Transportation, Technology & Legislative Affairs - Senate

All right. Members if you would. The. Please close the door. Please close the door and. Senate transportation come to order. And amid the chairman sees a quorum we need to concur on SB two forty seven it's it's in the The Amendment from the House centers is any yellow. And the. The motion. Second. The all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign all right we are concurred the. Second one is Senate bill four seventy eight and I need a motion yes ma'am. We have concurred do we need to just vote on the motion is amended. Or we don't have to do that okay thank you thank you. Members I will entertain a motion to expunge the vote on that we did on Tuesday on that amendment this next amendment will will replace that. Motion to expunge by Senator Chesterfield second by Senator Tucker all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign all right you're welcome is everybody got a copy of the new amendment. Go ahead with your new amendment expectation thank you Mr chair the new amendment is the bill it strikes everything from the bill on and it really reflects the intent that we were discussing here the other day to sort of demonstrate that it's it's really not about COVID nineteen the emergency clause is removed and and truly there's that railroad carriers are not mentioned anywhere in the legislation all it says is that in the event of a national pandemic as declared by the CDC Trancoso printing in Arkansas shall be deemed essential workers and offers a definition away train crew is to include conductors engineers switchman brakeman or fireman licensed and certified by the Federal Railroad Administration that's it very short and simple and I'd like to invite same to German Gerald went on to or up here the other data to offer their comments on it I guess first on election to entertain motions on the amendment to adopt the amendment thank you Mr second by Senator English all in favor say aye opposed Like sign okay you can bring your folks up. Loss of chairs. Okay. We got one senator garner. Just The introduce yourselves again and. You're welcome present. My name's Wayne Hinson I represented by the locomotive engineers and trainmen in Arkansas it's your script General Salem state legislative director smart transportation Arkansas thank you gentlemen John go ahead. I thank you all kind of single the purpose of this bill I mean for real workers are essential I don't know who is. You know we spoke on it two days ago everything in your house is comes be ready with and to me that's an essential worker. Just wanted to. Thank you again for having us thank you chairman thank you Committee also just wanted to bring up we heard a little bit heated discussion Tuesday unfortunately I just wanna bring a couple issues that were brought to fruition I we did bring a hand to better illustrate this when the first arguments roads and we say is that the state doesn't have jurisdiction title forty nine U. S. Code to two zero one zero six grants states right to such in it's it's status quo statement opportunity enforce an additional or more stringent law regulation or order related to road safety or security this is a safety and security issue for us so the state does have the right to also they brought a vote we should handle this during the collective bargaining process. Just to give you guys an idea of how we operate as organization organizations two branches there's legislative branch and there's a contract branch I don't work on the contract branch that's collective bargaining what we do for legislation for the legislative branch how we work on a safety related issues and we do so because we believe safety related issue should be non negotiable we should take those negotiating table and I would say if you look at how important we are to the infrastructure of the state of Arkansas that this is not just for our members and the people we represent it's for the people you represents for the citizens of the state to make sure that the appropriate state set make sure that the grain gets all the things that we do twenty four hours a day three sixty five continue to happen in case there is another pandemic. I know some the rebels were see this is a punishment we've done everything we can do to remove anything out of this bill and to amend anything that could be seen as punishment. I know BNSF had a representative here and I want to state that they were the best care in the state of Arkansas as far as reacting to COVID nineteen what this bill will do and what we're asking to do is make it where we don't have to be reactive we can be proactive on this should this happen again and god willing it won't happen again in our lifetimes but we won't be scrambling as much if it does so that's that's all I wanted to bring in today and I appreciate a good vote if you have any questions please feel free to ask. When center it up I appreciate what you're trying to do here I unfortunately had to be another committee when you presented this the other day but as I watched the testimony of that it occurs to me though we are between a rock and a hard spot because the governor in the middle of a pandemic needs to control many things and who is the protected. Entity the subgroup because he knows what kind of medicines can be brought to bear to try and not delayed or whatever needs to take place. I think what you're trying to tell us is there's a federal law that we have to be in that protected group is that what you're trying to get across to this committee no Sir not not not at all points our goal here is. Should the CDC declare a national pandemic they would they have the right to declare it but as we've seen through this pandemic we've learned that every state reacts differently in we have scrambled as organization rural to scramble to make sure that our members are protected but also to to make sure that we were deemed as essential this would take that scrambling out that's all we're we're asking to do is that if this takes place in the future any time moving for that it would basically alleviate that need well clearly follow up clearly I believe your your request for ascential is there but I think the the category of essential is determined by what kind of medical treatment is available to handle you know the hierarchy into the central group stated by the governor and his experts is always what that question here and I I struggle with taking a certain entity I mean I think medical association consent down here as doctors and say we've got to be essential I think. FAQ bring their their request for flight centre. But I think it's incumbent upon us to remember that our governor executive of this the state has a whole lot of input as he makes a determination who's going to go to the essential group first and then the expansion so I'm not sure how to weigh the request I think it would be better served if rail in fact was a federal law saying we need to be essential because I do think there's validity to your point I just don't know that all the data can be ignored for the one person who has to make that decision right I guess I need some help on how I would get around that with my vote okay. Senator hill. In the testimony other date. We we were in familial have a bargaining our job of the deceased alive you're not going to that system and try to do that which is going to the legislative body. The collective bargaining that's that's not something we know we work on but I can have a little bit of knowledge on it the only way real contracts work we go through collective bargaining every five years most of our collective bargaining what they what they covers rates of pay benefits things such as that we tried to stick with most of our safety requirements and and any safety needs and stick with straight legislation we do that just because we don't wanna leave it up to. A whim or failure on our behalf when it comes in the Goshen table that would place someone basically endangers not just us a lot of what we do stated also protects the general public so we try to take remove that from the **** negotiating table because of its importance. Senator garner. Thank Mr so looking over your the rules will say in you mentioned the total forty nine US code two zero one zero six yes Sir and you have that inner but you kind of left out three major elements in the second part of it you said you can only do this when is necessary to eliminate or reduce essential local safety or security hazard is not incompatible with law regulations or where the US government does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce so you can actually supersede the law unless you meet those three elements. Can you explain to me how by doing this we would impede interstate commerce we traded different standard between our state and other states or how this is a necessary thing to for local safety or other reasons so we would being incompatible with the federal law I would say that it would actually aid operation between states because organization records organizations. It would remove Arkansas as a state that would we would need to scramble and ask for this