Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Seven hours.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: And what's that?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Good morning. Thursday, 03/26/2026 here in house transportation. We are still waiting our turn on the, floor, which hopefully will be later today for our t bill presentations. This morning, we're going to get a preview of what we're gonna be working on in the next few weeks or month or two that's come over from the senate, the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill that we treat as a very much anonymous bill for all kinds of parts and pieces. So we have our legislative council here to give us a preview along with a number of guests from the Department of Motor Vehicles, which we certainly look happy for your input at any point as we try to get an overview and a look at what in the miscellaneous motor vehicle coefficient here. So Damian, welcome back to Lydia again, and share all the work you've been doing with all of our other activities in BC. And now we'll the next have a preview of the next part.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hey. Well, it's great to be back. For the record, I'm Damian Leonard from the Office of Legislative Counsel. So what I'm thinking I'll do, and let me know if if this makes sense, mister chair, is give the committee a sort of a 10,000 foot overview, what the sections deal with, and answer questions, but I'm gonna try not to get too deep in the weeds since this is supposed to be an overview, and I think I'm assuming we'll spend much more time on each of these sections going forward. So behind me, can see s 26 as passed by the senate. The first six sections of this bill deal with ID, various forms of ID issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. The changes in section one are, for the first couple of pages, technical changes and clarifying for purposes of the federal REAL ID Act that you cannot hold an operator's license and a non driver ID at the same time. So you can have one state issued credential. It could be a driver's license or a non driver ID, but you can't have both. Getting to, page three, we get into the more substantive change here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The,

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: oh, actually, no. This is still technical changes. I apologize. We're so on page two, we're still clarifying. So this is I did send you an email just with a link just a minute ago. It should be arriving.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on page two, we're making more technical changes as to renewing in person to update photographs, etcetera, again, to comply with the REAL ID Act. And then finally, when we get to subsection m here, we're getting to the new sort of substantive changes. And some of you will remember this from a bill that passed out of the corrections and institutions committee related to driver's licenses and other IDs for individuals who have been served a sentence of at least six months or been detained in a state correctional facility for at least six months. Under current law, they provide non driver IDs at no cost to individuals who have served a sentence of six months. The changes that are proposed in here, which mirror what passed the house and the bill out of house corrections and institutions, would provide the non driver would provide operators licenses, replacement operators licenses, and replacement learners permits to individuals who have served a sentence of at least six months at no cost. And then six months later, January 1, we'll provide essentially the documentation necessary to obtain non driver ID driver's replacement driver's license or replacement learner's permit to an individual who's been detained for a period of six months or more. The reason we can't provide the ID to those individuals is because with an individual who's detained, you don't have a release date. They could be released at the end of their trial. They could be released a week after a trial.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: So you don't know exactly when they're going to be released, so

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's very hard to coordinate the actual provision of the ID. So instead, the documentation is prepared so that they can then go to the DMV after release and get that credential at no cost. So that's the change that you see here on pages three, and then the new subsection N is detained individuals. Section two of the bill provides replacement operator licenses for individuals who have served the period of imprisonment of at least six months. Section three does that for individuals who have been detained for six months. And I'm skipping over the language because it is largely repetitive from section to section, just as we add in different types of individuals. Section four provides the replacement learner's permit for individuals who have been sentenced to serve for a period of six months or more, and section five does it for individuals who have been detained for a period of six months or more. And then section six updates the authority of the commissioner of corrections to give them the authority to coordinate with the department of motor vehicles for this program. When the no cost non driver ID program was adopted, this authority was overlooked in the draft, and so this is closing up that gap in our statutes. So that's the first six sections and first 11 pages of the bill. Are there questions on that before I move on? So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: prior to this, you were able to get these, but you're saying it was while you were in prison, you could get it. Now this is just saying you can get all these things as soon as you're discharged.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the there are a couple of clarifications there. So prior to this, you could get a the DOC and the DMV would coordinate to provide you with a no cost non driver ID. If you wanted a different credential or you were detained, you would have to pay for the credential, and the MOU wasn't in place necessarily for them to coordinate the provision of that credential upon release. So that meant individuals would have to pay for it and would also have to go to the DMV. The other thing that this provides is if your driver's license expired or your learner's permit expired within for driver's licenses, it's the last three years. For learner's permits, the last two years while you were in the correctional facility. This allows you to obtain them with obtain that without going through the retest. So understanding that you can't take a road test while you're incarcerated. And so this reflects that, and this is sort of the time period they came up with as being reasonable to allow that to happen. So there are some significant changes. I would encourage you to hear from DOC and DMV on on more of the details. That's sort of my high level understanding, and I know that they have a more detailed understanding and can speak more to how the current process works and what they envision as this moves forward. But they did they've done a lot of did a lot of work downstairs with your colleagues in corrections and institutions, and then the senate chose to mirror that language. And they have heard it in the senate transportation and senate institutions, but this committee hasn't heard it yet. So or at least I don't know that you have. I haven't been here for that testimony. Mirrors the house bill that Kate and others can't. Yes. That was the the senator Westman and representative Emmons agreed to have the senate mirror the house language to ensure that we didn't have two competing versions going at the same time. So that and I'm working with my colleague, Hillary, who's works on the corrections side of this to make sure that these bills stay mirrored provided that's your intent. So So section seven, under existing law, if you bounce a check when you're renewing your license or your registration, the commissioner has the authority if you don't make good on the amount due to suspend your license or registration. However, if you make an electronic payment and between the time that the payment is authorized and the time the money actually exchanges, which can be several days, the bank account zeros out and has insufficient funds or the credit card maxes out and the payment doesn't go through, they don't have a mechanism to enforce that payment. And so what this does is it trues up the language to expands the language from just check payments to electronic funds transfers, including credit or debit charges. And it also adds language.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: The

