changing this and no state or other jurisdiction may

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: do something different than the rule we've set.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: I think that doesn't quite work that way, even though I think the administration might want it to, because, you know, we've got the cooperative federalism, so states have the ability to be as or more protective than the federal government. Exactly. But the so California, great example. Right? Because the the whole foundation of California's waiver from the Clean Air Act requirements also sits on top of the arrangement. So and I'm way close to being completely over the front

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: of my skis. Did we adopt California?

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: Yes, were part of a consortium of states that handles California.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: Anything

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: else for Mr. Cheaven? No, thank you for

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: that answer. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. I will just sit right there and be here until this discussion is done

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: if needed. Gotcha. And is it just you today? Because I did have mister Martin on the Yes. Centralist. So okay. Cool. I just wanna make sure we weren't missing someone. We chatted.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Should I begin? Council, welcome.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We don't So this

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: is Michael Grady with legislative council. Before we get into the actual language that's in h six thirty two, I think you need a little bit more background. So you're you're amending the Administrative Procedure Act, which is something that's been held by authority. And the Administrative Procedure Act sets out all the requirements, among other things, for adopting rules by agencies. There's a lot of notice and comment. There's a lot of thresholds. There's review by an interagency committee on administrative rules. The agency has to put the rule out for comment. They have to respond to any comment. They have to submit the rule to you. They have a LCAR for review. And as you may imagine, that can take some time. So so if you hit every single one of those procedural deadlines, like, right to the second, an agency can issue a rule in four and a half to five months. But it usually takes eight to ten because you have public hearings. So hundreds and hundreds of comments, it takes time for an agency to respond to those. But there are situations, as you might imagine, where you, the General Assembly, or an agency needs to act quickly. And that is what the emergency rules provision underneath the APA allows for. So you don't have to go through the five to eight to ten month process. You don't have to go out for notice and comment. You have to go quickly to rulemaking. And generally, right now, it's allowed for two instances. One instance is when there's an imminent peril to public health, safety, welfare. So there's something crazy that's happening. The one that I think of is when there was chronic wasting disease in deer, and it was discovered in Vermont, and there was concern that it was going to spread to dairy cattle. And the agency of AG went to a rulemaking and went to legislation all within one week. They passed a rule, emergency rule. They passed legislation. All it happened so quickly. It was amazing. But that type of imminent threat is what emergency rule is partly allowed for. Another one is when the federal government changes a law, changes a statute, and dictates that the state has to do something or is allowed to do something, but the state doesn't have time to do the five to eight month rule process. So in in addition to the imminent threat to to health safety, etcetera, they can, adopt an emergency rule in the following situation. The existing rules implement a program controlled by federal statute or rule. The controlling federal statute or rule has been amended to require a change in the program, but the multi state entity has made a change in the program that is to be implemented in all of the participating states. Controlling federal statute or rule of the other multi state entity requires implementation with one hundred and twenty days or less, and the adopting authority finds each of the following. The agency can't meet the date. Failure to amend the rules by the date required would cause significant harm to public health, safety, or the financial loss to the state. And on the date the emergency rule amended was adopted, the adopting authority pre files the corresponding permanent rule. So let me give you an example of this. It used to be something that happened every year in my field until the General Assembly changed it. So the Migratory Bird Treaty Act dictates how many birds that are migratory birds that a hunter can take each fall. And they issue that in September. Hunting season in Vermont for migratory birds starts in October. There was no way that you were ever gonna do a full scale rulemaking to implement those migratory bird treaty act thresholds in rule. So