Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: We are live, here on Thursday afternoon, April That's the vision. Wednesday's ninth? Yep. In 2026 in house transportation, we're looking at miscellaneous motor vehicle bill and we have witness on the line. I think Mike is with us somewhere, Mike Covey. We're looking at section 21 further on our conversation earlier about flotation devices. There was some testimony in the Senate related to this, and I think they made some changes from the original proposal when it first came out. Anyway, welcome to the committee. Thought we might see in person, but I picked the wrong day.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Yeah, unfortunately. Let me know if you have trouble hearing me and I will shut my video off because I don't have the best selection. There's just

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: a little bit of a delay. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You might wanna turn your video off as positive and start.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: There's that an improvement?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: For the record, Mike Covey, executive director for Mont Traditions Coalition. I did testify on this in the Senate and they have made some improvements to it. My concern was around hunting and bow fishing as the those can both be undertaken underway and I still have some residual concerns about the, depth of water. It's fine for, a lot of activities however people will commonly chase ducks and geese in a canoe or other paddle craft where they can be in motion so they'd be underway under their own power and also be actively hunting and that might take place over deeper water and when you're wearing a life preserver it can affect the length of pull on your shotgun make it more difficult to hit the target you're shooting at, more difficult to shoot in general. So I have some remaining concern and I said in the Senate this isn't a hill I'm going to die on based on the timeframe that it encapsulates. But I think that it would be reasonable to at least modify the depth of water to like six feet. I think most that's generally survivable, even in the worst of situations. And I think three feet is, certainly quite cautious. And I understand the reason for the caution and I understand the reason that this is being sought, but I think that you know a lot of times a person who is either bow fishing or duck hunting in a small bay or in a often in just a small swamp may never be in water over five or six feet, and it would alleviate that need to be wearing the life preserver at all times, which just inherently makes it more difficult to shoot accurately. So that would be my suggestion. It's certainly an improvement over what the Senate started with. They did improve the language. I think if we could adjust that depth, I'd be satisfied with it. It's not going to satisfy everybody and I get that, but I also understand the very real scenario where this, you know, this could save a life. And I flagged in the Senate that people drown year round. It's not unique to cold weather. It's not unique to cold water. It's always tragic. I think that to some degree, once we're adults, we need to be allowed on autonomy and that autonomy needs to be respected. I do think it odd that we only require the wearing of a life vest up to the age of 12, and I think up to the age of 18 would be reasonable, especially in the cold months. So those are my suggestions on the bill. It's fairly simplistic, fairly straightforward. I'd love to see that change to six feet of water. I think that's a reasonable depth to expect, and it would fit a lot of scenarios that are not currently captured by the three foot depth.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: The twelve year old versus 18 year old that is not referenced in this section, I guess.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: It's not.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's other part of Sprint. Yeah. It was the sorry.

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: I didn't mean to interrupt you.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Oh, that's alright. It it was brought up in conversation in the senate and I I was not aware of that and just found it interesting. But again at 18 years old, you know, we have all the responsibilities that come with the age of maturity and therefore we should have the liberties as well.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Interesting, 12 years versus 18. We require it to 12 is what you're saying now, not to 18.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: We require it to be worn up to 12, yes. So we don't require it to be worn up to the age of 18. This bill would require it to be worn regardless in any vessel that's underway from November 1 to May 1, I believe it is. I understand the reason for that. It's harder to react in cold water, but again, I think for the vast majority of people, you know, six feet of water is a manageable depth to recover from. And I'm not insensitive to the tragedy that comes along with this. We had an incident in my town just a few years ago, it was a goose hunter who headed out, you know, and never made it back. So I understand that it happens. I also have heard a lot of pushback from duck hunters because it makes it difficult to do that paddling around type of hunting that a lot of people really enjoy. You know, that's a type of duck hunting that's accessible to folks that may not be able to afford a motorboat.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Representative Wood?

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: Thank you, Mike. Would you mind I must could you just give me a little background on what Vermont Traditions Coalition is?

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Certainly. So we our organization developed out of the Champion Lands deal back in 1999 and our foundational issues are land access, public land access, public land management, hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, trails, all the kind of things that that connect Vermonters to the landscape. So those are the those are the issues we advocate for.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Where is this?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I guess that's I.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's not lot 43 feet deep. I'm okay with six'six, but that's the I don't want to go any higher, because that would be good for me. Does anyone else have any other questions? I have duck hunted in a canoe, the comment was going down Dead Creek was, well, don't worry if we tip over, you're gonna get your gun wet, but you stand you in it. But it's muck. And so so if you didn't have a life preserver

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: on,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: you would start going down. So, anyway, this is too technical for I mean, I don't think the law should apply to any of what I'm talking about. But the point is there's a thousand different odds and ends in here that may trip you up. But this representative from Pouech says, everybody wears a jacket when they're in her boat. We don't duck hunt, duck. Sounds okay.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: But we never do duck hunting here.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well You had mentioned about the underway and open deck. Is that of any concerns?

