Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: One's gonna be on the oops. We're live here on Friday, 05/01/2026. Oh, the rent and

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: the mortgage are due

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: today. Well, the rent first. We have some committee discussion time for this morning. We'll see where that goes. And then Damian is available at eleven when he gets done downstairs. So shortly after eleven, we'll have our Legis Council in the chair and we'll see what else we can sort of button up and thumbs up on the bill and get it down to what's left to work on for next week. And we will definitely be done with it for next week. So that's the plan anyway. No new information on potential ending dates or anything, so there are no deadlines to get given to the House chairs to get their bills out, but we're not going to be anywhere near a reason to hold up the show. So we spent some time on vehicle inspections. There's two parts of the vehicle inspections that I'd like to hear if people have thoughts on and whether we need more testimony on and whatnot, particularly related to the section 24, I believe it is, on sort of the inspection rewrites. But also, this issue, when we passed out our T bill, the House version, it requires that through that we set up mileage based user fee that electric vehicles would need their inspection in order to get their odometer reading to settle up their fees. And then that discussion eventually, even though we passed the bill up, it didn't come out at that time. But really in the last couple of weeks, one of those things that's come up is whether or not inspections would be required before registration for all vehicles. I'm kind of curious, I don't know if we can or can't get enough testimony and figure out whether or not they would be ready to implement such a thing or we should maybe send a message about bringing it back to us for next year. But anyway, before we decide what we're going to do, I'd kind of like to hear a little more if there's people that want to share opinion on the idea. Because we certainly it came up a lot over the last week or two that went public. For some reason, it didn't come up when we had the T Bill. So we probably had a better opportunity then to do something, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't queue it up for the agency to work on or the department to work on. Anyway, I'm not trying to say what we should do, but I am interested. And I do want to caution that we probably missed our best opportunity back in T Bill. But that doesn't mean it's not I want to find out what more we should explore and what we think is valuable or an important policy discussion and decision. So that's what I'm That one, and then what about the changes that are recommended for reducing or focusing this inspection on safety? That's the second question. Wanna go first, Representative Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Sure, as usual, have plenty to say. I mean, I think we did talk about when the mileage based user fleet came and it was explained, hey, we asked a question, hey, what happens if people don't get inspected? And that's when it came up that we were told, I believe, oh, you're not going to be able to re register your car unless you're inspected. And we asked, is that, can you do that? And I thought we were told, yeah, it's not that difficult with the new system. And I think, Brett White mentioned, well, why wouldn't we do it for everyone at that time? So I think we should really explore it and it isn't gonna happen. I'm not sure I'd have to go back and look at the bill, the way it's written, but the mileage based user fee, that piece of it requiring inspection to get registered to make sure people are getting their mileage in, I don't think starts in January 2027. I think that's when the MilerSpace user fee, but that registration piece verifying would be the next year. And I think that'd be plenty of time to incorporate this piece into it.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So because it's not going to be implemented in the way that conversion of the Senate, you're not going to

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: start until January of this timing changes, yeah, that would give plenty of time and warning for everyone to know, hey, by the way, and it'll give the DMV and anybody else who like says, oh, this could be a real problem, time to come back and say why it's a problem. But it seems it's a lot, it's required. If it's gonna happen for electric vehicles for the right reason, then seems like it should happen

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: for everyone. Can you represent what?

[Candice White (Member)]: Yes. I think we don't quite know what the final mBuff will look like until the conference committee is looking at it. But I think Rep. Pouech is correct in that we were saying it's going to start January 2027, and I think that the required inspection will kick in after that. Maybe that's January 2028. So I think that timing wise, whether there's an opportunity to put something in the DMV bill, or to put intent language in the T bill, or I'm not quite sure the best way to signal that this is something that we are hoping the next legislative session takes up. But think that makes a lot of sense. It would give the department some time to think about how they would implement requiring an inspection for all vehicles, and think through notifying the public that this is going to be happening. And at the same time, we've been talking about changes to the inspections in the DMV bill, which honestly feel to me like they could use the changes proposed, could use some more thought in terms of, Are these all the right changes we want to be making? I've expressed before, I'm uncomfortable with the emergency timeline for pushing these through so quickly. Particularly given that I personally don't feel like all of these changes are in the right direction. We talked about some of the changes that some of us had issues with yesterday. It just feels a little rushed to me. But I certainly appreciate the department's sentiment to try to respond to Vermonters' request that inspections are expensive. So I think the goal of looking at inspections and focusing on what is essential and what is things we can live without, that's an important exercise that I don't feel confident in voting for those changes in this bill right now. So I'd like to somehow amend that language, so that there's more time to to go through rulemaking, or whether we just have more time to discuss and take testimony on some of the specifics of the inspection changes proposed. I'll stop there. Think that was Is that clear?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Did

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we hear testimony as to how many percentage of cars are getting two year registration versus going to one year registration? I think sobbed your comments on the wrong direction, but back to the comments about implementation of MBUF and timing, We know, did we hear like the, like I presented, we did at one point, I didn't hear it and

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I recall because I was sort

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: of surprised that there was one.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Way more one years than two years. Than two years. I always thought that I, You buy a newer car, know it's going last for two years. You think you go into two years cheaper, but it was a lot of surprise. Just I wondering how that might impact if you have a two year registration, so I'll leave my car inspected every other year. So there are always, as we know, there's no such thing as simple, So there's nothing, there's going to be, and that's one of the ones that comes to mind, what's the difference between a two year and a one year? And we did hear the testimony about whether or not we're going to expect people to have a negative impact on the amount of registrations. Unregistered vehicles running around, but that's a whole other topic. But I was wondering if they would remember your percentage of one year's gross margin. Two years from it, I'm just trying to reach out higher.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I do remember it's a challenge for to calculate what the how much it's gonna come in because you don't know on any particular year how many twos and how many ones. Particularly when it started, it may be settling down now where they can sort of predict it. Like Logan had said, you know, always a cautionary, it's hard to tell when there's ability to do multiple years on different things like getting your registration, what the income will be in any particular year. But it's been several years they can do that. I think by now it's probably $7,000 over there. It would be a hurdle for them