every year, you did this emergency rule, and it was it was kind of like a total emergency because you had, like, twenty days to get this this thresholds for hunting in into rule. And it was significantly if you didn't, then you wouldn't have a hunting season, and you would have had significant state financial loss. So you did that every year, and it got exhausting. And you ultimately went to a process where you allowed the Department of Fish and Wildlife to adopt it by a procedure, not by rule, So they could just as soon as they got the information from the feds, they could publish it, and that was that. But there are provisions like that that happen all the time. Safe drinking water, air pollution. It comes in and the state doesn't have the ability to make that change right away. What you're looking at here is the opposite of that. Instead of the feds telling you to do something, the feds themselves are taking something away or changing something that you, the general assembly or a state agency, relied on when you adopted a rule or when you adopted legislation. And deputy commissioner gave one great example, the air pollution control regs. There are over 60 references to federal rule in that in that state. So if you change just some of those federal rules, it could have a significant effect on how that state program operates. And it's not just environmental. Like the the DFR security regulations, banking, etcetera, the DFR banking reg has over 80 references to federal. So and that's being amended at the federal level now as well. And as deputy commissioner noted, there is that executive order that directs all federal agencies to look at their rules to see if those rules potentially were adopted under precedent that has become no longer valid. And the key rule or key precedent is called Chevron. It's Chevron versus NRDC. And what that case said is that agencies are given deference when they go into rulemaking and they are interpreting ambiguous term. And so the agency's interpretation gets deference. And that deference has been the basis of many, many, many federal rules. Well, the Supreme Court, two and a half years ago, repealed Chevron and said the agencies don't get deference. And that's what that executive order that the president issued probably said. Hey. If that was the basis of your rule, that deference, well, you have good cause to repeal it without going through notice and comment because it's no longer practical. It's no longer implementable. Agency, you should repeal that federal rule. Chevron is incredibly important part of certain environmental regulations, incredibly important part of banking regulations. If you repeal those rules, those programs will stop. And you won't have the ability to adopt a a full scale rule for five to eight months. So for five to eight months, you have a program that would be limping along because it no longer would have its reliance on the federal rules that it was initially used, that were initially used to adopt the state rule. And there are some instances, federal law, where you can't go beyond federal law. The Federal Food Drug Cosmetic Act, states can adopt all the legislation they want on federal food and drugs, but it has to be exactly the same as the FDA. You can't go beyond that. But most federal rules allow you to go beyond that to adopt things that are more stringent or more protected because it's the tenth amendment, what is not reserved or not as explicitly used by the federal government as reserved to the states. And you do that legislating every day, regulations by agencies every day. So that's your authority. And what this is intended to do is to ensure that your state programs, that you could use federal law to build, continue on as if the federal law had not been repealed or had not been amended. So what it does, in addition to those two emergency rules grounds, I I said imminent peril. The federal government is mandating you do something and you don't have the time to do it. This would allow for emergency rulemaking, if an amendment to federal statute, rule, or policy will material conflict with or threaten the ability of the agency to implement a statutory or regulatory program required under Vermont law. On a majority vote of the entire committee, LCAR may object to a proposed emergency rule for adoption on the basis that it doesn't meet these requirements. Now, again, as Deputy Commissioner noted, emergency rules are only available for one hundred and eighty days. Technically, you can come back and say, Hey, want another emergency rule, and LCAR can grant that. But it doesn't happen that often. Because when you file your emergency rule, you're supposed to start a permanent rulemaking. You're supposed to, hey, we're not going to do this on an emergency basis forever. We're going to go to permanent rulemaking and do what's necessary for that permanent rule. And this is only going to be available, at least for now, for two years until July 2028, at which point you will have seen this in action most likely, and see whether or not it's working or if it's needed. And if it's not needed, you can let the sunset go and repeal. If you want this to continue on, regardless of who the administration is, then you can keep that on the books as well and repeal the sunset. That's basically what this I saw a