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: promptly paid as required by the commissioner and the it adds the as required by the commissioner language here. I thought there was an additional change, but there there isn't. This went through several versions. And the reason for the as required by the commissioner is because the commissioner doesn't require you to pay the same day. The commissioner gives you a period of time, which I understand is currently about thirty days to make good on that payment before they suspend your license and registration. And so this leaves that discretion with the commissioner to require payment within a reasonable time. Let me back up

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: for a quick second. Sections one through six that we just talked about, who would you say then? Was it representative and her chair? Who requested the first six sections? And originated and requested

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this originated with I believe the bill was originally introduced by representative Pedrick, and then corrections and institutions began working on the language. They learned that the proposed DMV miscellaneous bill included language that related to the non driver IDs and clarifying some of the provisions around that. And because that covered the same area, the the two chairs began talking and then agreed that if house corrections decided to move that language, the senate would mirror it to ensure that we didn't have conflicting language. And so that I think within the house, it was first representative Hedrick and then corrections and institutions under chair Emmons. Yeah. What about this section seven? This DMV oriented? This was DMV miscellaneous bill. So yeah, you would want to hear from the DMV on this provision and their experience with it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So this allows thirty days to get thirty days to fix this. That's not written anywhere.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. That's that's the current

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of the commissioner. They don't have to go through rulemaking to establish that.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. That's the current procedure is established by the commissioner. And rather than codifying that, the senate chose to leave the discretion to the commissioner.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm alright. I just wonder where that's fixed and where people know that's policy, that it's not a policy for one person and not policy for the next person.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it would be good to hear from the DMV on that. They can explain how the current process works and where that's spelled out for folks or how they're made aware of that. But the testimony in the senate was that when when a check is bounced, they let folks know that they have, you know, the the thirty day time period. You know? And I don't know exactly what that communication looks like, but it's at thirty days that they

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thirty days or less. Yeah. But just that it's applied equally to everybody. Yeah. Now it will be for the same thing, debit cards or debit card.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Section eight and nine both relate to what are called stuckages some So of those I love that term, And so I use every opportunity I can.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Well, think it's gotta get into the dictionary now

[Unidentified Committee Member]: because Phil's used the dictionary.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Was it 10 times or 20 times? Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've already sent notice to the Oxford English Dictionary to include it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this was also from the DMV miscellaneous proposed bill. This proposes increasing the penalties for first, for violating the prohibition on over length vehicles entering the notch from 1,000 to 10,000, and then if a stuck edge occurs from 2,000 to 20,000, and then second and subsequent violations within a three year period continue to be a double penalty. Hopefully, after one instance, you've learned enough not to do that again. So these this proposes the penalty increase, and I'm sorry. There was another section in the initial bill that was taken out. The initial bill proposed also points on the license. The senate took that out. So importantly, if it's a vehicle that's being operated in the course of employment, it's the employer who is assessed the penalty. If it's being operated for personal reasons. So such as driving your own box truck or your own RV through the gap or the the notch, then the penalty is assessed against the owner or operator of the vehicle.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Has there been anything else that was taken out prior to this?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're gonna mention It was just the the points that were taken out here. The other sections that were taken out were sections relating to changes to the purchase and use tax that proposed updates to terminology in there and clarifications as to how that applies to trailers and where the cap on the purchase and use tax applies. The initial fiscal note on the Senate side indicated that that was actually going to result in an increase in taxes. The senate committee had been operating under the understanding that it was revenue neutral. And so that rather than going to the floor with that, they took the sections out in the revised amendment. I don't know if the DMV intends to ask to have those sections put back in either as they were or in a revised manner, but those were taken out in the senate version.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So only those two things, the original reflect

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I can think of off the top of my head. I will look at my notes. Sounds

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: if anything else comes up, the Right. I that'd be great.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If I've missed something, I'd invite DMV, who's here, to just note that. So they're

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And then if section goes, unless they're all DMV pieces, are there any other thing? Otherwise, know, mentioning the last one before