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: So if you're underway in a motorboat, it wouldn't apply because you can't shoot from from a motorboat for for hunting purposes. You can bow fishing because it's considered fishing, but you wouldn't be able to the boat has to come to a full stop from mechanical power prior to being able to hunt out of it if it's a motorized vehicle. So it really be it really impacts, canoes, kayaks, rowboats, and such because the law you you would cease to need to wear your life jacket the way the law is written once you are no longer underway, and so you would be underway by human power in a canoe or a kayak you would still be underway but in a motorboat you would no longer be able to be underway by mechanical power and be hunting at the same time if that distinction makes sense.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Sounds like a moving car, right? You can't move vehicle. Exactly. Lake Bowfish in multiple is it a Lake Champlain only thing? Is there a bowfish everywhere?

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Lake Champlain, the Connecticut River, and Lake Mentholago.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are the three places that there are bowfish or the baffles?

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: That there that there is bowfishing, yeah. It primarily targets invasive and what are called coal fish. So Lake Champlain has a really bad problem with invasive tench. They have they allow, you know, the bow fishing for bowfin and carp. In the Connecticut River carp are the only species and in I believe carp are the only species.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is it so you mean bow and arrow?

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Correct, yeah, bow and arrow with string attached. So you have a reel that spools outline and you, in my experience, generally shoot about 100 to 150 times for each fish you hit because of refraction. They're never at, where you see them is not where they are. But it's enjoyed by a lot more people than you might anticipate.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I printed a lot of

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: shirts for a lot of events of bow fishing. I was quite surprised. I've never been, but I printed shirts for people that design all kinds of funky bow fishing logo and artwork. It does that. It exists. We have you seem to have events for it too, in the competitions, or maybe just get togethers. Don't know. You probably know, certainly know that better than I, but I definitely printed multiple bro fish designed before.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: Yeah. And it has a functional purpose. It has a place. So especially when you, you know, when you find a bunch of tentsch, you spend time on trying to remove them because they are an invasive species. Okay.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Does anybody have any other You work with Senator Brennan, I guess, on the language piece in the Senate? He's a big sportsman.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: I simply gave testimony and the committee listened. My testimony wasn't quite as dialed down as it is here because it was clear they were gonna make some changes. And so my testimony here today simply addresses what I could see as a reasonable modification to the changes they made.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Representative Tomlinson.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: Thanks. Quick question. I wonder if you know we heard this morning that there are similar laws on the books than most other states in New England. Do you know if they specify water depths in those laws? If not, we can ask the person who testified this morning.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: I am unfamiliar with that. I could look it up and I could respond to you and the chair on that.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: It's okay. Think the person who testified this morning probably has that information handy, I don't want to add to your plate.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a great question

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: because I'm just curious whether it's addressed or not. Sometimes I wonder where these numbers come up with who decided three feet, who decided four feet, who decided 100 yards on the next building we're working on. Representative Pouech?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, Mike, thanks for your testimony. I appreciate your perspective. Is there an age limit? I don't know it, you know, for, like, duck hunting or whatnot. Because if we go to six feet, you know, as you suggest, that's assuming there's an adult, not a child. Know that, you know, younger folks can hunt, but is there an age limit on when you have to you can hunt by yourself?

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: There there is not in the state of Vermont. But the practical reality of the matter is that, everybody comes to that space where they're you know, where where it fits for them at a different age. And Yeah. Parents are deeply involved and and the best judges of that.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So not somebody that goes duck hunting or bow hunting, bow fishing, or has even been out on Dead Creek, or any of the other named places. How does this, if this law is passed, how does this, you hear this interacting with the people that at least in this part that you're commenting on, how does this interaction gonna look out in world, I guess? You know, if there's I don't even know when duck season is or, you know, you're looking at a fishing game, you know, you're fishing wildlife person coming up, having a discussion or what what's how do you see this playing out in the real world day to day with this law?