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: hand from Robert Hooper and then I think I have a question. I think you have to, but when the determining body convicts the exceptions.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No, it's going to be the agency. The agency, when you do rule making, the agency basically said, we're going to emergency rule making. Because it's imminent there or or now because the federal rule or or statute has been repealed, we cannot continue with this program without invoking this emergency rule. And then you're supposed to give whatever notice is practicable to the public, but in reality, no notice is really given to the public. It then goes to LCAR, and and LCAR has that ability to review and see if it meets the the one of the now three thresholds. And I've seen a rule get turned down because it wasn't deemed to be imminent peril. You know, fuel mileage wasn't wasn't in imminent peril. But now if California's authority goes away and the multiple rules that are in the air pollution control regs are repealed, I don't know how the state implements those rules in in an effective way. It

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: would

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: have to go to rulemaking, but it wouldn't be able to get through that rulemaking, I would say, for at least eight months. So you have a wounded program that's not effective in its implementation that ultimately will fix itself through final rulemaking, permanent rulemaking. What do you do with that interim? And that's what this is. It's that interim. It gives that agency the ability to continue on until it has the time to to adopt a a permanent reward. It has the time to come to you and put whatever is necessary into statute, because that's another option.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, yeah, so it's it's affording the opportunity to react to it quickly, so then the other process can play itself out. But with that interim period, it's providing stability to current practice law rules and regulations. Medicaid.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Medicaid, you would think it has a ton of reliance on federal rules. It doesn't. But the the the rules that it does rely on, federal are pretty important rules. So if those rules were repealed, how are you going to implement Vermont Medicaid? It devastating would to some people. And so how do you bridge that gap?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think the question that I had kind of popping around in my head is like a little bit more of like a continuity process, is like using these samples in and around like environmental practice. Like Lake Champlain, for example, like with New York, share that lake, right, it's within the borders of our states. Is there like a need for continuity between, are there states looking at this, trying to preference the same kind of thing as we've kind of share this workload in and around those practices?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a really interesting question, and it's got a really confusing answer. Alright. So the basis is the same. States have to adopt water quality standards, and they have to go out every three years to determine if the water quality standards meet or met. If they're not met, they have to adopt a plan to clean up those waters, and that plan is called a TMDL. TMDL has its own little plan called an implementation plan that accompanies it. Originally, Vermont, New York, and even Quebec signed on to a plan up the lake, and they were all consistently moving forward with that plan. So it was uniform. It was continuity. But New York is in Region 2 of EPA. Vermont is in Region 1 of EPA. And when the advocates petitioned to disallow the TMBL, they only petitioned Region one. And Region one only had authority to disallow the TMDL for Vermont. And what that meant is that Vermont had to come up, well, technically what it meant is that EPA had to issue its own plan. Because once EPA disapproves the plan, it's EPA's responsibility. But EPA didn't want to do it. And what the state did instead is said, hey, we can do it more effectively, but we have to adopt all these new programs. Those programs aren't in New York. The three acre stormwater permit, it's not in New York. The forest management provisions, except in management practices, they're not in New York. There's a long list of things that Vermont had to do in order to get EPA to allow it to go forward. And so you're not in continuity with New York anymore, which makes some people disgruntled, but it has a legal basis. But there probably are some programs that have the need for continuity, interstate transport of pretty much anything. Whether it's you you have if it's a hazardous material, it needs to meet the Hazardous Materials Act. That's incorporated into Vermont's solid waste and hazardous waste. You're moving cattle. You have to to comply with interstate requirements for the movement of cattle. And, like so you want those to be the same as as neighboring states. And so yeah. There's there's potentially need for continuity, but you're also gonna need time in those other states for them to fix the bridge until they get to to a permanent rule.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I don't think that was a confusing answer at all. Let's thank you for that. Yeah. For, kind of entertaining my curiosity on that, I appreciate it. Any other question from counsel on this? Yes, Rebecca.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I guess I'll just ask a question that maybe we don't know the answer. This comes from the Committee on Environment. What was the discussion like in their room and why did they feel like they wanted to bring this about? Why did they want to bring this about? Well,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the discussion was pretty similar to the discussion I just had with you. But the agency of Natural Resources did request this change because they are concerned about the viability of their programs. And so that's really the basis. The committee upstairs, there was discussion about timing, how long should this be, when should the sunset be. They just went with two years. It's not trying to undermine any particular administration. July 2028, the Trump administration's still going to be in office. There's they just thought two years was a good time frame for purposes of reviewing the effectiveness of this.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Great, thank you. That's helpful. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any votes for council? Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: You're welcome. I'm gonna stop the share now.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, committee. I know that Chair Sheldon wants to try and vote this out this week. I feel like I have a good understanding of intent behind this, why it's being proposed. If I was just gonna ask for suggestion, discuss, wanted to discuss any of this or folks are comfortable giving it a thumbs up on these sections that are relevant to the section.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Right, I know. I had not looked at this bill before, and really don't fully get the implications of it. So, I guess I would like more time before I could weigh in on it accurately, but open that up to everybody else.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Feelings from others? I was going say how quickly can we agree and move to something else, but Representative Hooper of Burlington. If we,