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: they were There are the next several are from the DMV miscellaneous request, and then we'll get to others that were added to that. So this section here on salvage titles, this is section nine beginning on page 12 and going on to page 13. What this allows for is the use of electronic signatures on supporting documents to transfer ownership of a totaled vehicle to an insurer after payment of damages. So, doesn't work no longer requires a notarized signature, can be signed electronically, can be printed on a copy. It defines what signed electronically means based on it uses our current definition of signed electronically with the clarification that it uses a secure authentication system that identifies the signatory with a degree of certainty equivalent to or greater than level two as described in the National Institute of Standards and Technologies. June 2017 digital identity guidelines, NIST special publication 800 dash 63 dash three revision three, which is the which as I understand it is the federal standard for these signatures.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: We're gonna stay at the 10,000. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We'll back. We'll back.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But anyways, supporting documents are sales, title documents, odometer disclosures, and powers of attorney. And they can speak more to the need for that and where that request came from. I believe that was an outside request made to the doc department that they update, get the law updated to allow for this. The next two sections ten and eleven relate to duplicate titles for motor vehicles and for, ATVs, vessels, snowmobiles or next three sections. So section 10 and section 12 allow duplicate title to be hand delivered to a person if they're at the DMV location when they request the d m v the duplicate title. Currently, if you go into the DMV location, they are required by law to mail it to you even if they could give it to you at the location. So this simplifies that. Section 11 makes a technical change in reviewing the the statute. We realize that the section governing governing titles for vessels, snowmobiles, or all terrain vehicles, The definition of title in that chapter was never updated to include snowmobiles or all terrain vehicles when they were added to that chapter. So that's just a technical change. Section 12 allows the duplicate certificate of title for those types of vehicles to be hand delivered at the DMV.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Hold up. Wait a minute. When you say duplicate, this is I've lost one. I need another one.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So Mhmm.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Want two. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is you've lost your title, and you're requesting a duplicate certificate of title so that you can use it for whatever whatever reason you need it. Section 13 clarifies where a title appeal occurs. It does not change it. So there are two divisions of the superior court in Washington County, the civil division and the criminal division. This clarifies that you appeal to the civil division, not the criminal division. So that was requested by DMV's counsel. Section 14 is simply renumbering change for clarity with respect to abandoned motor vehicles or exempted motor vehicles from the certificate of title. Excuse me. And so this is not intended to change the meaning of this section. And so this was also in the DMV request. Section 15 is not a technical change. This would up the, fee that can be charged for towing an abandoned vehicle from public property from $1.25 to $2.50. That was last updated at the beginning of last biennium. This would update it again. DMV can speak to this a bit more. They also heard from the towing representative of the the towing companies down downstairs. It also allows so the agency of transportation, if they have reimbursed the entity that towed the vehicle ahead of time, they can now request reimbursement from DMV, which is an interesting dynamic there where the parent agency is requesting reimbursement from the department within it. But because the fund lies with the department, that's how it would be processed. So essentially, typically what happens is you telephone public property and the towing company can request reimbursement from DMV. In the instance where AOT pays that reimbursement in advance, they can ask to be reimbursed from the fund that sits at DMV for those towing costs. They can speak more to the need for this and what they've been experiencing around abandoned motor vehicles at places like Park And Rides when they come in to testify.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Section six Oh. So this has nothing to do with, I've parked in a no parking zone or anything like that. These are what we're calling abandoned vehicles on the property. Rest

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: areas. It could be in a municipal parking spot if your vehicle has been there unremoved for quite some time. So that happens too. It could be in a municipal park, that sort of thing.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Yeah. Is there a definition for abandoned vehicle?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's in the chapter.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: In this chapter, we're right now.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The chapter that governs abandoned motor vehicles. And when we do a deeper dive, I can go into that.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Because it's not like somebody parked in the legislative parking lot. They're not a legislative, and they

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: get towed for $250. No. Because we target people too. Because

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: it's an enormous amount of money if somebody parks

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: in the

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, this is not what's charged to the individual to recover their vehicle from the towing company. This is the towing company trying to recover its costs for the actual tow. So there our statute does not actually set specific parameters around, for example, what you would be charged for vehicle storage after your vehicle has been towed and brought to a storage lot. But we can get into all of that when I when I'm not doing a 10,000 foot walk through. I'm happy to happy to go into that in more detail.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. David, how does this differ than we dug into this several years ago. Idea that this is different than when the state police calls to get a off the highway.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That If we dealt with that a

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: couple of years ago. Don't know if we raised some money for them. I remember the testimony that there's over 500 of those a year.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are. We don't actually have a lot of statute around that instance. Much of that is left up to sort of existing practices. There was a bill proposed that's on the wall, I believe, that would address some of those issues or has a proposal to expand the law, sort of setting regulations around that. There's not a great deal of law around that, but that is a that would be a disabled vehicle or, you know, clearing an accident on the highway, which is different from an abandoned vehicle that has been sitting for prolonged period of time on public property. And there there can also be abandoned vehicles on private property. This section on a chapter on abandoned vehicles covers what to do and how to certify that. But yeah. So this is a a different category, and there are specific requirements for how you're supposed to report an abandoned vehicle, etcetera. Presumably with the accident on the highway, the owner of the vehicle knows. With an abandoned vehicle, they may not realize their car has been towed. Well, I'm saying

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: that well, accidents are different. I'm at 500 abandoned vehicles on the interstate every I mean, on my highways every year. So that was different than the accident. So that That was a part that we went through all

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Those vehicles may actually, to some extent, be covered by this. And I would have to look closer at that. I thought you were referring to accidents.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: No. I'm saying, no. There's yeah. There was over a vehicle a day hauled off of our highways that were abandoned, according to what we heard several years ago. I thought that was amazing, in a small state like this, that there's more than one a day. Representative Burke?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah, I just wanted to say there was an incident where an old trailer was left by the side of Route 5 right at the sort of Radagord and Clifford line, and it was on private property, of. And people were screaming to get it taken And they said it's on private property. Anyway, then so did we trans. We do a town very, involved, but anyway, so it was sort of an issue, it's like, what do we do, because it's on private property, we can't.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We can this doesn't change the current provisions around the private property toe. We can get into the overall statute more when we get back to this. I'm I'm happy to prepare a little bit more of an overview.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: We can check with check Jerry Flynn because he's involved with this.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So with the next change to the diesel fuel tax in section 16, which begins on page 17 and moves on to page 18, there was renumbering done here for it it used to be one long run on paragraph. And what it's what's happened is the computation and payment has been broken out into subsections and subdivisions. And to try to break things out into sort of more logical sense in the overall section. And in one instance, there was a missing word in the statute that's been added. That's on line 12 of page 18. But this is and then some renumbering in the cross references. It is a technical amendment that doesn't change the substance of how that tax is calculated and paid. The next provision, section 17, relates to increasing the penalty for operation of an unregistered snowmobile in the state. My understanding is that this was requested by VAS and included in the bill by DMV or in the request by DMV. And so this would increase the penalty from $135 to $450 for operating an unregistered snowmobile in the state, and then $500 on a second or subsequent offense in a three year period. And again, Vast and the DMV can speak to that issue.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So this is your your registration for your Snow machine, not a VAS sticker.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. It does say the requirement here, I believe, is not having a trail a trail access decal or registration. Oh, it's required. Things. Yeah. Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: So Represent what? How much was it previously?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 135. So it's