protection of that point okay thank you for other states to follow along and remove it even greater so but Arkansas wouldn't be place wouldn't burden on both us and the carriers to have to go to so if the say Arkansas deems essential worker by law now with Joe or with another state has a different situation imagine of the lines go across state lines fairly often not me I just soon and that this is going on Clause Louisiana border this is one state has one standard when you go across different standard how would I not not burden interstate commerce. Well it is far as the Interstate Commerce Commission they have an STD and haven't ever made any safety regulations are not made to make situations and I understand your concern but I would I would state is that as an organization we try to make sure that we near everything that we can state by state and coordinate that way we won't have those issues moving forward but it would be your organization making those termination it be a wall senior center one and whatever kind of benefits protections whatever the state of Arkansas prescribes that would automatically be applied your have control actually to determine what it would be because it yes sorry no it's okay I just I'm I'm is my point well that's what that's what we're currently operating out this pandemic every state the CDC has on the side of what states do the states decide what to do so we're currently operating underneath that and we haven't seen any issues as far as interstate commerce I think just real quickly one of the point is that there are number state laws on the books dealing with this so it's not impossible for state to enact a law because we have a number of those kinds of laws on the books in Arkansas I understand there's analysis for each one and I'm not disputing that but it's not impossible one. Senator Pitsch I guess maybe I'm trying to take centre garner's question with with my previous question because I he lives on the Louisiana state line I live in the Oklahoma state line all of my rail cross and Oklahoma you go north Senator Eads is in Northwest Arkansas he's got real the crosses into Missouri sure my question is either side of the equation if we pass this law the Missouri or Oklahoma done have that law are we in the same boat and I keep coming back to the point that I think we're going to by doing this handicap the governor has to say as an essential worker you get you know thinking back to the beginning of this pandemic you get the N. ninety five facemask you get this first an articulation mackenzie you get all of these things aye aye aye that protected deal the governor has to know whether he's got enough to put people in and classifications and from the Interstate Commerce if my state has it in the other state doesn't we put a barrier between interstate commerce if I don't have it and they do have that we've also put a barrier to me I go back to my very first question should this really be at a federal level that we want to be known as an and I I'm not in disagreement that you have the right to be an essential classification but I think if you're gonna do it piecemeal fifty states of the time you're going to have reference running up to the end of the state then you can't go through because you're not on the central work you don't have the protections that come with that close. I would I would answer that and I worked for the railroad for seventeen years working Fort Smith there is some familiar with running in out of common to Kansas back in the you know so as far as interstate commerce is concerned there's a there's a multitude of safety laws are different in Arkansas regarding real than there are in Oklahoma just just for instance when we cut crossings in Oklahoma I have to know that Oklahoma has more stringent laws like a crossing longer that in Arkansas so that's something that we that we do on a daily basis we have knowledge of that and it doesn't impede on the other as far as removing what the what the governor would provide for us. I understand your concern that's not not the intent here whatsoever just R. ten is make sure that should this happen again that. No one is scrambling no one is running around trying to figure out how to best handle this and who should be deemed and who should be doing and I I can't say who else should be included I think there's a lot of people that probably should be included but I don't represent them in I think I would welcome them to this if if they have a strong case for that I just can't answer to whether they should or should not be included. Senator English Mr gonna respond real quick to just after would be great senator I agree if Congress passed a law but we stepped in as a state all the time when Congress fails to act and we also step in as legislative branch of times when the executive death does or does not act so I would just mention that if any of you know it was raise the other day you know why not others and if so if someone wants a final bill that for others who are deemed essential you know that's that be great we pass laws all the time that don't cover the entire scope of everything you know and and if someone wants to file another building you know that be great. Right. The follow up to that may not recognize Senator English I'm sorry thank you I guess my question is so how many other states have this we would be the first state to my knowledge to have this and my answer that I get that question someone's mother legislation we run just because we would be the first doesn't mean that not only our members but the citizens of Arkansas the service protection and I think there's nothing wrong with leading the way when it comes to safety. Senator Pitsch you wanna well I just my my question before the first that that does bring into question this Interstate Commerce Clause but I was going to go back to your point we as legislators heard from every possible industry there was that we need to be essential course teachers special needs teachers nurses doctors at Sentara and for us to sit up here and take that away from our executive branch I think presents problems bigger than just the what we do when somebody comes to the edge of the State and they're allowed to be an essential worker another one's court and it's very hard to stop the train when you cross over the bridge so to speak so I I I think there's still some issues with this bill and I think it's going to be something we may need to study more but that's mine okay well I will let you know that it any legislation would bring for ninety run by our DC office we have the ex lawyers but one especially that to use instrumental in writing the FRSA in the early seventies and he's been involved with every piece of real safety legislation since nineteen seventy one so he's where I get my information Interstate Commerce whether not always in ways out because he's one of the gentleman that are actually in the room when that was written. In. We are not going to be the last state to run this I mean there's going to be a lot other states but also coming in. So we just we will also be part of any other questions from members. Saying nine we have to that wish to speak against this bill. VOL been in and Michael Gardner Garza Garcia close. All. Is introduce yourself and you're welcome good morning Mr chairman of Michael here to be in a separate way was going to speak but I was gonna mention of something today that I think will help clarify the department of homeland security the federal government has twenty sectors of various workforce's employments in players of that are designated essential workers to critical infrastructure. The question to me back to my first comment I think that would solve this issue and probably preclude the need for this legislation because I do think it needs to be online security or at a federal level and you're saying to us your testimony is that does RT occur yes and and I'll give you the example that we the that I used so I cover five states as public affairs director and at the onset of the pandemic when the pandemic as was announced in all the governors and governors offices in this in the states and all of our states in which we operate we work closely with the governor's offices to make sure that they had a copies of the homeland security directives that outlined rail workers specifically a framework workers and every other industry and every other sector transportation to the same thing to ensure that those DHS guidelines were included in all of the executive orders so the again as I mentioned on Tuesday I believe this is really unnecessary and and not not warranted and I I know that they didn't want to apply to the current pendant but possibly future pandemics will. I just kind of question the need for legislation that would regulate any type of activity on a future pandemic when we don't know what the future pandemic looks like so I'll just close with that but I would be happy to answer any questions if there are any. Any other questions. The thank you my thank you Mr chairman thank you project. Senator Tucker you can close from there if you want to. Thank you Mr I just would say briefly just to kind