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: based on the current administration, past administration or past administration had to implement this type of thing already due to changes in rules?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Not not to my recollection. No. But remember that executive order, and really, it was the supreme court decision on doing Chevron. I I mean, that was a generational decision that that potentially does hundreds of rules. And so you didn't have to address something like that previously. And Chevron, 1987, I think, and it built up over time, and courts were very, I don't want say quick, it became the law. It became the rule of law, and they would just implement Chevron. And so you have these rules that were being upheld because of this deference to the agency. Now that deference is gone. And now it's up to the courts according to the Supreme Court.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: If I'm understanding it correctly, it seems like this is a tool for the legislature to use to keep things as consistent and reliable as possible for everyone that does business and lives in Vermont and not be prey to sudden changes. So I'm okay with it as is. Is it okay with more time?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's very accurate. And you're not creating opportunity for litigation for each type of rule that might be repealed, and then that gap opens up. That kind of gap terrifies me. Because one year I drafted a bill and I left the wetlands of the state unprotected for like six months. And if somebody had figured that out, they could have dealt a lot. But they didn't. That's the kind of gap that you would be dealing with. What would happen if these federal rules were repealed and there wasn't a basis to implement or enforce the programs that the agency has been implementing and administering. That's the kind of gap that could happen.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We will grab Hango and then Hooper, and then I think the gallery might want to chime in.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: Yes, the

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: gallery is allowed. The gallery is allowed, sir. Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: My question would be this would if this were an option, this bill, then it could be used as precedent for any other federal program that the state administers. Is that correct?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It would apply to any state agency rule that incorporates a federal requirement by reference. So, yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: That's sweeping in my opinion. That's big.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It it it is. It's significant authority, but you still have to review it. LCAR still has to review it. It's still only the extension, one hundred and eighty days, and it only lasts for two years. So if it's not working out, it would be repealed until you