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: going from 135.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So essentially, it's more than tripling the penalty. Representative Lalley?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I'm assuming a lot of people do. I don't know why

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm not

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: She's still on the back. I looked too quick. Please go ahead. You're you're up.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yeah. Okay. So that's are there a lot of people that operate unregistered to mobile systems? Yes.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the understanding downstairs, to paraphrase, was that the current penalties are not enough of a deterrent. So and so the idea is to raise it so that it's not simply choosing between paying to comply or paying for the penalty.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: And my understanding is you register it. It's gonna be like you're registered in ATV or a car. But in order to ride your snowmobile, you need this vast sticker.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So it's a TMA decal. And then the statute 3,202, which is referenced, provides that a person shall not operate a snowmobile in this state unless it is registered and numbered by the state of Vermont or another state or province and displays a valid Vermont trails maintenance assessment decal. So you have to have both valid registration either from Vermont or your state or province and have paid your Vermont Trails Maintenance Assessment.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Does somebody know how much of that? What that fast ticket is like $75 or something?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's $100,145 dollars if you do it early, or it's like $180 if you wait out till after December 15. And obviously, the fine being at 135 that that. Somebody might save want to save $10 here to be $40 But in the end, I think that's as a soldier, I like that. I think that's good.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I should note this. Sticker even if you don't go on Bass Trails. Just stand by my neighbor's property.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I actually need I don't know. But Violent Friend? Yeah.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Matt Russo, Deputy Commissioner for Community. If you're on a vast jail, you're a private property.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You actually need a letter or you need to have gotten permission?

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Permission. ATV isn't a physical letter. Permission is something.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that is spelled out in the statute. You're required to have permission from the owner to be on the property in both instances. Other questions?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's fine for car registration, not having a car register. I just wanna pat some line. Like, if you didn't have a license and your car wasn't registered, does that equal $500?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would have to look. I can get you that answer. If if DMV doesn't know off the top of their heads, I can get you the answer. Just curious. I believe there's I believe that you you do have there's also potentially points involved there, which can lead to a license suspension.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: was just trying to see

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if we're on par. Seems like an excessive doesn't show. Section

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 18, this is a a new section. This was requested by DMV. And what this allows is that during an emergency declared by the governor, an employee of a state agency or Vermont municipality can operate a heavy duty commercial vehicle. So that's a vehicle weighing over 26,000 pounds without being required to hold a commercial driver's license while the emergency or emergency condition is ongoing if, and this is important, they have to both be this has to be expressly permitted by the terms of the governor's declaration. So it would have to say that it's waiving the commercial driver's license requirement for state and local employees And the individual performing the duties has to be performing official duties or activities related to the execution of emergency governmental functions under federal regulations related to commercial driver's licenses. This is a somewhat narrow area. And what we've done here is mirrored what's in New York state's law where they have a similar provision to allow their employees to do this. And so ideally, this tracking of federal regulations will ensure that as those regulations change and administrations change, we stay current with whatever we're allowed to do by the federal law.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So what you're saying is federal law allows this during an emergency. In

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: certain instances, yes. Yeah. Yeah. And there are different provisions under federal laws we discovered downstairs. There are provisions for private commercial truck drivers to waive, for example, hours of operation so they can work extended hours. And then there are other provisions related to public employees. And there are some public employees who have a of a broad waiver, like firefighters and National Guard members when they're carrying out their official duties, and then there are others who can get a limited waiver for emergencies. Alright. Section 19, this, relates to, creating a one year, fee for a nondomiciled commercial driver's license of $40. So the non domiciled CDL is for someone who is either a foreign national who's temporarily authorized to work in The United States or someone who comes from a state whose right to issue CDLs has been suspended by the federal government. So in either instance, those individuals, if they can get a Vermont CDL, and this basically provides that they get a one year CDL and that's $40 there is a lot of talk about ongoing federal regulations on non domiciled CDLs and changes to those. Is not related to that directly. So those, I believe, just went through and will likely be potentially be doing additional updates in the future. So preview of coming attractions for those of you who are coming back, this may be something that we do additional updates on to stay in compliance with. So questions? Motorboat validation stickers. This came from the Department of Public Safety, I believe, and this is to bring us in compliance with federal requirements. If your state requires a validation sticker with its registration, it has to be placed adjacent to the registration number on the vehicle. And so this will provide that validation stickers be placed six inches preceding the registration on the port side of a motorboat. That's the left side. And six inches is following the registration number on the starboard side of the motorboat, that is the right side. And this brings us into compliance with the federal requirements. So you can't put your validation sticker back by the motor or inside the boat or something like that. And this ensures that when your boat's out on Lake Champlain and the coast guard pulls up alongside your compliance. And the rest of the changes in here are technical changes to correct cross reference numbers and to add just non gendered titles. The next section was requested by Senator White. There is a similar request in the house from representative Garifano. There was a bill introduced. This is section 21 on page 26. So there are about four pages of technical changes there. I

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: just asked a question about validation stickers.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Mr. Chair? Yes. So