of reiterate a couple points Mr sale made the the point of this is to be proactive and we're all learning as we went the last time and we just want to take the knowledge that we that we gained and applied to the future so we are in better shape next time we're trying to be proactive and and leave the country and safety and that's a good thing for Arkansas I think so I appreciate a good vote now make a motion to pass. Motion by Senator Tucker second by Senator Chesterfield as amended that's what I heard. And all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. The the sorry singer Tucker We will go one to House Bill eighteen forty nine. The standard issue self and you're welcome see state senator Greg Leding district for and I'll be very brief because we discussed this bill just two days ago and I appreciate the committee's discussion we learned after the last hearing that there was a little bit of confusion regarding the stance of the truckers association but we did confirm with them that they have no opposition to this bill I was also my understanding this members of the committee that conversations with the state police since the first discussion and have rethought their position on the bill so we thought we would just give it another try. And we do have the state police here today to speak if we have any further questions major Jason Aaron is here if you would come forward. Let's go ahead introduce yourself and your working pretty. Major Jason Aaron with Arkansas state police. The state police that we are for this bill to. Provide more say to the public to leave the left lane open for the purpose is defined in the statute. Major I had a question the citations on the current. Do you have that number in the last year the citations on our current I do not have those numbers okay the Senator Pitsch my question is for senate Leding we've heard this bill we debated this bill it didn't get the necessary votes last Tuesday is the only thing is that has changed is the trucking association has come out as neutral the. That and similar to the committee no amendments still the same bill to some members the committee had had conversations with the state police and rethought their positions so we thought we would try. Well. Since follow up. the biggest issue I recollect was we already have on the books lingering in the left hand lane is illegal and it was the definition of what's different about your bill then what's already on our books and did that not lead to. A very vague area for law enforcement to determine what's on the books now persons what's on the books with the passage of your bill I think that's his question is how many offenders do we have because. Help us understand the difference because that was the big issue last time is what are we really doing that makes this different is I think further clarifying the existing law but again the gentleman that spoke on Tuesday said that the in the law enforcement would use their discretion And and now I mean it is a site that offers discretion on what you know impeding the flow or for providing if it is a danger to other motorists and it is coming up to the individual offer to enforce whether it's a warning I thank you that help me I that was the big difference if it is impeding the flow. If if it is impeding the flow our current law allows full over possible citation et cetera this is I understand the only difference of this law to outlaw is this prevents just driving in the left lane when no other vehicles are around and that has to be a complete yes I would think with the been there too long or have been there too long so if the am I right in stating the bill in summary. That's correct. Okay. Senator Garner. A Mister within the last time I read this a little PTSD from Chad Morris there are hammered down left lane so I've had time to reassess and talk with state police you know as a perfect I don't think so but I think that even just a little bit more teeth to them in the code which I think this does actually enforce it laws done recently is an out of control I think this is probably a better way to do it where they can actually get those really bad examples have a clear law that's kind of what change of mind receiving a bill back up. In other questions from members. No one else's the to speak for against the bill an audience in by raise your hand. The nobody Where you want to close your bill. I just appreciate a good vote thank you all right motion by Senator Chesterfield second by Senator Garner all in favor say aye. Any discussion. All opposed Like sign up congradulations Senator. Leding. The pastor thank you Committee. We will move on at the late hour yesterday we had three bills will. The. Three bills to the. Came on late we will have to suspend the rules to hear house bill eighteen twenty seven we have to have a two thirds vote of the all in favor suspending rules I'll take that motion. It's eighteen twenty seven think it's in your packet. Point one the. The sale of surplus how we property and authorize the sale over. Road mailings point order yes. Mr me if I'm reading this wrong was already on the regular agenda we would have to spend will thank you came on late to their regular emails on the agenda yes it came on late after the eighteen hour. Okay fair enough and I just wanna make sure we weren't. You know we're gonna we're gonna do it anyway so moved to suspend by Senator Chesterfield second by Senator Garner all in favor say aye opposed Like sign or at that's a unanimous the house bill eighteen twenty seven. Representative baby. And representative or senator Gilmore. Introduce yourselves and representative baby you will you in. Senator Gilmore district twenty six. Representative Howard baby District nine. Go ahead. Mr chairman members of the committee here to present house bill eighteen twenty seven is to amend the law concerning the sale of surplus highway property and authorize the sale of road mailings. this bill basically will allow are not to designate road millions of surplus property and then transferred those road millions to the counties for use for road construction the county so have to use those mailings in their county they can transfer onto an adjacent county if there if there's a need it also allows are not to exclude the county should they not follow the guidelines and utilize those mailings in county with that I'll answer any questions. Is this a agreed upon bill it the bill contains agreed upon language yes Mister chairman. All right is there any questions from the members. Saying nine your clothes your bill Mister chairman I'm closed all right what's will of committee. I make a motion to pass second by Senator Tucker all in favor say aye. Any discussion. Like sign opposed congradulations representative maybe thank you Mr chairman thank you members of the community more. Thank you members I think I have a another bill was referred Wardlaw are you doing eighteen ninety three for brown no. Okay we'll go ahead and do will have to spend rules on this into it came in late it was not. We will go ahead and do this nineteen twenty two motion to suspend the rules in here nineteen twenty two motion by Senator Chesterfield. Second by me all in favor say aye opposed Like sign okay we have. The go ahead and introduce yourselves and and you're welcome to proceed we have. Senator Gilmore district twenty six. Representative Jeff Wardlaw Mr gate. So many rappers motor dealer one so. Matt Cavenaugh on auto dealer in Jonesborough. The go ahead whoever wants to begin I'm gonna well Russian Wardlaw president is. Thank you senator and thank you Mr chair so this bill is pretty much totally clean up language about every ten years we go in and we revised the auto franchise agreement act and this year we we work with the manufactures up until last Friday and and and you guys know because another being contacted you they're they're not in agreement with this bill in its entirety we did accept a lot of their language they wanted some amendments at the last hour they testified in House Committee they couldn't tell us exactly what line item they wanted or what where'd they wanted out but they wanted amendment so we decided to move forward bill the bill is a is a very positive bill for auto dealers across the state is two hundred fifteen elements support of this bill I brought my constituent Mr Benny Robertson with me we also have Matt Cavenaugh is you guys heard from what this bill does this the big contention is the digital platform and my understanding is the biggest contention behind that is is we don't have to use the auto manufacturer's websites going forward. But our biggest consented to the auto dealers is we want to build a use of tools we have to service the the trucks that they sail into service certain trucks on the Dodge ram side this is an example from home you have to inventory fifteen of that particular truck to be able to sell it if you don't sell it you can't services so even if someone and one Arkansas buys that truck in Little Rock driving down the Monticello and it breaks down running from the dealership we can't touch it under current law under this new bill we would be able to