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: or sooner. Just like you keep going back into the continuity thing, right? Like it's a bridge for continuity to get to our traditional rulemaking process. Exactly.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: Thank you again, Neil Cannon, Deputy Commissioner. Thank you, Mike, very much. I just wanted to, in addition to Chevron, I kind of wanted to note, I made mention to an executive order that requires the agencies to look at rules that might have been undone by Chevron. Then there's a memorandum from April 25, and I'm just gonna read what it says here, because I think it's instructive. This memo instructed agencies to prioritize the repeal of these identified regulations and use the APA good cause exception to bypass notice and comment rulemaking when repeal is unnecessary, impracticable, or contrary to the defendant. So this confers to, you know, agency secretaries at a low substantial b wave to make a determination as to whether something is contrary to the public opinion or practicable or unnecessary. For ANR's programs, I worry about that.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And the good cause provision is kind of the federal emergency rulemaking. It's when something's impractical or impossible or no longer cost effective, the agency gets to make that determination and say they have good cause to repeal it without going out for public notice. But when you look at some of the rules that would be affected, you're you're talking about safe drinking water. You're talking about hazardous waste. You're you're talking about banking, controlled banking. And, like, that that leaving that unregulated because of a determination that something's impracticable impractical at the federal level, that that's a little scary.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for counsel right now? So, this is a big conversation. So, I want to make sure everybody's comfortable with it.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So this only applies in emergency situation, right?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: When that federal law or rule is repealed and it prevents the agency, the state agency from implementing a program that is state law.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Sorry, go ahead.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: For one hundred and eighty days.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: When you said earlier a couple of times, you said it was that we were supposed to do something or the law was supposed to do something, who does the supposing?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So it's normally a mandate under the federal law. Let me think of a good example. In in order to sell milk, you need what's called the pasteurized PMO, the pasteurized milk ordinance. And under that ordinance, you're supposed to go out and inspect those people that are selling milk. Now if that got repealed and there was no longer a federal requirement under the PMO to inspect milk, would you want milk to be sold? Because the PMO inspectors will literally determine whether cattle are healthy, whether the bacteria count in milk is allowable. If you didn't have that, you would have milk that could basically be sold without inspection and testing. Right.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Like we don't want that

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: which you do already with raw milk we label it raw milk you can always sell it if you're a certain person or a certain licensee and there's a big warning on it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for counsel on this? That was a good real life scenario and some other avenues that can go to this. Again, it's a one hundred and eighty day window to react, to maintain continuity with the other current practices and whatnot.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I'm all for it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. No, thank you. And I'm personally comfortable with that. Know that you'd see has done a lot of work on this. Other our environment committee has done a lot of work on this. Do you have any other questions around that?

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: I don't think

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: so. Still, it's a lot to digest because environmental subjects usually aren't our thing.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, correct. Is also like a rule process, it's like the L card or a section is why we're on this.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: And future reference, I think we need to hear a refresher on LCAR. We've got a lot of new members, I don't think we've ever done that. So let's just put that in

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: the That's a very valid point. Yeah, That's a very valid one. I said it's so easy eat, body. Great. But for this moment in time, I guess, like, question is, I'm comfortable taking a position on this, being respectful of the work that's been done on it. Yes, Rebecca.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: How was that warned on today's agenda? I just need to, it's just fly by. So,

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: we don't have one. Yeah,

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: we don't want a struggle or anything. We don't have to either. Right? Correct. That's I would ask for a little more time, but. That's just me. This is just like all new to me.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Was that a concur on a little more time? Yes. And yeah, I mean, is a big thing, if people at the table want to marinate on it a little bit longer, I think that's To leave

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: the time in a little while, to come back to it? At two from May, we have

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Even today?

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I mean, just to think about this a little bit. Is there anybody from LCAR that could come in this afternoon and explain their process?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm not sure, because I mean, that's a committee made up of members, right? So they're all in committee doing their thing. I'm not even sure if that would be Tucker or Devlin, probably. I'm not sure if they were. Damien and Broccoli. Damien? Okay. Broccoli. So so what I think I wanna do just to be aware of, like, the time itself because we are discussing the reports for appeal next, and we're a little long we're a little long on this one, but this was an important conversation. So we'll we'll hold a straw poll on this, give people some more time to, like, marinade on it, see if they come up with any other questions. And with that, I guess we'll just move to the medieval conversation and then try and find time to circle back on this either later this afternoon or even tomorrow. I think we would actually have some time in between our public hearing obviously, and showing 08:41, because the public hearing wraps around 10:30, we don't have anything scheduled until eleven. So, that seems like a window of time for us to circle back on the scene of that.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: But do we need that shot? Did you

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: need help in that way? For the flyby? I mean, unless there's like pertinent questions for council, can thrust that out. Would you be available for conversation tomorrow around 10:35, sir?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so. I think my date tomorrow is kind of packed. Figured it would be I

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: thought I'd ask the question. Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: And I have another suggestion that we could just try to stop somebody who's on LCAR in the hallway later today or something just to get their opinion on it. So I think that might be helpful for me anyway.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right, so what I think we're hearing here is we can put this down for 10:45 tomorrow after a public hearing.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I can put two bills in house of army at that time.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay, no that's fair. But if anything arises between now and then we'll try to shoot you an email or two times to get the time to get the clarification on anything.