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: I had, in regards to motorcycles, I had people who were upset about where they had to stick this big yellow sticker on your motorcycle, their Harley Davidson motors. They refused to put it on because it's kind of like a work of art type of thing. So I don't know if that was addressed, don't know if I'm calling a friend from T2B or get

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That back to us on was not discussed in the context of the motorboat validation stickers.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Oh, this is motorcycle.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, for the motorcycles, this was just related to motorboats. For the motorcycles, I think that would probably be something that could be discussed when

[Unidentified Committee Member]: somebody comes in. I mean, I've

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: had a couple of Harley

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sticks. Yeah. That sounds like it might be the inspection sticker

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: or something. I don't know what it is, but they don't like it when we get out.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Velocity before. It's a little plate. Mine's got a little plate right where the kick shifter. Sticks out. Put your sticker there. Put on your fork. At one time they used to tell you to put it I thought they used to tell you to put it on your fork.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: But anyway, I bring that up while you're here. Thank you. I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: don't know, have to ask. I don't work for the IT. I just don't like putting, you know, our highly guys don't like putting a sticker on their chrome. It's basically when they announced a This little flag looking plate that's right in front of your shifter that sticks out and that's where I put mine.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Thank you. We'll get back to them. Alright.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section 21, personal flotation devices. This was a a member request. What it does is it adds a requirement that begins at the bottom of page 26, and it requires that between November 1 and May 1 of each year, an individual aboard a vessel that is underway. And if the individual's on an open deck is required to wear a US Coast Guard approved personal flotation device as intended by the manufacturer. This does not apply to US Coast Guard inspected vessels. So commercial vessels operating on Lake Champlain and on other waterways in the state that are inspected by the Coast Guard are not covered by this. So you do not have to wear a personal flotation device on the deck of the ferry when you're riding across on November 15 or on the spirit of Ethan Allen, something like that.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: So do I have to wear one of these things on my sailboat?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you're out between November 1 and May 1, yes. You do not in the summer, you just have to have your flotation devices on board. This is related to so without going into the testimony, this is related to concerns about cold water shock.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So is that okay?

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Remember we had that testing

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And so they they did include in addition to the exception for coast guard inspected vessels, they did also add in exemptions for vessels that are located in not more than three feet of water where the individual is actively engaged in hunting or bow fishing, and they have a valid hunting or fishing license. So they provided a limited exception there for certain activities where you either will have a rifle to your shoulder or need full mobility of your arm.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think in the testimony, there were other states that had this.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are other states that have this requirement. I can speak to it a little bit more. Most states limit it to certain kinds of vessels or certain sizes. And we can discuss that in more detail if you would like when we get there. But Vermont's not the first state to do this, but Vermont's requirement would be somewhat broader than many of the other states. I guess I feel

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: like I would owe it to the committee to know that representative Garifama came to me about this bill, and I said, I think that the best way that you really believe this is an important part of what should be in there to go work in the senate where we have a member of the Transportation Committee that represents the sportsmans, duck hunts, that spends time on a blogger in this wintertime. If you get it in, you're gonna have much better luck if you start there. And so she presented here, and after she did, I directed her to go there and work with the Senate Transportation, especially since she's been chair of the Sportsman Caucus, it's on the Transportation Committee. And I applaud her for the work to get her to this spot, because I think that it would be difficult to start at this end and work more difficult. I thought it would be better for her to start over there. I appreciate the work that she did. Don't still needs a lot to dig into it now to explain what all that means since I don't do many of those things. But anyway, I want to know that's how we handle that or I handle that situation.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. The next couple sections relate to, what are called k vehicles, or mini trucks, mini cars, mini buses. So k is short for Keijidosha, which is Japanese for light duty vehicle. The k vehicles under Japanese law are required to meet they cannot exceed certain dimensions for length, width, and height, and they have to have an engine that is no larger than 660 cc. So there these are small engines, smaller vehicles. You've seen some of these mini trucks and mini buses around Vermont already. Yes. Like the Shriners Parade? No. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's K.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. No, no. So those are go karts. Although they may they may meet the legal definition of a k vehicle. So what this provides is that k vehicles are included in the definition of pleasure cars And then K trucks, which are a subset, can be registered as a farm truck. And so a K vehicle is a motor vehicle with four wheels, an engine displacement of 660 cubic centimeters or less, an overall length of a 130 inches or less. So that's 10 feet, 10 inches or less. Overall height of six foot six inches or less, and an overall width of five feet or less. And these come in everything from two seat Roadsters to dump trucks, fire trucks, etcetera. In order to bring them into The US, they have to be at least 25 years old to meet federal importation guidelines because they are not certified to the federal motor vehicle safety standards. They're certified to the Japanese standards. And so the exception in federal law is for importation of vehicles that are twenty five years or older. So you're finding these used vehicles on the market in The US and they're imported. What spurred this was confusion among constituents regarding whether or not they could register them in the state. And so this is clarifying that they can register them in the state. And they can either be registered as a pleasure car subject to all the requirements and restrictions on pleasure cars or a farm truck subject to all the requirements for farm trucks. This language originated and was asked for by Senator White.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: In

[Unidentified Committee Member]: fact, it has to be twenty five years or older to get it.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so these are older vehicles. So right now, you're seeing 2,000 and one's hit the market, but a lot of them are late '90s. And like I said, they vary. Since this came in, I've been just extra aware of them, but I saw a little bus driving downtown in Montpelier the other day when I was out walking. I've seen the dump trucks around and other versions of the truck with a flatbed or something like that. But they yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: So I could be sitting in my Honda Pilot at a stoplight, and I could have one of these little vehicles in front of me because they have to obey all of the motor vehicle laws.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If they're registered as a pleasure car, yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Correct. Okay. So, like, is it, like, the size of one of those Shriners cars?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: No. Would that be?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. They they would fall under