service that truck for our per person there in south Arkansas and we would be able to sell that truck going forward because they wouldn't be able to hold to those high inventory standards rumor is they're going to pull out certain vehicles from the state I don't believe that they're going to tell you that there's all sort of things going around about this bill that are just not true of they testified House Committee what they really want to do is keep the control over the dealers they want to keep the control over the customer base and by doing that they make use their websites they make they notify their your customers before they notify you of those notifications and there's list after list after list of horror stories but also stop and I'll take any questions from committee. Questions from the committee center. Thank you representative to see Mr Robert from Drew County I think you went to high school my father in law and I know a committee when I worked on a lot sold me this is good for the consumer right this is a consumer driven bill and kind of the issues I can understand where the big companies are coming from and what their thing but the guy on the ground like you said in south Arkansas this will help them when they need to get that thing fixed I need to get a vehicle this is all going to help them get this bill is good for consumers but it's also good for our small dealers and it's good for big dealers I don't know any dealers in the state that are against this bill and I've talked to some big ones in the last two days but what it really does it insurers are small dealers livelihood because it allows and allow them to be around for those guys and self Arkansas is that playing the Little Rock or anywhere else it closes those inventory gaps doesn't make him have to put up exorbitant out of money to be able to sale and service certain vehicles that the other dealers are allowed to do because they're bigger name and towards larger thank. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr I'm just generally curious I'm just learning about the this act for the first time today and I'm I'm just wonder why. We need even laws for this and why they can't work it out just privately or what what it is to be a legislative act I just generally don't understand that I'm curious about it. The sale of new motor vehicles in the state of Arkansas is always been regulated by the Arkansas motor vehicle commission that is the regulatory body that regulates the interaction of any motor vehicle dealer between the relationship between the dealer and the factory and the relation between the dealer and the consumer so that statute is been around for four decades and this is just an improvement of. To let any time you'll need to make an adjustment to the relationship it basically has to go through the the code Senate correct it has to go through the code okay Sir yes hi thank you. Senator I'd add that that's usually the compounded over a decade it was eleven years ago the last time this was amended it was actually in two thousand nine so it usually they set and deal with the technology they deal with all these things for number of years before they come with these amendments to move forward and normally isn't agreed upon bill and you're you're obviously going here that a few minutes from the from the naysayers but this time around they held this bill down to last Friday and they ask for minutes Friday night. But as I alluded to in my opening comments those amendments were never directed to this line this where this page it was that the bills just to date will mean that's an amendment to kill a bill at the last minute we've been want to present this bill since first of March we couldn't get those guys to the table finally got into the table and like I said there's a lot of agreed upon language in this bill but under the digital platform we just could not meets that middle ground. Thank you senator English so would you explain to me the digital platform what is it you're talking about. So the digital platform wanted compass the primary role would say that the website the dealer's website currently the manufacturer is exerting a large amount of control over the dealer's website website which the dealer owns by the way and all of the content that is on the website is information and assets that the dealer owns except for the manufacturer's trademark which of course you know that the Chevy bowtie of the Ford blue oval that has to be present in a certain way but there is at increasing levels of control that the manufacturer is placing on that such is. Stopping certain inventory to be shown controlling pricing controlling pictures controlling the interaction between the dealer and the customer and we have a franchise low to center talkers a question earlier that is governed by the motor vehicle commission act but increasingly the manufacturers pushing against that so. The digital platform that had never been addressed in the act so we're addressing that piece of the business now. So does that have to do with cybersecurity and consumer information and all that yes so in in the bill it does address security concerns it clearly states that there has to be an agreed upon relation between the dealer and the manufacturer and that it has to address the manufacturer's intellectual property right concerns usage policies and security requirements that which language that was suggested by our counterparts of factor in our prior meetings and that is in the bill so that does addressed security concerns. Thank you senator Chesterfield thank you Mr chair whose product is it is the product of the dealer is the manufacturer's product because I'm having difficulty understanding. How we can we can decide between the person who produces the car in a person who sells the car and basically that's what you're asking us to do is to define that relationship is that which is that what this is what the relation but it is already defined for the franchise system so the motor the the car is actually owned by the dealer it's it's owned by Robert Ford it's owned by capital Ford they have bought the vehicle from Ford Motor Company or whoever it is from Toyota from General Motors and so that vehicle is actually owned by the dealer so there should be no level of control that the manufacturer should be able to exert over an asset that the dealer owns the website domain hometown dealer dot com that is owned by the dealer there should be no level of control that is exerted on the dealer by the manufacturer. And increasingly that's what happens you could think of it as the it be good to have certain guidelines and the manufacturer does this in other mediums state television advertising if you run an advertisement on television they say Hey listen you gotta follow these guidelines you got let the customer know that it's a new vehicle and asked to show the year make a model and show a price. But what they don't do is control that television commercial and make exactly control all the language and it all the pricing and all the pictures and it and uh can put a bottleneck in control how it's distributed to the local television station so when you turn on the five o'clock news you see the you can go get a great vehicle at a great price at your local dealer that is happening in the digital space because prior to this there is no language in the act that regulated so this is addressing that concern thank you. So. Hello if you will the is since we talked about ownership there the and I'm a farmer. Who owns the who owns that vehicle whenever it's purchased the the dealer owns that vehicle no when a rich purchase whatever's purchased the consumer on the single what about the intellectual property on the on the vehicle the will you give those the codes away to be able to repair that vehicle to that owner in that purchase agreement. I'm sorry what's the questions the intellectual property owned codes for the computer in the in the vehicle they owned business owner own those ordered our organism manufacture the dealer on those well that is owned by the manufacturer that's not part of the purchase agreement when you purchase a vehicle you're not also purchasing the IP one of these days it may be yeah. Go ahead senator garner. Yeah real quick so I went on Robertson's auto website simple thing you're saying this which has your dealership has all your inventory the. Big guys have a basic control almost every aspect of that is that correct Can I give you just a few examples yes Sir I will unlike. With Chrysler we're a a Dodge dealer like Benny is. There are vehicles where the Chrysler's digital program prohibits them from showing on my website so you senator garner if you're looking for a certain truck you would not be able to see it because it has a bad step that needs to be replaced the bulletin on the bed step says hate dealer that's a warranty item but you cannot replace it into you sell at retail to senator garner. But until you actually do the campaign we're not gonna shown on the website so. I can't do the repair until I sell it to you but I can't have that campaign taken off the vehicle beforehand so attention on the website