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: to do the paperwork necessarily. I don't know how much, and I don't want to encourage people to not get their annual inspection. On the other side of the safety part of your comments, we did commit to the body we were going to do some inspections. I don't know, it sounds like this may not be enough or it may not be the right backup. I know other people have opinions on that at all, but you're certainly welcome to

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: go again. Yeah, on that piece, it feels, I don't know why we don't go, just go through rule making. We know there's a lot of opinions on inspections from don't do them ever, to they're not stringent enough, and nevermind people aren't getting it done. I haven't heard any reason why we have to rush this. The rulemaking is just gonna add a few more months to the process. And even we had questions about a few of the changes that I proposed. And I don't like the idea of making those changes, then going through rulemaking and then, you know, having to defend them. And I think, you know, got plenty of opinions on it. We get everyone's opinion on the table and go through the proper rulemaking process. And if we can come up and simplify things, great. And I haven't heard a good reason why it's an emergency to not go through the normal process.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Casey, then Representative Burke. I'm fine with the changes. Any case anybody gives us a sweet time but the and I've went to see it for two years inspections. I think what I've been in, I'm done now. Representative Burke?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah. Oh, I agree with you, Pouech. I am a proponent of the agreement section. We discussed. I didn't hear that clearly.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Oh, sorry. I'm a proponent of once a year inspections for a lot of patients. I think safety issues, I think affordability because it kept things early, and then there's emissions.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I think what's being discussed is these changes. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative McCoy?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So the changes that we heard yesterday, believe. Are you saying they've told you rules as well?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Well, those are the proposed changes they want to do, not going through rulemaking, this emergency piece. And even but after it's done, it will have to go through rulemaking, but it'll be after the fact, I think.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: To be clear, you're welcome

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: to come on up, because we're gonna have you for the other well, you're early.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, David Leonard, legislative counsel, both are through rulemaking. One uses the emergency rulemaking procedure. One uses the standard APA procedure. So they're both under the Administrative Procedure Act. Emergency rulemaking allows the agency to adopt the changes without having to go through the notice and comment period in the middle so they can implement them. But that emergency rule can only be in effect for one hundred and eighty days. And so during that time, they can go through the more permanent procedure, which also allows them to tweak the changes based on feedback from inspection stations and the public. As people go through these inspections, they'll be able to do notice and comment. So just to be clear, both are rulemaking.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So the they would have six months experience with the new changes to impact and adjust. They still have to go through

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. There's nothing that says they

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: months of information.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There's nothing that says they have to make a change, but they can make the change.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There's no guarantee that the rules you go through six months of selecting, then do rule making. They can change during that time frame again. Yeah. So won't necessarily be exactly what's done here. You still would have

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: to go through the process. They would have six months of experience to head into that process. Right. So with the rulemaking process, typically what happens, and especially when you have an emergency rule, what happens is you have the emergency rule and the proposed final rule filed at the same time. The proposed final rule typically looks identical to the emergency rule. Sometimes there are minor differences because of the timing. But typically, they're the same. And what happens is the agency then has that six month period. And typically, rules take four to eight months to get from start to finish. They have that six month period to go through the process of making the rule available to the public, to the folks who are impacted by it, taking comments on it, including at a public hearing, and then proposing changes to it, at which point they submit the final proposed version to the legislative committee on administrative rules, who then reviews it for conformance with statutory authority of the agency, legislative intent. Did they engage enough with the public? Did they conduct an appropriate economic impact analysis, etcetera. There are things they're required to do under the API. That process often includes points where folks have if there are changes, they also have to comment on why did we make these changes. If there were comments requesting other changes that they chose not to make, why did we choose not to make those changes? And then when you get to LCAR, there's another review by legislative council and the committee. And the comments are focused primarily on conformance with the statute and the legal authority. But sometimes there are typos that are caught and other things like that. And then after all of that, there's a final, final rule that goes to the Secretary of State for adoption.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Can I continue my questioning? Yep. Okay. Sorry. That is

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: correct.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So can the DMV update their inspection manual and go through the administrative rule process without this section in the bill?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. They have authority right now to adopt the rules. What they can't do is do the

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: emergency rule. Okay. So If we remove this section, then they would go through the regular administrative training for eight months as opposed to maybe a three month.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So, yeah, with emergency rulemaking, they could adopt it as soon as they get. What this does, typically emergency rulemaking requires an imminent threat to public health or safety. And so we waive that in instances where it's not there, but we have to do that through legislation. Otherwise, LCAR doesn't even get a chance to get to, does this rule make sense? They say this rule doesn't meet the requirements for emergency rulemaking, So we have to object on that basis. Whether that ends up resulting in anything is another question. But under the statute, you're supposed to limit rulemaking to that. And there is one other exception for federal or multi state compacts, where we have to adopt the rules quicker than the rulemaking process. But they have existing authority to update and amend the Inspection. Inspection manual. What this sets out is guidance for what is being proposed. But my understanding is DMV was already working on these amendments but would like to roll them out sooner rather than later. There was also discussion in the Senate about taking these amendments out of the required APA process and allowing DMV to do it as a procedure, which we've done for other things, such as multistate lottery rules. In bypassed Bypassed Elkhart altogether. The Senate was not open to that, or the senate transportation committee was not open to that option. So that that was something else that was discussed downstairs. And I can't speak for DMV, but, you know, my understanding is there was thinking that that would provide more flexibility and more ability to be nimble with rulemaking. The Senate was concerned about losing legislative oversight over the inspection manual, which is The rulemaking requires public engagement. When you take it out, you lose that public and legislative engagement requirement. It doesn't necessarily mean that the agency stops doing that. But you lose the statutory requirement for those steps. The Senate wasn't comfortable with that. May have different feelings. That