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: So state police do a lot of boat enforcement. So they would I think they would be enforcing it, but fish and game also enforces voter law. And that would be the enforcement mechanism. It would just be checks on people on the water as they encountered them, or if they made a concerted patrol effort to say, hey, we're going to be working this bay today or however that looks. The to be frank, I think that a lot of people are going to do what they do regardless. I don't say that to be glib or say it lightly, but if somebody is skimming across the bay and they're just cruising across the bay, they're going to make their decision whether they're going to put the life jacket on for that or not. And I think that holds true. I mean, we see it every day with seat belts. It's just the human condition. So I don't know what level of enforcement we will see. I think there will certainly be enforcement opportunities. And again, it helps me a lot to accept this because it starts November 1 and runs through April. And so duck hunting season is largely impacted and bow fishing season is not heavily impacted. It'll catch a few weeks realistically of bow fishing, but it would catch those few weeks. But duck season starts in, well goose season starts in September and ends in January with some breaks throughout and the duck seasons overlap and are shifted differently from that. So essentially the fall. So you're gonna be capturing waterfowl hunters from November 1 to mid January provided there's open water and there are geese around.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So Yeah. I guess I'm I'll go you have these bays, I guess, you're saying where, like, you see these duck lines, you see these boats. Well, how does the enforcement do they wait for the hunters on the at the boat launch? Do they actually do the enforcement go out in a boat and kinda paddle up to you? What what actually happens in the in the in any of the situation? That

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: is a great question for enforcement. My only experience with it has been when I was getting ready to put in. I've been approached by warden several times when I was preparing to put in.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay.

[Mike Covey (Executive Director, Vermont Traditions Coalition)]: That doesn't preclude them from being able to go about it however they see fit.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm just curious how the day to day interaction in an area I don't spend any time in. I don't gather from looking around anybody has a whole lot of experience with bow fishing or duck hunting on this committee. Duck hunters, they catch them as they come out because that's when you're gonna have your game bag full of stuff, and you're gonna know if your your shotgun is paired correctly because you can only have you can only shoot three times in a shotgun. You can only hit three charges in the gun. Alright. We got one that knows what's going on. I don't know if representative was gonna weigh in on the end these or not. I was going to. The only that, you know,

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: a vessel's a boat, right? The time when they talk vessel, the

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: time I fall, they're not

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: talking about snowmobile. Oh, so. I guess I don't I don't have much to to add to anything other than I think most people don't like being told what to do. That's kind of like that's what I don't like about it. Know, it's like it's my choice whether I want to wear a life preserver or not. I don't think it should be for somebody else to decide what I do but

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I mean, I'll do what

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: I do. I don't see people out there. Game warden's gonna be probably tied up during deer season. So there's not a ton of game wards. I can't imagine how this is going to ever get forced. Then there's no fine mechanism. Know. I think it should just be a suggestion that hey you got to wear your life preserver. It's cold out there and go with that.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Alrighty.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I agree. That doesn't mean that I certainly agree. But that doesn't do you have any questions more for Mike in terms of hunters and activity? Representative Burke?

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I was just gonna say, I think that six feet seems like too much to for for considering the implications of what could happen if somebody fell out of a boat, like six feet, there might be some people who are six feet five, and they would be fine. It just seems like they're paying for the fever. People

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: complain about the muck.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: And the muck. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's I mean, you could also get stuck in the muck too. Loses your boots.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess so. Boots start filling up. You're in big trouble with what I hear. I don't know that. I don't have any personal experience, but I don't so well, I appreciate you joining us, and I appreciate the feedback. And we'll be moving forward as we go through the sections and see where we're at. I think if there's more friction conversation, we'll reach out.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Appreciate it.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Bye. Thank you. Bye. We have life counsel with us. Look at that. Ahead of schedule. We're gonna move to the where we left off on section well, we only have, three pages left. Right?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We are

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: at section 28. We went through section. Oh, we did have a couple of just since we're starting there and you're dialing in, I can talk while you're figuring out where you're at. Weren't there a couple of questions about this limited use vehicles? We just heard some testimony on it. And it is not clear about the 12 being 12 new ones each year. We didn't or we didn't weren't certain. We're looking for a little recommendation from you in the future on potentially making that a little more clear. That fair to say, committee? Did anybody agree that it wasn't entirely clear on the 12 new ones versus 12 total? It's a one word addition,

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: just a word addition after 12.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: And there was I know. I made a note on here somewhere. Representative Corcoran there was a question of specialty vehicles, antiques, and other things that might be treated differently in terms of their registration fee, their special rules, and I guess a division of some kind of side by side that showed Yeah,

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: the antiques only

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: drive one day a Yeah, the one day a week. Week seems a little bit Yeah. If you're gonna go to a show, it's hard to get there and back in one day.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We're just wondering if you do like a little chart of saying, all right, this is our criteria for this. This is how many days you're allowed to drive. This is what the registration Sort of like we can