that's just one example General Motors now controls the pictures and the pricing on inventory because you filter through their system From a direct communication of. I forget her name but she's a a rep a digital rap I'm assuming she's in Detroit sure she's very dedicated to her job which I don't think she's the expert of selling vehicles and my local market they have prevented certain pictures from being shown there they also are in control of the pricing so there was a glitch in their system not mine where you could have bought a brand new Lincoln for six thousand dollars a great deal for you but I'm sure you want to and we would said listen there's a data feed issue there the price the vehicles not actually six thousand dollars it's whatever the prices but you could have gone to the AG if you wanted to and then we'll Hey they were advertised the price for this that's what they have to honor you know none of I used the same website provider for my other stores none of the other websites have this issue the issue was because General Motors had control over the inventory over the pictures over the pricing none of that is regulated in the current act so that's what we're trying to address to just give the dealer back control over the dealer owned assets and all this case the dealer owns inventory the dealer owns a website he owns all the assets he ought to be able to use those assets provide lease following certain guidelines in the manner he sees the. I'd like to also come into that because I'm a poor dinner also but example is the the Broncos you have to go online reserve it then we converted to in order to communicate with you but just recently the the factory has maxed out their capacity to bill for twenty one model so they. They emailed my customer or if I had a customer on the Broncos forty smaller with the email in two weeks ago on cancel the order total to contact the CDC which I'm not sure what even the CDC is but. So they're they're encroaching and taken over more the sales process online as as we see when the. I was notified about the order being canceled separate. In other questions from the committee. The. Saying nine we have we have three people here to speak against this bill. Lehrer Dorn canning and Jeff Perry. There for a few would come forward. This push the button and introduce yourselves for the record you're welcome for the record my name is Eric heading in from General Motors company. I'm Jeff Carey with General Motors. And I'm Lehrer Duran with Gulf states Toyota. However wants to begin short. Mr chairman members of the committee as I said my name is later Durand I'm vice president of government relations and senior counsel for the freaking group as a collection of companies which includes Gulf states Toyota the exclusive private distributor for Toyota here in Arkansas and four other states collectively Gulf states Toyota and our affiliated companies employ over five thousand people worldwide I'm here today specifically on behalf of Gulf states Toyota and I would like to discuss why we respectfully and unfortunately have to oppose house bill nineteen twenty two first I want to clear up some misunderstandings from Tuesday's House transportation hearing I know there was a lot of discussion about there not being any manufacturer investment in here in in Arkansas well Toyota's presence in the State of Arkansas is not limited to the relationship that we have as a distributor in Arkansas with all of our Toyota dealers across the state where millions of dollars are spent on advertising in training dealership employees here Toyota's investment in interest in Arkansas also includes the truck manufacturer Hino which has been based in Merion since two thousand five employs approximately one thousand people at their facility this important facility produces critical components used in the US assembly of the Toyota tundra and sequoia plus the Hino medium sized truck Toyota and Hino expanded their operations here in Arkansas and twenty sixteen additionally Toyota partners with at least seven different parts and material suppliers throughout our Arkansas employing an additional thirteen hundred our Kansans no I drove eight hours yesterday to be here for this this morning's hearing not because we have a disagreement with the dealers about how much they should receive an reimbursement on on warranty work that they perform for Toyota consumers. In fact and that's a significant part of what this bill is actually about we consider our Toyota dealers to be our partners and we absolutely want them to be successful and provide to the customers with the best possible experience I'm here today because we believe this bill would make the personal information of Arkansas customers the most vulnerable of any state in the country to a data security breach or hacking incident this bill would essentially tie our hands and prevent us from requiring that our dealers it here to reasonable data security safeguards in protecting customer information and their privacy it would make such requirements unlawful and a violation of Arkansas law this is very alarming to us I've been practicing dealer franchise law for the last twenty years and I've never come across any state that would prevent a manufacturer or distributor from working with their dealers to take reasonable steps to protect a customer's sensitive personal information until house bill nineteen twenty two yes the provisions in this bill dealing with what has been very broadly defined as a digital platform are very problematic and that is exactly why we were working with the dealer association to fix this issue as late as this past Thursday before the decision was made to move forward with this bill in its current form now I want to speak to the seriousness of the data security issue not with hypotheticals but with real examples and statistics that underline our concerns first I have personal knowledge of at least three separate serious dealer data security breach advance in our five state region within the last six months alone one of them involved a prominent and well respected dealership right here in Arkansas the most recent one occurred literally yes. Per day and I was informed about this serious data breach at the dealership during my drive to Arkansas the one yesterday involved a ransomware attack impacting hundreds of personal computers and devices used by the dealership at the time of my testimony today forensic experts are still working to determine what customer data may have been compromised now when this type of incident occurs the dealership systems have to be immediately cut off from the manufacturer or distributor in order to prevent unauthorized access to our systems what we are seeing in these recent cyber attacks on dealers and often ransomware attacks with the dealer system or network is broken into via their website their server or their email system the hacker then locks the dealers entire IT system down which prevents the dealer from accessing their email their customer databases and their essential files and programs it literally cripples the dealership and prevents them from transacting any business the hacker then demands a large untraceable payment to restore access to the dealership systems ransom no ransom amounts tend to be six figures or more and there's absolutely no guarantee that the hacker will release the system after payment this is bad for the dealership it's bad for the automotive brand and above all else it's very bad for the customer whose personal information was compromised according to one of recently published reports the transportation sector including car dealerships is the second most targeted industry for cyber attacks because it is a data rich environment of personal and financial information the average cost for a dealership security breach is four million dollars that includes ransom paid legal fees public relations fees paying for services to monitor and protect the credit his the the credit of those that were impacted such as LifeLock not to mention if. Act that the dealer is is out of business for a period of days and can't generate any revenue. Of course this also results in reputational harm not only to the dealership but to the automotive brands and eighty four percent of consumers say they would not purchase a car from a dealership whose data has been compromised most dealers make the mistake of assigning their internal IT manager as a cyber security manager more than seventy percent of dealers are not up to date on their anti virus software only twenty five percent of dealers hire a third party vendor to test their network vulnerabilities only thirty percent of dealers employ a network engineer with computer security certifications and training I would be happy to provide any member of this committee with a copy of this published report. Technology and cyber security protection is expensive and requires continual monitoring and updating our company Gulf states Toyota is currently spending over eighty three million dollars to upgrade our systems ensuring that the latest technologies in place to protect consumer data this legislation will almost