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: last part is not what's being proposed here.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: No, what's being proposed here is

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: bypassing entirely. Jump starting it.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Jump starting with an emergency rule to allow it to roll out quicker, but still requiring it to go through rulemaking. So it's still gonna end

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: up in the same place, whether you get six months of relief from homeowners and data or information and then the changes. You're not we're not this bill does not propose skipping No, it doesn't. Just to clarify,

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I'm trying to just get it straight in my head. As far as this emergency, all the time, the governor has the ability and authority to do emergency rulings, implement things. The commissioner DMV just suspended temporary plates on his own accord, and we need to make it permanent. So why do we need our opinion,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: why does the legislature need to make the determination whether or not it's an emergency through legislation? How can the governor change the government?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So the governor and the agencies are part of the executive branch. And the executive branch constitutionally, their job is to execute the law. Yeah. That's literally where the term comes from. The the constitution provides that the governor shall carry out the laws as written, and the legislature makes the laws. We've provided flexibility to administer programs because understanding that this is a part time legislature and legislation takes time, we've provided flexibility. That said, the executive branch can't simply override the laws. And in this case, we've said that in order to update the in order to update the inspection manual, you have to do it through rulemaking. You could change that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: No. I'm just wondering. I'm just trying to let

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: the government see the government.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: You know, Irene, partner, you know, the team's going. That was the first thing.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: For things where we've required rulemaking, we've basically provided exceptions that allow the executive branch to do to impose an emergency change to rules in specific situations. And that's this is basically the separation of powers between the legislative power and the executive power and the judicial power. They do it's not like a black and white separation. There's overlap. But when we're talking about rulemaking, which is a delegation of legislative power, so we delegate the authority to fill in the details after the legislature has painted the broad strokes, understanding that DMV has more expertise in car inspections than the legislative committees charged with overseeing transportation. Within that, we've said that you have the authority to adopt these rules, but we want you to go through this public process. And we've said that you can update rules without going through the public process in these limited scenarios here. So the governor's executive order authority and the agency's authority to temporarily suspend something come from this sort of idea of there's a balance here for limited time scenarios where you may need to take emergency action. With the governor's emergency action authority, much of that is set out already in Title 20. Chapter one of Title 20 sets out emergency authority for the governor. And then within Title 23, there is language setting out discretion for the commissioner of DMV to implement things. And I think that can arguably be read to encompass the temporary suspension of those plates when fraud was determined, similar to what's happened in the past with ways that you can apply for unemployment insurance when they determined that fraud was occurring in other instances. But ultimately, if you're going to make a permanent change to the laws necessary to make that temporary change permanent, then you need to go through the legislative process. And so this is similar to what's been playing out with some of the governor's executive orders to increase housing. There was an attorney general opinion that came out in the fall following the executive order that said, for some of these things, this is really it needs rulemaking or legislative authorization to go forward. It's not something that lies within the executive's power. Whereas for other things, there may be things the executive can do within their power. It becomes this It's not a clear line, and there is push and pull. When we're talking about rulemaking, that is a delegation of the legislature's authority to the executive branch. And then it's got certain guardrails around it. You could change the emergency basis, and we've done that to allow for a fish and game, there are federal bag limits on migratory birds each year. We get them so late. There's no way that Department of Fish and Wildlife could update the bag limits. So we've provided an exception for them to do that. For Powerball, we've provided an exception. In this case, we're providing a temporary one time exception to get through that and then keeping the guardrails that say otherwise, we're limiting it to things like COVID or to Hurricane Irene or something like that, where there's a clear imminent peril to health, safety and welfare. And we're saying, when that's the case, have at it because clearly the executive is much quicker. So we're looking at it, raising the bar as far as

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: that threshold of emergency is.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. We're not changing that bar permanently, we're simply removing that bar.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: No, we're saying is that somebody can point to this and say, well, if this is what they consider it emergency, why isn't

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: this?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So we're saying notwithstanding the statute, is one instance.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Legislature, they're in effect, I've repeated this, there are tasks in effect saying we want legislative permission to make sure it's okay for us to do.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, no, correct. And then, you know, somebody comes in next by you and you know, and says, oh, that's the threshold for emergency. So we should let administration do X, Y,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: and Z because that's the new bar. Right now, is pretty like irate in the whole state.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: The threshold for an emergency is set in statute. What we're doing here is saying, notwithstanding the statute in this instance, we're deeming this

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're saying that this

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: meets the standard for emergency rulemaking.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Right. Want to say that that's a new standard. You've been pointing

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Notwithstanding language means that this isn't precedent that carries over to other instances. Oh, would

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: point that I'm not even going pick, but I would point that if I'm going to to do legislation and try to get something to

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Not withstand. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You're gonna say