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: look at. We're visionary.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Right? We make a note here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Easier for me to sort of copy and involve the technical discussion.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's a lot of words to describe a few different things versus perhaps we want to also not look into the swamp project down there, but we were interested other how many different exceptions like this out there? What are they? Yeah, by the antiques. Exposition and specialty vehicles, is that different? That's what was wondering. You have like this I

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: think antique and exhibition vehicles are essentially the same thing.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are they? Are they? Vehicles treated differently. Because we have one like

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a service partner that goes to

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: certain vehicles.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a street rod.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's true.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, of course, this is a street

[Unidentified Committee Member]: rod. That was one fact.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Did he get a street rod in there, Did he

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: they have to stop at McDonald's?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: A and W, I'm just confused. Everybody went to the McDonald's. McDonald's. The inside. The rocket jays and park your cars running. Okay, Section 28 I think we're at. If we're getting closer.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: We are. Before we jump to that, though, I did just wanna note, I think I heard a comment that there's no penalty for not wearing the life jacket. There is there is a penalty in that chapter, actually, for a violation. Oh. So that's something that's you should be aware of.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: It's, like, $50?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It is. It's a $50 penalty. So let's see. That is 23 VSA, $33.17, $50 maximum penalty. A person who violates any of the following sections shall be subject to a penalty of not more than $50 for each violation, including lights and equipment, which includes the life jackets. Although 50 let me just double check. Think you are good here, but let me just double check Alright. Yeah. This is under b. So this has a $50 penalty attached to it per violation.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And it's the new language, if it was taken up, would be for $50

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So this cold weather life jacket requirement would have a $50 fine attached to it, maximum $50 That's good to

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: know because I would say I felt like there was conversation thinking there was no penalty. I don't know if it changes or doesn't change, but the nature of the conversation felt that there was no penalty.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Wanted to make sure the committee was clear on that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's a good point So another technical, see how this may or may not be moving if you're on a boat and get a fine, is this a moving violation or subject to the surcharge?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a great question. Let's see. So enforced by law enforcement officers. These are collected. Just double check the judicial bureau. So the the surcharge comes from the judicial bureau statutes. So let me just see if they have jurisdiction over penalties related to vessels.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh. That's what's your Yeah. Wanna take that back for tomorrow?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I I don't see I don't have a clear answer right now. It doesn't seem to be included, but I would wanna just double check. One of the penalties in there is covered, which is the responsibility. It's under a different section, responsibility to follow orders of a law enforcement officer. Yeah. I don't see I don't see that these other fees and penalties are necessarily under that, but let me look into this more closely.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: While you're making your notes, there was a question. We're still gonna dig into more into the inspections with testimony, but there was a question about whether making changes to the inspection on all these recommendations versus failures. Does this change the liability on the inspection station in their employee? How's it going to there has to be some level of experience on what the liabilities are for these fail, no fails. What is making these changes do to that liability to that inspection so you can fix them or not? I don't know how that plays out. If that was a question for us to want to dig into or hear about. I'll take

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: a look. My initial sense is that the answer would be no because the current manual has advised and fail provisions in there. But let me look closer at the existing manual in the case law just to make sure I'm not overlooking something.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Sounds great. We don't need it today. So And the committee agreed to put a kit car or no, a Roth Speed car on order for you to go in here.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That's not gonna be part of my compensation. I'm not sure I can cover the income tax. Representative Pouech had two at

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: one time, but he got

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: mean, believe me, it's not that I'm not grateful.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Ready to go to unless I pull out more notes of things that I I am save yourself by going to section 28. There we go.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Section 28. This is relates to, display of license plates. So there's there are no changes to the number of plates. The changes up here are I really dislike the lawyerly use of the word such. So this is a preference for me to change it to b. So b number plate, b vehicle. So until we get to page 35, where these are two new changes requested by the DMV, The first is that numbers and letters on plate shall not be colored, tinted, or changed in any manner from their appearance at the time the plate was issued. And then c is a person shall not cover or obscure any numbers or letters on a number plate with any material or substance. The existing law already provides that number plate shall be kept entirely unobscured, and the numbers and letters shall be plainly legible at all times. The there were two things that motivated this language. The original language, the coloring, tinting, or changing came out of apparently, there are now shops that you can get your windows tinted at. They will also color your plates. So you can take your green Vermont plate and turn it black and white. They can turn the the numbers pink for you. And the concerns that the DMV has is that when the plate gets colored like that, you can no longer tell which state issued it from a distance. You have to get up close to actually see the letters on it, which makes it hard for law enforcement to run plates if they're trying to identify a vehicle. So the and then c came out of discussion with the Senate Transportation Committee. There's concern about the current language can be read to leave a loophole for the clear but reflective covers for number plates that, again, make it difficult to read them except from a specific angle. So because they are the numbers and letters are still legible, but they're covered so that you couldn't read them unless you're at the right angle. Again, this is meant to make it so the license plates can be read. So this language would make it illegal to both get your license plate colored or tinted and also to have those clear plastic covers over the license plate.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Does this section city have any effect on a strong license plate? You are allowed to cover them up. Does this do that?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: You might want to just include an exception. I should double check that. I would be willing to bet that the language already provides an exemption. But if it doesn't, I'll add it in.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Doing something that's allowed.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I will add that to my notes. Because that you're right. The Vermont Strong plates are supposed to go over regular number plate. Yeah. I'm not sure how many people do that, but the extent that you do.