certainly call into question whether we will be able to cascade down some of those protections to our Arkansas dealers and what we can require with and with respect to the law in terms of how they handle sensitive Toyota customer information. Now I believe it was said this week that we delayed this process or somehow laid behind the log nothing could be further from the truth we made our concerns about this poorly defined concept of digital platforms known from day one and the truth matters here because we ask the dealers and Mr Kirkpatrick with the dealer association to explain what the language of this bill meant regarding this concept and we got a wide variety of inconsistent and different cancers I personally raise the data security concern at the outset but you don't have to take my word for it because we were told by Mr Kirkpatrick and I believe Mr sandy strips of the Arkansas motor vehicle commission that our meetings were being recorded so I do not plan to leave little rock today without making a formal freedom of information or open record request for those recordings from the Arkansas motor vehicle commission and we have no doubt that the transcripts from these negotiations sessions that we had with Mr Kirkpatrick and the dealers will speak for themselves. The headline in automotive news and other publications regarding this bill will not be dealers pass legislation to requirement factions to reimburse at a higher dollar amount but rather it will read Arkansas dealers succeed in an effort to impede efforts by manufacturers and distributors to protect customer privacy and personal information. In closing we oppose this legislation because of the serious risk that it poses to our Kansans and their personal information and we strongly believe that our ability to protect the personal information of Toyota customers should not be impeded by this legislation. Thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions. No one and testimony. From. Thank you Jerry Johnson members of committee again my name is Jeff Perry with General Motors as just to recap that in I will go over all the same information that Larry has presented on the the customer data concerns that we have with this bill we do agree with his concerns in detail there are some other provisions in this bill that that basically. Aren't quite ready for prime time for this bill to to to go live and a number of them are are are simple technical issues that need to be fixed as a couple inconsistent paragraphs that seem to conflict there are other provisions that it's not clear there's some confusion as to which do you digital platforms being referenced in the paragraph is that the manufacturers or as dealers and we're we're very very close between of the dealers and the manufacturers in terms of agreeing on the definition of what digital platform even means because as we all agree at this point the one that was presented originally by the manufacturers was too too narrow and the one that was prevented presented originally by the dealers which appears in the bill now is too broad in fact. correct Patrick of the dealer association has even up read to us a redrafted version of that definition that sounded like that would be something we could work with unfortunately he's not presented that to us in writing so we don't have it with us to show you today but we were we're that close and finding that definition but there are other substantial issues in this bill as well and I think the one that I want to focus on the most from my testimony is relative to Manufacturing Carmen's for equipment and special tools the equipment special tools that manufactures required you wish to purchase typically relate to items necessary to perform warranty repairs on a consumer's vehicle and the reason that we require the special tools is that it either helps the technician save time war it is specifically designed to work with the systems in our vehicles and that piece of it is is what's becoming more more important these days with elect electric vehicles and new technologies that are coming out in our vehicles the the the tools in our diagnostic equipment that we're requiring that you wish to purchase that specifically read the systems in our cars and trucks. we have not in any way or at any time validated whether our our diagnostic tool is going to work on a Toyota or Ford and vice versa we don't know if their systems will work on ours And with over four thousand GM dealers nationwide we don't have the time to re validate four thousand additional tools we've developed these tools we know they work on our systems we know they properly diagnosed and we know they keep the technicians safe so that they can perform a correct proper and complete repair on a customer's vehicle the first time so the there's a provision in the bill that has typically been used in other states to allow dealers the opportunity to choose their own vendor when it comes to making facility improvements so changes to their building in this bill that language is being expanded to also apply to the dealers right to choose their own vendor to buy the special tools and equipment. Our concern there is if they start using a tool that wasn't actually designed for the vehicle to perform warranty work we're concerned the customer's vehicle may not be diagnosed properly may not be fixed completely it may even and some say circumstances with the EV's place the technician in harm's way so we have simply asked that that provision be removed from from that language as is the case in nearly every other state and in fact I've done this in for I've done I do this work on franchise bills for GM in all states I've been on over four hundred bills and in no state that I that I recall have we ever included special tools and equipment in the vendor of choice section for the dealers in fact it's most likely in other states been excluded specifically from those provisions so the other states are carving it out where as this bill is specifically putting it in. so for those reasons I think you know the special tools language still requires some additional attention and at this point we actually haven't aye aye lawyers point out we haven't said no to the dealers on any of this bill we've been working with them from day one our first meeting was on March fifth right after we all got a copy of the first draft of the bill and we've been diligently working with them the best that we can on all of our schedules I mean we are all working through zoom in most cases and as I said I work on these bills and fifty states so our schedules don't always align and it takes time sometimes to get synchronized but we have on encontre contrast what was stated we have prior to last Friday provided the dealer association in writing the additional changes that we think are necessary and for the most part in the conversation we had with them last week they said that they agreed with those changes and that they just didn't think there was going to be time to get them through. I guess that I'll leave that and and take any questions that you may have and I'll pass it off to my colleague. We will wait on questions until you go ahead I actually don't have much to add to that already but I did want to mention a couple things one in particular later made a comment about the House Committee meeting some of the things that were said there well GM is does not have a direct a manufacturing facility here we do have a number of suppliers that are in this state and we spend millions of dollars each year on those suppliers who provide good paying jobs for Kansans so indirectly we are here in this state it is an important state to us there two hundred fifteen dealers I think I heard mentioned in this state sixty eight of our GM dealers so it's important state there's a lot of cars for us and it does make a difference to us I I think. one thing I do want to add to it just said is I've been involved in all franchise issues for private thirteen years here in Arkansas and I they come every two years every two years basically there's a bill so it has been eleven years since we had a bill it's it's every two years or something it may deal with different sections but there there is a bill every two years In always we've been able to reach a compromise this is the first time we've not been able to reach a compromise were we can sit down and and figure this out I would say there's several reasons why because the that's probably a question why why even reached a compromise well. First of all we really to get the bill to halfway through your legislative session so wasn't leaving a lot of time to actually go through and do negotiations but it's just that immediately after we got it we schedule the meeting I came here for the meeting sit down and discuss it in and try to walk through this and the second reason it got delayed a little bit is because quite honestly there were some issues in this bill that were minor we got bogged down not because we necessarily disagree but getting the right language in there made a difference and so we work through those things and we actually felt we had a fairly good agreement except