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: You could say there are instances you've done it in the past, I would say to you as your attorney that in each instance when it's been done in the past, and we do this every year in two or three bills, In each of those instances, it is carefully considered by the legislature and determined that in this case, we're willing to suspend that requirement. It's a case by case evaluation. It's somewhat fine. It's happening. It is. So yeah. I would say well, maybe one to three. But I would say in recent years with the emergency housing program, every single year That's authorized in the budget and reauthorized in the budget each year. And this year, they're proposing a different construct. But each year that that was authorized in the budget, it came with a waiver of the emergency rulemaking standard so that they could adopt emergency rules and implement the program in July. Because understanding that to get their permanent rules out, it took until January of the following year, followed by potentially a couple of months of wrangling if there was disagreement about whether their rules were consistent with legislative intent. And so each year, they waived that for emergency housing. And that has happened for years. Used to do it with lottery on a once multi multiple times basis until they simply created a permanent exception for the lottery. Because Powerball and Mega Millions will update their rules at least once a year to make the odds a little bit longer on the jackpot. You didn't hear that from me, but that's why the jackpots keep getting bigger. You're more likely to win a small prize, but the the long term prizes get a little bit harder.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm getting nervous. I haven't won yet. My retirement plan is closer to retirement plans. Lieutenant Burke and then Representative Pouech?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I just wanted to comment that we're having this discussion with a different scale, federal government, not the relative power of the executive.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I do wanna be clear unitary. Do wanna be clear that these exceptions, while they are not uncommon, it's not granted lightly. So if you're concerned about this exception, that's a valid concern. And if you're concerned about this becoming something that future transportation committees are told, well, you've done this multiple times before. Don't want to invalidate that concern. I just want to say that this is not unusual and it hasn't become sort of a binding precedent for those committees. It becomes a case by case thing, although it does get pointed to. A

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: comment then a question for counsel. My comment is if we make these changes using the emergency rule, so for example, no test driving is necessary anymore. We could argue one way or the other, whether it is. But once you do that, all the inspection stations are now not allowed not to do it. And if through the rulemaking process, there's a lot of input that says, no, it is important. We heard some testimonies saying, oh yeah, it is kind of important. It's gonna be hard to go back. That would be a reason, well, we don't wanna back there. So that's not a good way to make rules. I think by saying, here are the new rules, now convince me they're not good. And then I would ask the Legis Council, is what emergency rulemaking, is the term emergency defined? Like, there examples of what emergencies are? Sure.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So let me go ahead and pull up the statute. So you find this in chapter pre BSA chapter 25, which is our administrative procedure act. And I believe it's section eight forty four, but I will confirm that. Right. So section eight forty four, emergency rules. And while I'm reading this to you, I'll log in to the meeting so I can share screen. So what eight forty four provides is sorry. Getting lag here on my computer. It provides that where an agency believes that there exists an imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare, it may adopt an emergency rule. The rule may be adopted without having been pre filed or filed in proposed or final proposed form and may be adopted after whatever notice and hearing the agency finds to be practicable under the circumstances. The agency shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that emergency rules are known to persons to be affected by them. Emergency rules shall not remain in effect for more than one hundred and eighty days. An agency may propose a permanent rule on the same subject at the same time that it adopts an emergency rule. Emergency rules adopted shall be filed with the Secretary of State and with the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. The legislative committee on administrative rules shall distribute copies to the appropriate standing committees. The rule shall include as much information required for the filing of the proposed rule as is practicable under the circumstances and a signed and dated statement by the adopting authority explaining the nature of the imminent peril to public health, safety, welfare, and approving of the contents of the rules. On a majority vote of the entire legislative committee on an administrative rules, the committee may object if an emergency rule is beyond the authority of the agency, contrary to the intent of the legislature, arbitrary, or not necessitated by an imminent peril to public health safety or welfare sufficient to justify adoption of an emergency rule. And that is a judgment call of the committee on administrative rules. I can tell you from rules I've worked on historically, a loss of revenue to the state is not a sufficiently imminent peril. Failure to move quickly enough as an agency to get through the permanent rulemaking process is typically not sufficiently imminent peril to public health, safety, and welfare. Although if you are making reasonable efforts to do that and you aren't able to meet the six month period, the committee tends to grant a further emergency rule to cover the gap period. But in instances, for example and I won't point out the agency here, but there was one agency that continued its emergency COVID rule for six further emergency rules. By the final couple of rules, LCAR objected to each and every one because they no longer satisfied that imminent peril COVID was passed and the agency's excuses and reasons for why it was not able to adopt the permanent role that it had been working on for more than three years did not satisfy LCAR. So that said, the objection does not prevent the rule from taking effect. It does grant more weight for someone who wants to challenge it in court. In that case, nobody was interested in challenging that emergency rule because it had simplified a process in the state. And something like inspections, where it's more controversial or wetlands policy, something like that, you may have challenges. So the reality, though, in Vermont is there are very few challenges to the validity of rules. But an objection by LCAR shifts the burden of proving the validity of the rule to the agency. Normally, it's on the challenger. They have to prove that the rule is not valid. So

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: you have feedback if you have it? I am