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: that things. Right.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is it is not the size of one of those Shriners cars. I've seen really tiny cars. Like I said, they're they're up to ten feet ten inches long and up to six feet six inches high. So these are not, you know,

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Sure. I think you

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can confirm. Some of the vehicles would fit yeah. They're bigger than a Mini Cooper in some instances. So

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: on Friday I'm just trying to figure out how big

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: these things are. Yeah. On Friday, April 3, from one to three there'll be or twelve to two, I guess, I'm sorry, on Friday, April 3, Senator White will have organized a mini truck and a little demonstration of vehicles out in front of the State House and a little presentation that you'll all give an invitation to on Friday, April 3, from twelve to two. And you can have mini cupcakes while you're there. Really, I am happy to pass along to the committee Senator White's organizing event regarding the exception of the DMV bill, and some mini cupcakes will certainly seal it for me. And there's a picture of some of these actual vehicles out there for you to be represented.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But if you own one of these, you can get one if it's twenty five years or older, and then you just register it and inspect it and drive it like a normal vehicle has brakes and all that. So you use your Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: With respect to these vehicles, in most of their features in the vehicle, system, airbags, seat belts are the same as your 2001, whatever it was you were driving back then. The difference is the dimensions and that they were certified to the Japanese standards. So they, for example, didn't have the crumple zone that American cars, cars certified to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards had back then.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: were witnesses that the Senate heard from who talked about their own vehicles and their experiences with the vehicles in Vermont. The department spoke to it and spoke to their understanding there. I can speak to the law in other states and so forth. And yeah, they're easy to find online if you just search K Truk, K E I.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: So why 25 years and old? You would think one would think that

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: newer vehicles would have higher standards. So that's the that is the current federal regulation for importation of of these vehicles. Okay. I would note that president Trump, a few months back, did suggest that it did suggest that he might be in favor of having new arcade vehicles in The United States, although I don't know any details on that. There was a

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Okay. We don't manufacture any of the stuff.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. These are Okay. Primarily manufactured as or entirely primarily in Japan and entirely in in East Asia, as I understand it.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They are more common in other parts of the world. When I was traveling over

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: I can't hear you.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: When I was traveling over town meeting week, I noticed several of them in the place where I was, which was outside of the country.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So I thought now I don't wanna get too deep into it, but my brother and friend bought brand new ones within the last five years.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They can do that if they are certified to meet The US standards,

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: and some of them are now

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: getting certified. You can buy it, but

[Unidentified Committee Member]: why not?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so the tricky thing with the old ones is because there there was a lot of confusion about whether you could get them inspected, whether they would pass safety inspection, etcetera, etcetera. And so the department and the other you know, there was a list of witnesses who spoke to the confusion. The department spoke to what their understanding of the law is, and and this is sort of clarifying that. But you likely will want to just dig into this more when it's not me in the chair.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I can't help you. I will. And I'd like to at least get

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a 10,000 foot answer, and we'll get quarter

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: into this if we could.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there misconception was that

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: you said that's probably not inspectable. Think admissions is brought up, they're already 25 years or older, say they're 16 years, so they're not required to meet admissions standards. So they are inspectable, we've always registered them. Right now we do require an inspection first to be sure that they can be inspected before we register them. So this is really just clarifying what we already do.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Alright, is that prior

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: to you?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes. And

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: has there been questions around the inspection?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I mean, like I said, I've known I've gotten a series of emails about

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: the inspections have always been the ones that happen along the same things.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Not a policy to automatically fail them.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: No, absolutely. They like That's a misconception. Exactly. Yeah. Can be expected in the Arkansas.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Like any other vehicle, they have to have, you know, safety, standard safety equipment, etcetera. Okay.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Back up to 10,000 feet.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. The the next section, section 24, requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to amend the inspection manual to increase its focus on vehicle conditions constitute genuine safety issues, eliminate outdated procedures, and provide clear, consistent guidance for inspection mechanics and members of the public. The department can speak to this more, but my understanding is that they are already in process of doing this update. And the language in here adds some legislative intent and then a list of areas that the legislature is specifically asking the department to look at, including things like tires, power steering suspension, brake rotors, lighting, etcetera. This list was taken from where the department is currently looking at amendments. And the language is designed to be flexible enough to allow them if during the rulemaking process, which requires notice and comment and possible revisions, if they make revisions not to penalize them for taking one of those out if they determine that an amendment is not appropriate. It also requires them to look at test procedures, which they're proposing to do, and to provide additional visual guidance, again, which they are proposing to do. So this was all taken from an early draft of the revisions that they're looking at. It requires filing of emergency rules and the proposed amendments by August 1. And the emergency rules would be essentially the draft of the permanent changes that would be in effect while the permanent changes are pending in the rulemaking process, which can take six to eight months.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Representative Tomlinson? Thanks. Did you mention where this did this come from the DMV?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good question. I think yeah. There was a lot of discussion down there, so I forget who started it. But as deputy commissioner Rousseau just clarified, DMV proposed putting this on.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Thanks. And then to be clear, the new proposed rules would be effective August under a kind of

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A temporary emergency rule. Emergency rules are effective for one hundred and eighty days, and they allow, assuming the department could complete rulemaking in six months, they would allow the rules to be in effect so that inspection mechanics can be applying them while the permanent rules work their way through the process, which can be quite time consuming. And then if necessary, if the rule making gets drawn out, they can simply refile the emergency rule while it's pending. And that's happened with a number of these instances where we require them to be adopted at the same time.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Okay. And mechanics can or would be required to follow the new

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: guidelines? Mechanics would be required to follow the new guidelines. Yeah. It's not an eitheror. It's when an emergency rule is adopted, that has the force and effect of law.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Okay, thanks. So

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: the current manual needs a little bit of a more active review. It's a gray area. So our plan is to make it as likely as possible. It is to consider head losses, things like that.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And this sorry. Just want

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: to say Should

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the representative Thomas was all set?