for this digital platform issue in the special special tools issue and maybe one other issue at the beginning of last week and then there was a draft bill we were given prior introduction it was introduced last Wednesday and address bill did not reflect what we already agreed to up to that point there were things that were missing there are things in the drafting that have been changed I know that I've heard from some today that also knows or insignificant you know we don't think that that's a big deal from our perspective there big deal if that's language we agree to we think it's important that it gets in there that way so I immediately called greater Patrick and said Hey we got some issues here because it distractors and you know the draft and by that time that the bill didn't even include all the things we agreed upon so we talk to meeting the the next day work through those and then work through we felt or the remaining issues and had an agreement last Thursday and then Friday we got an email just saying sorry we're just going with the bill as it is right now. Again we're to the weekend on Saturday I talked with great length because we were understanding you were going to be in next week was it turns out both the house and Senate will be and this could have been done this could have been avoided if we had actually really got together got that amendment drafted where we thought we were at that point and at the very least cleaned up we already agreed to and that was just it was not done I found out Monday night that that was not the case and so it's unfortunate because we've always been able to reach a compromise and in this case we have a but not because we haven't tried. So we would like to see a compromise on this we don't want to be sitting here opposing a bill that doesn't make any sense to us it should make any sense to the dealers either so thank you. The specialty tools and and I've learned you know in conversations that we were having prior to this meeting the. And as technology advances those tools you know special electronic vehicles. I mean. Has there ever been any tools supplied by the manufacturers. To to address that rather than the dealers having to adapt to the manufacturers. And and those specialty items and and having that price through on the vehicles the. Has that ever been done. If I clarify the question that you're asking if the manufacturer has ever provided these electronic tools to the dealers for free nine inches bill that's not free is and be passed to the customer but but the as a matter of of product but. I mean is it seems natural to me that if you're going to sell a vehicle and then there's going to have to that to to the manufacture needs then you know that can be pressed into the into the product. Yet I can answer the question is no it's not been done that way it has historically been part of the cost of doing business as a car dealer that you are responsible to purchase the tools and equipment you need to service the vehicles and then the the return on that investment get spread not just over the new vehicles that are sold but all over all all of the new and used vehicles that come in eventually thank you will use that to everyone so simply applying the cost of the tool to. Hi what I guess it would be a gases the how many new vehicles we would sell. Wouldn't be an accurate representation of the cost of that tool because ultimately the dealer use it for both new and used vehicles over time in may use it multiple times on individual vehicles so it's always been a part of the cost of doing business as a repair shop which would be consistent with what other repair shops experience as well so what happens if your dealers quit repairing your products. Well they're required to repair them under the law just as we are required to take them to take the vehicles there for warranty. So so they're required and we're required to use them so we don't understand or I'm going here because I mean everything that you guys do differently. Affects them. Right but again they're able to use those tools on used vehicles as well form which they are obtained additional revenue and we do pay for the warranty repairs. And we're paying according to your law at full retail rates if I could just add to that of this is historically it's always been the case that the dealers are buying special to so it's not we come out with a new engine there's a change to it they need a special tool one and new engine you know so that's that's not new and in the case of these vehicles it is it is a change but it's a change for us to I mean or you know we're spending twenty seven million dollars and the next four years on you know on electric vehicles and and basically Getting new vehicles out of batteries and all of that to to actually change the way vehicles are are made now so there is going to be a change in that just like if there was a different engine or and you know a brand new redesigned product there's always going to be special tools as well you have a you have engineer here farmer. In the mechanic and engineer don't always agree on how things should have been built to begin and maintenance needed that special tools so the senator Chesterfield. I continue to hear you talk about the possibility of working out the differences via negotiations. I am trying to figure out what it is and I would be happy. Why is that already happened. The negotiations that would lead to less not having to year three eighty Legislative response to. What clearly to me should be a negotiated response so I'm trying to figure out what the roadblocks are to that so that we can one. Well we were told by Mr Patrick that there has been no agreement on his side as to the definition that we've offered or that he's been working on with respect to digital platforms so they told us to take it or leave it proposition you either go with the definition it's in the bill or you know we'll see if the legislature. Having a long long time I'm especially interested and transportation technology makes things I'm particularly interested in the digital problem. Because I do know that if we do not have sufficient guardrails and in the property of both the dealer and the manufacturer can be at the hands of bad actors and so that troubles me tremendously. And is there somewhere in that the dealer will have some sway over. Motion of the digital platform that but not have a deleterious impact on. The manufacturer how do we get that done. Yes I guess couple answers to that And and I'm speaking for GM of course because I don't know everybody else's systems but for. Thank you. well our our website was mentioned before and how we're supposedly controlling the dealer's inventory that program is specifically called website of choice dealers in our program can choose to use that program or not we don't force them to use it it is designed to offer benefits to the dealers that want to participate in that program and we have pre certified a number of vendors I think it's four or five vendors they can choose from. If they don't want to use any of those particular vendors they can have their own personal vendor certified for the system as well and we showed we give them a link to the steps on how to do that. we're not controlling the dealer's inventory in fact our program specifically lays out that if the dealer wants to use their own inventory management controlled under they can do that but by doing that we may not be able to interface all of the benefits of the program with their inventory and therefore it would be on the dealer to take the actions of putting vehicles on removing them setting the prices adjusting for incentives doing all that manually on their own the program is intended to provide the dealers the benefits of us doing all of that for them if they elect to sign up we're not twisting their arm saying you have to do this we specifically give them that that alternative in. One of the things that's been been sort of the impression that's been given over all of this is that we're out there trying to be done that he was just because it's fine we're doing this because we're trying to protect not only our own internal systems we're trying to protect all of the dealers that are connected to that system and all of the consumer's data that comes into that system and we're not here today to say that any of the dealers in this room are the bad actors in the problem and you know they're saying what we already do that we don't need you telling us how to do it and you shouldn't be able to require us to do the stuff we're not saying it because we're having a problem with you but there are dealers out there that we have problems with who are cutting corners and they're not doing all these things and if you take this out from under us and say you can no longer require these things. Where does that leave the consumers that go to these other stores where does that leave all of these other dealers that are connected to the system whose data is itself is now at risk because of back door has been created through a bad website we're just trying to protect those areas. The one. Hopefully but in Arkansas. We have two questions in the queue but Senator Pitsch like make you stay alive turn my light on since Mr Hanning came to the end of the table this is a foreclosure statement members of the committee by one or I'm not asking questions because Mr Henning and I serve on the national board together so I'm going to have to declare that. Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chair I really I wanted to follow up on one Senator Chesterfield asking about I understand you know about the special tools and all that but. My I think. Primary concern is about the data security especially for consumers as well in addition to the dealers manufacturers. And. You made the statement that. We would have I remember your exact words but perhaps the weakest data security law in the country. And and I understand the the scope or the magnitude you illustrate that very well what can happen in the case of a data security breach I guess what I wanted to follow up on is can you tell me you know what about this proposal is different than other laws that would make us more vulnerable and as part of that you mentioned the security breach that took place yesterday and I guess for the purposes of illustration and helping me understand if you could maybe describe how that would be different in the future if this law were to pass what what's concerning about this law is as I mentioned it would tie our hands and what I mean by that is it was initially criminalize or would make unlawful any attempt by a manufacturer or distributor to impose requirements on the dealer about how they handle customer data yes there is some language in the in the current version that talks about data security but the unified interpretation of the automakers of the languages in the bill today believes that that is covering the connection between the manufacturer and the dealer not the connection between the dealer and the customer so that's that's the disconnect now in terms of what we give you some examples of why this is a problem I think and and why made the statement about why this would put Arkansas make it an out liar so we believe this bill would prohibit us from requiring our dealers to have cyber risk insurance okay we believe this bill would prohibit us from requiring let's see a two factor authentication process for access to customer information you know we don't want former employees to be able to log into a dealer system and get that and then share that information we believe this would prohibit us from requiring the dealers to use an encrypted email system. Good prohibit us from requiring that the dealers not use a server that resides in Russia I mean these are the types of things that we feel would would would we would be prohibited from doing and that would definitely be a one of a kind of for the nation there's no other state that I'm aware of what we would be prohibited from being able to make those reasonable requirements. It is said Mister chair there's no other state that has this digital platform language and that's what the issue is. Senator garner a service so there is a section here you mention where it talks about. Nothing more fringe upon the manufacture trip bill intellectual property uses policies or security requirements which should not prohibit you from put in certain. Security measures to stop data breaches in also says there's nothing to section prohibits a manufacturer distributor from establishing a digital platform requirement under a voluntary programme available to the motor vehicle dealer so that program you described earlier if it's voluntary then it seems like this section a covert cover that and that would the the requirements that section above wouldn't be there misreading that yeah. Thank you senator garner I on that point I guess the reason I was pointing out that ours is voluntary and our system operates is because our our program was specifically being presented as though what was the problem but I went under this law if if if a dealer want to voluntarily get that you can still put minimum safety requirements I want to put any kind of requirements established digital platform requirements as long as you do involuntarily so you all can enter into agreement of and if they if you want to be as strict as possible or not as long as voluntary you can still do that under the state's law that correct that's what that yeah that's what that paragraph second paragraph doesn't control all of the circumstances that later to discuss thanks or. Your questions from members all. Seeing none thank you gentlemen thank you. Representative Wardlaw and. Gentleman welcome to the closure your bill. Thank you Mr chairman. Just point out the things almost exactly the same as the House Committee is the differences in the House Committee these guys didn't show up there lobbyist showed up and read a statement their statements in the House Committee used or control over and over and over again they were very careful today not to use that word. But he did make it clear and one statement about the inventory he's we do not control the dealer's inventory we give them choice I like the way he's answer center justice question with the word choice the problem is if you don't choose then you don't sell those vehicles because they don't let your dealership have those vehicles if you don't inventory fifteen of those Dodge fifty five hundreds you don't sell and if you don't sell you don't service on even though you had to buy all the specialty tools that he got to another I understand your frustration that I own a few tractors myself but you you have to bother specialty tools to be a Dodge dealer so you've got all the tools you've trained all your people to service those vehicles but you can't serve some because you don't inventory those numbers. What this bill does is takes that level control way digital platform definition if you go to page six look at line thirty. He wants to talk about all the cyber security it plainly says in the bill that they will not improve in trans upon our return impair the manufacturer distributors interlocal property rights uses policies all our security requirements they're not going around any of that. It tells you that word for word in the bill so it's a fear thing yes we will be one of our states in the country to House digital platform that is true. sometimes doing the right thing I don't mind being the first person doing the right thing to protect twenty thousand employees in Arkansas at work for these two hundred fifteen dealers to make sure that we keep those people employed I'm here. And I'd be happy I appreciate a good vote. What's the what's the will of committee. Motion do pass by Senator Hill. Second by Senator Garner all in favor say aye. Any discussion. Those questions those opposed Like sign. This call role. Senator Chesterfield. Nile Senator English now Senator Garner yes Senator Eads. Yes senator hill. Yes Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker. Senator Pitsch. Senator Pitsch. Sorry the bill does not pass. Thank you. We have one more bill representative brown. Motion to suspend the rules for House Bill eighteen ninety three all in favor say aye. All opposed Like sign. Go ahead review ram thank you Mr chair and committee This is a little building if we get past you make some people in your district happy. When we passed or what became. ACT. An act to amend axed twenty twenty one number three twenty eight to exempt certain types of vehicles from the required additional fee for electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles and for other purposes what is happened is in discussion so that school senator Johnson and I've had with Mr hammer governed DMV parent Lee some of the motor Revenue offices are charging people who own a golf carts low speed vehicles electric motorcycles and hybrid motorcycles. The additional fees that we passed in our big tax bill a couple years ago hi Bridget was one hundred dollars in for electric vehicles was two hundred dollars so Mr hammering. Senator Johnson told me this morning that in his discussions with Mister Hamrick that Mr Hammond thought that it was just a misunderstanding on the part of some of the DMV offices I think it's total of thirty six hundred dollars in fees that they can identify that they've collected So this bill basically is retroactive and would return those speeds and we're no longer charge them to the specific vehicles. The representative brown senator garner yeah my son Lincoln has a electric vehicle is a little tractor that you hook up and got a little battery and I guess we get a two hundred dollar fees unless we change laws that correct well if you try to register it. I will not but. Any any other questions from the members. Senator Chesterfield. It's about thirty six hundred dollars. Any other questions. I see no other questions your closure you real. I'm closed and I appreciate a good vote senator hill is made a motion seconded by senator garner all in favor say aye. Olympos like sign. Thank you Yeller a seer then the House Committee at times. Thank you. Members we will adjourn if they try to address the issue that we just saw I will adjourn and to call of the chair. All.