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: in favor of simplifying the inspection manual, but not in favor of doing it through emergency rulemaking.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, I appreciate that. I do have to, for a second at least, think that we set the stage here in that we as a committee put off the legislature last year saying we would make sure the DMV came back with changes to the book, and that there would be simplification of the process. And we committed in our most famous motor vehicle bill last year and in discussion of the T bills, when we knew there were members that wanted an amendment to simplify the process. We I would have to almost argue to say that we asked them to do this. We asked the Department to come back with a simplified program. So I love a good constitutional argument, and I'm all for having that more. What I guess I want to be we go back now without using emergency rule. Emergency brings up all kinds of different views in people's minds of what is it that is not an emergency. The of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicle and Insider, not trying to deliver something that we didn't request. We started this, and we've been on this path for, well, a year and a half. We asked them to come up with a simplified book, and this is the fastest way to bring Vermonters relief. I appreciate what is being discussed, and I'm happy to keep going down that path, but I do want to remind and set the stage, the committee is the one that asked him to do this work. The committee is the one that set the stage last year saying, we are going to get simplified inspections. We're even going to consider getting rid of them. We're going ask all kinds of angles of what amounts to be done. This is what they came back as a proposal from what, in effect, we asked them to do. And then they are, by the administration putting forth a bill that says, We want your permission to go ahead and do this. And still then, after six months, we'll still get the opportunity to change the rules. We're not really necessarily that far out of bounds here, just as far as remembering the big picture of what we've asked to have done here. They didn't come here and say that all of a sudden we want emergency to change this. We've set this stage last year saying let's have a simplified book and we can perhaps spend more time on the individual items. I want to be careful about how far we're going down to this idea that somehow we're making a new precedent or a new emergency and we don't want to do it. If we go on the floor and say we're not bringing relief on the inspection for at least six more months and then through eight months after that through LCAR, we're going to face some level of We'll have to make sure we're ready to answer that, I guess is what I'm saying. Because we did, in a way, set the stage to asking this. I want make sure that it's understood. So, Representative Mollie S. Tomlinson?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Thanks. Given how much this weighs on so many families, I'm open to the emergency rulemaking process. I think it's encouraging to me that still opens the process for the formal rulemaking process. And I wonder if that might even spur more public participation in the rulemaking process because folks, whether people are getting their cars inspected or mechanics, will be more aware of the proposed changes because they're living through them and able to weigh in on the impacts. From what I've heard from both of the DMV and from ANR, there aren't concerns that these changes would negatively impact public safety or our emissions restrictions. So I think I can support the emergency rule element of this. My main question would be how mechanics might handle that. I mean, that seems like it could lead to some challenges in terms of adopting the new rules and system and then six months later likely dealing with some tweaks and those communications. But that's, I think, one of my more specific concerns about this.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I do think what I should have added. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Anyway, everybody should get a chance. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to say that there are some things that maybe are of rich. There's some of them perhaps like the road that we may not want to agree to right now. We're still going to do more work on it, I guess is what I'm saying. I just want to adjust to reestablish where we're at. Representative White and then Representative Powell.

[Candice White (Member)]: Amy, could you just summarize again for us the two different timeframes? If we move ahead with the emergency rule versus if we that we don't feel comfortable with the emergency rule and the changes go forward in the

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: normal timeframe.

[Candice White (Member)]: When is the soonest that changes could be adopted in each scenario?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Under the existing language in the bill, they would be able to basically, July 1, they would be able to adopt emergency rules. The bill requires them to adopt them on or before 08/01/2026. So sometime in the month of July or no later than August 1.

[Candice White (Member)]: And that would

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: be going

[Candice White (Member)]: forward with the changes that the deputy commissioner reviewed with us yesterday.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That's my understanding. Yes. So they would simultaneously adopt the emergency rules, which would go forward for six months from them. So through the January, I think that is, give or take. And then the goal would be that by the time the legislature is back in session beginning of next biennium, the permanent rules would be coming before LCAR. Although, again, if there are delays in that process and sometimes you have a particularly on something that sparks public interest like inspections, you might have a really involved public comment period and a lot of work from the department to respond to those public comments. So they may refile the emergency rule at that point and then push out the timeline on the permanent rule. But from the date they file the permanent rule, unless LCAR grants an extension, they have eight months to complete rulemaking. If they file on, let's say, August 1, they have to be done by let me think. April 1.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. So the emergency scenario would be permanent rules in place by April 2027. You're saying April from August 1.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That would basically be by April next year. Permanent rules would be in place. And in the interim, what you've seen here, their draft rules would be in place, you know, plus or minus any minor tweaks that occur between now and then.

[Candice White (Member)]: And In the traditional nonemergency route has would it remind me of that timeline?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It's eight months. So that's the eight month timeline.

[Candice White (Member)]: That's the eight month.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Maximum eight months from the date of filing unless LCAR grants an extension. So oftentimes, though, filing, there's a lot of work, which the department has been doing at this point. So that markup is the work that comes ahead of time before filing. And then from the time you file, you have eight months to complete that public engagement process that's required for rulemaking.

[Candice White (Member)]: So there's in both scenarios.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: With emergency rulemaking, you don't have to do the public engagement. It takes effect immediately. But one hundred and eighty days after you adopt the rule, it expires. That's the thing. You can't do a permanent rule through emergency rulemaking.

[Candice White (Member)]: But they still go through the LCAR process?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Still goes through LCAR review. LCAR can still object, and it does. So the most common instance of this has been the emergency housing program, which has been highly controversial. The administration and the legislature have not always seen eye to eye. So that has had on and off for years objections to both emergency and permanent rules. Sometimes they resolve and end up with a compromise. Sometimes the administration goes forward and adopts the rule. Frequently with the other emergency rules, there's more agreement especially if it's on a less controversial topic or if it's on something where the agency and the administration are on the same page.