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: Yes. Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And then representative can

[Unidentified Committee Member]: we get, like, three examples of changes we're hoping to get out of this? I imagine there are some that like, hey, these are things we'd like to consider and maybe probably change. This doesn't list anything. It just sort of says, we're gonna change rules.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: So the first one, biggest one, is removing the word rust completely from burgers. It's not a safety issue. You drive a mile down the road and scrape the rust off and surface rust previously that explained what the difference was. Yes. It still left some impurity.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. Yeah. I think I've heard some complaints. No rust. Some people

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: It would be considered as more about pitting and fractures. Okay, so

[Unidentified Committee Member]: no rust, more on pitting. Okay, Power that's steering, well, any kind of

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: an issue with that will fail. We don't technically need power steering, so it's not really a safety issue. A brake test after you change the brakes. Know that I personally have never seen my car leave when I had an inspection done, so I know that they're not always doing brake check after they change the brakes, which

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: is not really

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: a need.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I have a fellow in my town who's been doing this for years, and he said it'd be a huge mistake not to have you take have it take for a test drive. But okay, but that's potentially a change.

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: A lot of our changes,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: other states. Sorry? A lot of our changes, we

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: moved we've been into other states we're doing.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: States that kind

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: of are already trying to move ahead inspections. But we did a lot of what they were doing in inspection panels.

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: So the biggest one I've always heard about is the check engine light. We

[Matt Rousseau (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: did add something in there of the electronic panel. But the check engine light is specifically for emissions. So now you're adding B, C, PA, which is kind of

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: hard to change. I know my husband had an issue with his check engine. But it's like going and change something, oh, that wasn't it. And going and change something else, oh, that wasn't it. And I think that's what a lot of people are. It's frustrating, and it's a lot of money when that wasn't the problem, and you replaced that. Yeah, And that's the problem. So that'll help me.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is there another question over comment over there? Oh, sorry.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on the emissions inspection front, S-two 11, which is looking at moving to a two year inspection, also asked them to look at compliance with the federal requirements around emissions inspections. And there's a lot of additional discussion and testimony on that issue. So I just I wanna flag that, but it's most of that is tied to requirements under the Clean Air Act and where we are in the country. We're required to have what they call enhanced emissions inspections and maintenance requirements. New Hampshire is in the process of asking the federal government to waive that, and that may become something that's more of an option in the future. But there's a lot of other factors involved in that. It was hours of testimony downstairs on what those factors were and what the concerns and considerations were. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So what this also requires is brief reports as they move through the rulemaking process just to keep the this committee and your senate committee updated on what's being proposed and the changes and things like the responsiveness summary, which is a response to comments that are received and whether they've made changes or not to the proposed rules. The next couple of sections are related to what? Yep. Say whether it's '25 and 26 are both DMV oriented or originated? Oh, I'm sorry. The so that was '24, the emissions inspect or the inspections. This was DMV originated with heavy so, originally, it was asking to move over to procedures rather than rulemaking to speed up the process for DMV. The senate decided to keep it in rulemaking with this language here. So but it was DMV originated. Sections twenty five and twenty six were originated, I guess, I'll say with senator Brennan. It's his constituent that has come in asking for this. There's a company in Milton, Vermont that produces it looks like a second generation Corvette on the outside. It is a carbon fiber bodied, highly advanced sports car that's produced in single digits each year. Last year, you'll remember we did a report on the ability to register them and get them inspected and so forth. This is the language that came out of that report to address gaps in Vermont statutes. So this would create a new definition for limited use specialty vehicles, which captures both those sort of small limited run manufactured vehicles. So there's that company here in Vermont. There are also companies in California and Georgia and other states that make these vehicles or similar vehicles. And so this captures them. It also captures vehicles that are built by an individual at home and not for resale, which could be a kit car or something similar. And then these are maintained solely for occasional transportation, similar to an antique or exhibition vehicle and not used for daily transportation of passengers or property on any highway. So they can be taken out once a week for driving. They can be used for exhibitions and nothing in here prohibits an individual from taking out their carbon fiber super sports car for a track day. If they wanna bring it on a trailer down to the local track, they're free to do that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They also so also, they can be used on public highways

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: and stuff

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like Just like an antique or exhibition car can currently. So the limitation on that is that it's for essentially one day a week. You can take it out for, I like to say, your Sunday creamy run. You can take your hot rod down there. But, yeah, it's not a daily driver. So

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: three twenty five. Why not 300?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not three twenty five comes out of a federal law known as the FAST Act that was designed to capture smaller manufacturers. And it's a worldwide or a US wide three twenty five vehicles max. And so this will capture not only the Vermont domiciled company, but for example, a larger company that operates in California or something like that maybe makes 100 cars a year. Okay. So, yeah, it was just picked because of the federal law. Okay. Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So the registration only costs $26

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Same as an antique or exhibition vehicle.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you pay purchase and use tax?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This isn't getting you out of purchase and use tax or anything like that. This is still a motor vehicle.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Safety inspection?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You do have to have a safety inspection. You're not required to have an emissions inspection. These cars do have to be built with compliant emissions equipment. So if it is an internal combustion engine vehicle,

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: the

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: manufacturer has to get an assembly that meets either US or California standards for emissions. We can't control that. Same thing with the kid cars. You're either buying an existing engine. You're buying an existing engine in one way or another, whether it's used or new, and you're supposed to install it in compliance with the requirements there. And the state is not equipped to review or certify that. So with these cars, the state is allowed to register up to 12 per year, and the annual registration fee is $26. So it's a very small number of cars that we're talking about here.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Represent what?