[Neil Kamman (Deputy Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Conservation)]: Really appreciate the time.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That moves us on to, and Tucker is not available for this conversation, but we're looking at the draft on our MIDI page. From Tucker? Is. 25Dash1019Draft1.2. This is the reports for fuel bill that we reviewed. It is a video. That's why we're looking at a draft number and not a traditional. And, per conversation last week with counsel, bones of this are all the same. He just had, like, a little bit of, like, language cleanup to do. Mhmm. And he ran through it, got the language into order. And so wanted to offer time for folks to view that because we were hoping to go this one out. The process would be if we if we did vote this out today, it would be introduced to the bill number on the floor. But it has one extra day of lead times since it's a committee bill going straight to the floor. So I think it would be like action Friday second or third reading. That's the process. I like what we can see here, but. Take a look at the word on the page. Speak out or forever. But this is the at least a granular outcome for a lot of back end work that's been going on since last session. So Take your time to scan.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Does this go elsewhere after it leaves here?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We don't believe it is because there's no money or appropriations in it. So I spoke to Connor up in the speaker's office, and he agreed that it would just be a committee bill No number straight to before.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Right. And then after it goes to the Senate, they might want to investigate on their own some of these recommendations. Yes.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, no, this would go through the committee process at Senate Harbor operations.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Okay, which is what they did with us. Came here.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, when we had that joint. That's me. Yeah.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Like, we've done what we can on this and we should have done it.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. And this if we do both of those today, my plan was also to send this draft to all of the House committee chairs just so they can see what we have moving forward. So, with that extra lead time to the floor, just more situational awareness, I mean, we've saying we, or council, has communicated with the committees of jurisdiction that are impacted by this quite a few times. I'm feeling comfortable with the work we've done.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Can I make a motion? We're still reading. Sorry.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: What?

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I've already read it. Absolutely.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. I was gonna make the motion of the timeouts.

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Well, I'll wait.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Tell me what's done. My apologies. My iPad keeps getting frozen. It doesn't seem

[Rep. Robert Hooper]: It's the veterans type.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: You know if this is it's not significantly changed from what Tucker presented to us last week.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. My understanding, and after reading it myself, it was really just a couple of, like, you know, like, none of the actual, like, reports or anything that we're speaking to as to repeal, keep in perpetuity, keep her in his opinion. It's just some sort of functional language in there that needed. Okay,

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: thank you for This is going to be.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, it was always on veterans. I need one. That would be taken off.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: What's the end of four pages from the end?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Anybody else still need time to review or have any questions? Emotions?

[Rep. Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to find draft number 25 Dash ten nineteen draft 1.2 favorable.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other further barring any other discussion or further comment? Seeing none. Michael call the roll.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Boyden. Yes. Representative Coffin.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Hango. Yes. Representative Hooper Randolph. Yes. Representative Hooper. Yes. Representative Morgan.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Yes.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Representative Nugent. Yes. Representative Pinsonault. Yes. Representative Stone? Yes. Representative Waters Evans? Yes. Representative Byron? Yes. +1 000. Do we have a report?

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. Representative. All right, that was a lot of legwork on a dense thing that this body had not addressed in a very long time. It is not glitzy, but I wanna thank everybody for their time and energy on it. It's it's important work. I'm feeling pretty good about it. So thank you in general. Okay. So we got a conversation with the budget letter right now. We want to take a minute to get shifted over to that. Okay. So why don't we eat yet? Nick, why don't we take us off until 02:15 so we can shift gears into the budget conversation?