[Candice White (Member)]: So one of the major changes is a public process or not a public process. And I guess it could be argued that there has been a public process already because the Senate had a joint hearing on this. Me, not a joint hearing, a public testimony.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Public hearing.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Not these rules. Not on these rules, not Also, the

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: it's worth noting in last year's legislation, you required them to set up essentially a hotline where people could reach out with concerns about

[Candice White (Member)]: the Right. And you still haven't heard the results of that?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So they have also gotten public feedback, though. And I can't speak to what that feedback is. So there has been some public engagement. But that's part of construct in S326, authorizes interim emergency rules but requires that permanent rulemaking public engagement process. To give you a sense, we've done that in two other places already this biennium. And the emergency housing is not on this because last year in your budget, the legislature simply said administer the program pursuant to the rules we adopted last year. That's a long story. But you authorized it for the agency of human services regarding the Medicaid program and the operation of the health benefit exchange, as well as in relation to the Department of Health and food manufacturing establishments, which are basically home kitchens where folks are making food smaller kitchens.

[Candice White (Member)]: Was an emergency rule?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: In order to get the rules adopted quickly, they did that as an emergency rule pending the adoption of permanent rules. And so that came in first as an emergency rule last summer. That went through LCAR review. And then a permanent rule came through later in the fall with some tweaks based on feedback that they'd heard. But they wanted, in both instances, they wanted to make sure that adjustments to the rules were in place right away to allow the legislature's intent to be carried out as quickly as possible. And that is often where you see this emergency rulemaking. The legislature is saying, we want you to do this from next summer or this summer, but we also understand that rulemaking takes time. So we're going to authorize emergency rules while you do the permanent rules. And that's that's what you've seen in both of those instances. And the way this bill was drafted was to mirror that, although the language is slightly different, but it it basically to mirror that The senate was saying we want these changes as soon as possible, but we also want you to go through the public engagement process. So whether you wanna move forward with that is up to you. So yeah.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I guess one last sort of comment. You know, it's to get to permanent rules it happens all the time. To get the permanent rules, assuming no other sort of problems, it's only a couple three extra months to really get to the permanent rules one way or the other left. And I would continue to argue that bypassing the normal process is not the best way to go. And our chair suggests when we start picking which ones we want to go in, we're not experts. I've said, hey, the test drive is, I'm really questioning that, but I've never inspected a car. So to decide whether that's the right way to go or not, maybe it is that we don't bother test driving, maybe that's the right way to go. But I don't think it's up to this committee to make that decision. It's really have a public process and have the proper input and then let the rulemaking decision process work through. And I think asking to go the normal process, here are the proposals, to go with the normal process, is not an undue burden and be much cleaner than going the emergency way, like I said. It's gonna be hard to undo it. It'll cause more confusion for all the people who are both inspecting and getting cars inspected. Like, oh, I thought, oh, I passed this last time, now I don't pass. So I just think it's too messy. And I just don't see an emergency.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I very much appreciate that because that's why we asked them to spend an entire year to come up with a plan to bring it to us and then ask our permission to go ahead and put that plan in place that we asked them to put together last year. So we will have to pick that part up. I appreciate where you're coming from. And they've had a year. We have a year of recommendations. We'll have to decide if we're moving forward on them or not. As far as the bill itself, are there any other parts with the additional language that we had about education on the Smuggler's Notch piece or the language on the texting or whether the we were able to thumbs up the quotation education piece or the smudge notch education piece or the ANR. Are we are there any of them that were a little closer? I think the texting piece came back. Are we any of the other sections that are still hanging out there that we might be able to thumbs up into the bill today? Are any of those you wanna pick from? Are any that I missed? Has anything changed from from yesterday's

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is all the changes that you requested but edited now. So this was the and with the tweaks that you made yesterday. So Okay. I don't have a thumbs

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: up against section one yet either. So

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So section one is the these are the changes to bring our non driver ID statute into line with the federal real ID requirements. I think the yeah. I I don't think I have anything to add. There was a fair amount of discussion about what the requirements were for Real ID compliant versus non Real ID compliant IDs, whether they were currently doing this, etcetera.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, I think I had asked whether the members had others they wanted to ask about, whether they have any concerns or We're good? We're good? Okay. I don't know if we can bring it up or not. I don't know if we can bring it up as three twenty Absolutely.

[Candice White (Member)]: That's the one under Commission of Corrections, Appointment Powers.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah, we pulled out Sections two through six, left us with a Section one.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There was a discussion about bringing this This is a new draft of your

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: sure that people have to check it out. And my understanding is people have checked it out. And this is not a controversial piece. It is a technical update in bringing our Vermont state regulations in line with the federal requirements around ID. Current practice. And our

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: current practice? For folks who are trying to find this, this is a new draft which should be posted to the website under my name for today. It's draft 2.1 because we went through 1.1, which is a rough draft yesterday. And this this got edited overnight, and I made a few changes during our session yesterday. So this would be section one. It's shortened from the prior version. Non driver IDs, it's just the first half of the non driver ID section from what the Senate sent over. It excludes the language that has now been signed into law by the governor in h five forty nine. So to avoid any inadvertent changes to that language, we've just removed everything that was in H549 and has now been signed into law. So the big change here is an individual shall not hold an operator's license and a non driver ID at the same time. You can have one or the other, but not both.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So I guess I would ask, if there's any other reason to hold it up, is that I give a thumbs up that we'd agree this section is good to go. Okey doke. Right.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: The next section that we had talked about, was the smuggler's notch updated signage provisions. This is on the bottom of page four. And I don't think this has changed at all since yesterday. So this provides that the agency shall update signage leading to smuggler's notch to make drivers aware of the increased penalties for operating an oversized vehicle on smuggler's notch that are imposed pursuant to section three.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's just the new piece. All the rest of it stays?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Everything else we're already doing. Yep. Nothing else has changed with the smuggler's notch piece.

[Candice White (Member)]: I'm sorry. A question on the document we're looking at. This is the new updated bill without that has removed the These are just the change.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oops.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This this would be the draft of the committee's strike all amendment of what the senate sent over.