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: So just to clarify, Damian, we're talking about 12 the DMV may certify a total of 12 vehicles per year in the state of Vermont or per?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Year? Looking at the language here, I believe the language may not be clear. And my understanding was it was 12 additional per year, but this could be read to be just 12 total. So that may be something that you want to dig into and verify.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: That seems like a very small number.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it was a very small number and that actually tracks a lot of other states cap the number. And this number was proposed based on the cap in California. And then essentially what happened is you took the cap in California as a proportion of the number of vehicles registered and then apply that to Vermont as a proportion of the number of vehicles registered in Vermont. So you get down to 12. It is a very small number of vehicles. The company in Milton manufactures five or six a year. So it gives you a sense of I don't know the number of kid cars in the state, but it is a very small subset of vehicles that we're talking about here.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: It also seems like I'm not sure why we would have a much lower registration fee for these fancy there The cars.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Intent was just to track the same as if you have an antique Ford, which maybe is worth quite a bit of money, but you just take it out for parades and exhibitions. It's limited use on the roads. And so it's a limited registration fee. Registration fees are a policy question for the committee. So that's certainly something you can dig into. But that was the way the Senate approached this was mirror what we do for antique and exhibition vehicles to the extent

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that's reasonable. Is it fair

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to say that up until we add this language, these vehicles were not allowed? Well, so the reason this came up last year is because it wasn't clear. And there is a path to get, for example, a VIN number assigned by the state, but it wasn't clear how these vehicles were registered. There were issues around the emissions requirements for the vehicles, etcetera. And so this is an attempt to provide a clear path for owning and operating one of these vehicles based on the report that came out of last year's legislation.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So up to this point, you could find a way to get your specialty vehicle

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not the person to talk to speak to that issue.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're getting a preview of the questions we're gonna

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wanna ask when we do the intersection. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So that section 27, as I mentioned, they're required to undergo a safety inspection, but not a visual emissions or onboard diagnostic systems inspection. Section 28 is license plate language that was requested by the DMV, and this would provide new language providing that you cannot color, tint, or change in any manner the appearance of the numbers and letters on a number plate, and you also cannot cover or obscure any numbers or letters on a number plate with any material or substance this would include a clear material applied over that happens to be reflective at certain angles. And so again, the DMV can speak more to the concerns that underlie this, but it's an attempt to close a loophole in our current law, which just provides that number plate shall be kept entirely unobscured, and then numbers and letters shall be plainly legible at all times. The section 29, you saw some of you've seen this language before in last year's bill that came over from the senate, but it was part of a much larger noise or in a bill that came over last year from the Senate as 66. This was part of a much larger bill. This is just one piece of that that requires that motorcycles can only be operated on the highway in Vermont if they're equipped with the federally certified muffler for that model of motorcycle. And that this doesn't apply for motorcycles that are being used in races, etcetera, but that a motorcycle that is not equipped with the federally certified muffler for that model would not pass inspection. So this was added at senator request in the senate. And then the effective dates are 07/01/2026 for everything except for the credentials for individuals who are detained in a correctional facility. That's 01/01/2027 to allow time to update the procedures and processes for providing the the materials for that. That's everything. I'm sorry that I ran the full hour and a half. Any other questions?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Sure. We can go to some.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you've highlighted a lot of a lot of questions for as you dig into this deeper already too. So but any other that I can answer.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Starting with next week, we'll be digging into it much more. I don't if you'll have any comments about any particular piece of it or any particular bill overall, and then we'll be going into section by section shortly or next not until next week, but for that, there. That'd be great. Very good. Dive in. Okay. Well, that's perfect timing then. Thank you very much, David. We have a preview of what we're going to be spending time on and what we'll be working on, a deeper dive and then witness testimony piece by piece, and then eventually what else we want to look at in that and where we're at. So that's what you know you've got. That's our next big project. So thank you very much for that and you're all set. As far as the rest of what I do or don't know is that you all heard we were postponed till today. The list is still quite for the T bill. List on that floor. The calendar's got plenty on there. Who knows how long and what time frame will be? I am going to plan on making a comment on ninethirty three related to the purchase and use and the attempt to put us on a track for some level of a more systemic or long term solution to the transportation issues. It's a step. The comment is not what was in the governor's recommend, but it's a step further than where we were. So we're making incremental progress. I'll leave a small preview on H-nine 33 about the T Bill, and then we'll be up at some point, hopefully not too late in the agenda because I think it's important that people understand that's 10% of the whole budget, and there are some pretty significant things that have happened in transportation last week here. So I appreciate all of your efforts on the forward reports. If you need help, Patrick Murphy is available via Zoom. Michelle Blumauer is in the building. Other agency resources if you need it. Damien is still here. Logan is listening and around. And the rest of your team members are here. So you've got two or three more hours to make sure that you're ready. And if there's other resources you need, let me know. We'll find them. So we are adjourned

[Unidentified Committee Member (primary assignment)]: for

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the