[Candice White (Member)]: So because I don't see the pieces with the new fees for Smuggler's Notch in this section. So

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: you're looking at the as passed by Senate on your paper version.

[Candice White (Member)]: Then I'm looking at the document.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So if

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: you look at section three.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. Yes. Yeah. You're right.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. So section four is just a new section separate from that.

[Candice White (Member)]: I see it. I I missed it because I thought that the highlighted portion started.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You're only looking at the updates since what we yeah. Right.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah. And I I see right.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It should be in yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: Yeah. It's there. It's just above what I was looking at.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It is. Okay.

[Candice White (Member)]: Yep. So I'm all good. Thank you.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So section three has that. Section four has the updated signage requirement. The only reason that's not in section three is because this is a sort of limited time, one time thing, update your signage, because we just updated the law. So we don't typically put that in statute. We just put that in session law. Salvage title language. I'm sorry. I wanna make sure

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I don't have a thumbs up next to the section. Are we is there any more smugglers notch piece besides a field trip and a visit that we should we're good with this. Okay. So I can put

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: the next to this. Alrighty. Alright. Salvage titles. The proposed change that came out of work between the insurance companies and the department, there was a question about when so the language the senate sent over said an insurer shall indemnify and hold harmless the department for any claims arising from the issuance of a certificate of title pursuant to this section. And after a back and forth between the insurers and the department, they agreed on limiting it that to just the new electronically signed documents. So certificate of title based on supporting documents under the new section there. So that's the electronic signature documents. And that will include both a regular salvage title as well as a salvage title that's issued to an insurer after the insurer is unable to acquire the original certificate of title after reasonable efforts. And there's a process where the insurer has to make reasonable efforts for a month to try to get the previous owner to provide the certificate of title. And if they can't do that, they have to provide documentation of the efforts they made to the department. And if the documentation and the efforts are sufficient, the commissioner will issue a certificate of title at that point. And this is for total lost vehicles. So the insurance has been paid. The insurer has done everything they can, but after reasonable efforts, they cannot get the prior owner to provide a copy of the title. So but in both of those instances, this will cover that if the transaction and the certificate that the department is issuing is based on electronic documents.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Was that change already there yesterday or the date of tomorrow or not?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it was.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's not new since yesterday. Right? I think so. I don't think so. Okay. I think the reason I'm just I have a note that we were ready to go with this section already. Okay. There is no change since everybody this is the agreed upon from multiple parties. It is. There has not been a change in some

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I'm aware of. I would say I think we

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: are good with this then because I already have a thumbs up note on the twenty ninth. I just want to make sure there isn't anything changed since the twenty ninth.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then section 16 on page 14, this is the handheld mobile telephone violations. The whole section is highlighted, but the change since you reviewed it is based on the testimony we got the other day, and that is found on line two of page 16. It's the addition of creating an exemption from the prohibition on texting if it's through hands free use. So this is what mister Smith was talking about when he was testifying the other day. Now with the voice to text feature on most phones, you can now hands free text through your phone, and it will read it to you, and you can respond, etcetera.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So It's the Reader's Digest version of this entire section. So it's a we are updating the commercial language to match the way to the pleasure vehicle language currently regarding texting and hands free operation in the state of Illinois. That is correct. We used to have passenger rules only. We want to update it to include how we handle commercial.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: We had rules for both. Minus the two things in life. The federal interlock. Ignition interlocks. Yeah. Yeah. We had rules for both.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But the the

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: most recent updates were made to the pleasure cars only and not to commercial motor vehicles, and this brings commercial motor vehicles up to the same standards as pleasure cars reflecting the advances in technology and so forth. So and minus the ignition interlock since you can't operate a commercial motor vehicle if you're required to have an ignition interlock device.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This is to this update from the last time we looked at it is to verify the hands free use. Yeah. Yeah. Everybody on the committee understand that, especially the person that's gonna report this section. Are you picking out the sections you want to report this time? We're gonna have a sign. So I guess we're then I look around and say we're all good or not? Thumbs up on this section? We're all good. Sorry. Was on my phone. Exactly. Alright. Today's the first. Thumbs up. Okay. Power of stuff. Do you more personal floatation? Is there still the education There's personal floatation? Is that

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So the the first is on page 22, line 14. This has not changed since yesterday. This is the clarification that a violation is not subject to the penalty. There was a correction. I I had a typo in the section number. So I had thirty three eighteen yesterday. It's actually thirty three seventeen. But other than that, the language is unchanged, and it doesn't constitute a traffic violation. So we don't have concerns about individuals getting anything other than a written warning if they're violating a section. And then section 19 is the education piece that the committee discussed yesterday.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: main change is the new language from line seven to nine. The outreach campaign shall include online and written information, which may be distributed to municipalities, retailers, and public and water safety organizations.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Moved the balance a little bit.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That was short. I'm sorry about that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Sorry. I can't hear it off the other way, guess, to see the top of it. The other way.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: You gotta go the other way. Get rid of

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the cake part and there we go. Perfect. It's 104. Since it starts October 1, we're here in thirty days of it, so it starts November 1, right?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So, there'll be a month. That's why we picked that day.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety in Consulate. So does the Department of Motor Vehicle have any comment about whether they're able to do this piece? You're going to help coordinate a public outreach campaign on the update of this law by September 30.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Think something is outside of our wheelhouse.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I lost it again, made it this far. We achieved it. I don't think we can close this at this point then. I'm going to just grab it and we're going take a look at that. And me. And I'm I'm not sure who I'm looking for. Alright. I have to stop. Nothing. Well, mindless. So This

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: is on page 23, line one. So it provides that the departments of motor vehicles and of public safety consultation with the coast guard, fish and wildlife, forest parks and rec, and health shall develop and implement a public out education and outreach campaign. And DMV has indicated that this is not, to quote, in their wheelhouse. So and public safety, I believe, is who came in and testified. So you may wanna just check with them on this.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The guy that was quite educated about all of this, he worked for was he part of the belt? Well, he was charged with the aviation or the boat section.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: He

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: was part of the Department of Public Safety.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So we may have this wording being a little bit

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Maybe we could ask him how we would do this. Does that make sense? Mhmm. Okay.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're trying to support what they were talking about. We're just not sure how we exactly do that.

[Candice White (Member)]: Right. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess we're not gonna give the thumbs up that section. We have a plate bill representative. We're telling these people to do this stuff, which I agree with, but need to make sure who can do this. Need to sure who could do this.

[Candice White (Member)]: Let's invite a representative from those We can talk to them one after the other about that.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Or just an email. Think good to get a representative sent. Like I had said, I'd met a woman in the hallway and she asked, what's the committee think of this? But And I said we were talking about just making it educational, not applying. It's totally okay. Yeah, that's the most important piece. That's what she's worked around.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So we're not sure how to support the education piece of it. We're trying to do. That's the sentiment of the committee. They didn't ask us to do that, but we're adjusting the bill to say that we want to be more clear. So we need to go to these groups and find that out. So I'll move on from that for now, and I'll have to go pursue that.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. The next update here, and this is I think we discussed this yesterday. I'm not sure if the language was in the version we looked at. 12 additional registration of not more than 12 additional limited use specialty vehicles per year.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: ANR, And so they're not taking a position. Obviously, they don't want that. That's it for the whole section, '24, '25, '26?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: No. We're '25 has other changes.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, that's right. Inspection. And well, they're gonna have to either go in together or not. Right? I mean, sort of is Yeah.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So '25 is the visual emissions inspection,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: but not hear from that guy back about that change. Yeah. He was in the room. He was here yesterday. Oh, you had it. Additionally, thumbs up based on your problem, find them, who the scoop is. Well, let me ask this. Committee is okay with this language or not, I guess it's a question for these two sections or three sections, that it is 12 additional. If we are now requiring trying to line up with the antiques, the trade show, specialty vehicles, hot rods, all those that we have

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: side by side, and trying to

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: line up with it. We want to know that there actually is an emissions system, even though we're not testing the output of it. We want to be consistent. And we also are saying it is clarifying, it's 12 additional each year.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Question?

[Candice White (Member)]: I thought I heard yesterday that vehicles like this that are putting in these new motors that have to be up to federal standards will have an OBD system that can be plugged in.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There's an option.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I think that's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: what I

[Candice White (Member)]: would I thought that the guy from DMV, who had been a police officer, who was here yesterday. He had the OBD plug thing to show us. I thought he said that if you've got a motor like that, it's going to have an OBD system that you can plug in.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think by clarifying that the vehicle made in the current year. The motor itself, put together with other parts, doesn't have emissions systems. Okay. Yeah. I'm not a car person. That's my it may sound a real technical difference, but there's nothing motor owner only. The motor itself will not necessarily have it, but they put the whole vehicle together with all the emission pieces that go on top when you make a new car, but we're talking about the motor only, that they're going to pull and The split into the car that is not being built with necessarily the emissions system, which is not part of the engine, part of managing what comes out of the engine.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Said it guaranteed everybody got a car

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: in the air would have to check that, that plug would work on it. A vehicle, but not an engine. Right. See what I'm we're talking about an engine that didn't get put into it. Right, right. Okay. I don't think he was aware of these 12 cars. To go into an approved vehicle that gets built for the entire thing and sold, it will have emission. But when you just buy a motor, it hasn't gotten all that other part. The motor won't have any emission, does not have emission that feeds to it as that makes it. So you're going inspect a vehicle, yes, but this is not what we're talking about. We're talking about a motor pulled off of an assembly line of just motors. I think that's worth the difference.

[Candice White (Member)]: Maybe the conclusion is the visual emissions inspection is the best we're going to be able to achieve with these 12 cars per year.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Are we good with just one of these sections? Is it three sections altogether Yep. On specialty vehicles? It was 25, 26, and 27, but the new numbers are almost not quite. These are the same.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: And getting closer. Yeah. As you added individual sections in the middle. It's just it's worth noting too for the limited use specialty vehicles. It potentially captures instances where you have older vehicle that is restored and modified. So that can include taking older engine and older vehicle and then extensively rehabilitating, restoring, and then making modifications to it, whether that might include a modern engine inside an old frame or a modern frame with an old engine. There there are varieties to this. The company in Milton, my understanding is that's new engine, new body. That's essentially a souped up replica of an old car, but there are others where they take old bodies that are clean, clean them up, and then refit them with modern suspension and electronics and all sorts of stuff. So there there is a spectrum of these vehicles, and some of them some of them may have engines that predate the OBD systems.

[Candice White (Member)]: And maybe putting out some good emissions.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So similar to the antiques and the street rods, where they may have exhaust systems that meet the requirements of the year they were manufactured, but don't meet the requirements for like a 2026 exhaust. Yeah. And that's what we require for the street rods and the antiques is there or that's what the EPA requires for them is that they meet the emissions requirements for the year they were manufactured, which in some cases are not because they create a Clean Air Act.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Alright.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're done for today. We are adjourned. We are back on Tuesday. Field trip is