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: Is there representative Keyser?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So in section c, it says with any material or substance, you think dirt would be a substance? So

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: we talked about that. And the existing language, the plate shall be kept entirely unobscured, already makes having your plate covered with snow or dirt

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: illegal. Every snowstorm out there. Every four

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: night that's on it. Is technically illegal until it rains?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: So you get your rag and wipe it off.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, yeah. So Right. And you know, it can happen while you're driving. The There was brief discussion, and I know in other states, language is an individual shall not basically, an individual shall not obscure the numbers or letters on their license plate. Basically making it so that the individual's action shall not do it. But if it happens because of a snowstorm, the law is read to basically not permit it. And there's the way to word it, you'd have to say either obscure or let permit another person to obscure or cover, etcetera, the license plate. So you can't pay someone and get around the law. But you could reword the entire subdivision to or add a caveat that says, this does not apply to weather conditions that result in the plate being covered with snow or dirt, something like that, but that you might be getting a little too specific there. So but, yeah, this there was discussion of how this language technically, when your plate gets covered with snow while you're driving down 89 in a snowstorm, you're no longer in compliance with the law. Representative.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah. I'm trying to remember. Do we have a statute that makes it mandatory to clean your butt off and snow? No. I can't remember. I know you've been discussed. I've heard a lot

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: of Yeah.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: am not aware of a provision. I'd have to look to be sure.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah. I think I have an email from him last session. Right? Trust.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: Because I had a constituent ask about this, and there were a lot

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: of Yeah.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: It. We got into

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that to help with you. Well, I I don't

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: know why. We don't have the

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: We got Essentially, like, it was taken

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: up in this committee before a few times.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: He actually took it up because it was a bushing of trucks. Yeah. They Yes. And what it's happening to do with climb up on the top of the trucks to get it pulled out. But the problem was that they were causing a lot of problems because the snow would blow off those big trucks on the people's wind sherrys. Create exits.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: My way of thinking, C could be satisfied with a person shall not intentionally cover.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Or permit another person to cover.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: Damien, you were talking about concern that some of these shops will now color your license plate a different color.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That was that was where the original language came from.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: So is I'm not but I'm

[Chloe Tomlinson (Committee Clerk)]: not seeing like, I'm seeing language about make sure the numbers and the letters are not obscured. Where is the language set

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: in background? Well, yeah, it's numbers and letters. Yeah. It all relates to numbers and letters, the language. But it is there was discussion too of the background. But for whatever reason, I don't remember. I don't think there was ever a request to change the language. There were some discussion of the examples of this. But that may be something you'd want to look into more is, should this say an individual shall not color tint change, cover, or otherwise obscure intentionally obscure any portion of their license plate. The one thing to note is that then there are those the borders Mhmm. Which don't obscure anything necessary. So we'd have to write it. I believe there is a state that has a carve out for those, provided they don't cover anything that you need to read.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: And did the senate have testimony from one of these shops that does this?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: The the testimony was from the

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: DMV. I

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: think the the feeling, if I can summarize it downstairs from what I could gather from the discussion committee was that this is consistent with the intent of the existing law, which was to make sure that you could read a license plate and that law enforcement would be able to tell, like, this is a Vermont vehicle and not a vehicle from another state or vice versa.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do they give examples of DMV, of like if this is happening, or is it just speculation that it's happening in other states?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if there were Vermont examples. I do recall seeing and I can't remember if this was my own research after they mentioned this or them, but I do remember seeing pictures of plates that had been altered. Yeah. The the blacked out one was the one that stood out for me. I mean, it it was striking, looked very classic, but it was a current license plate.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I know

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it was big in the city for the covering our license plate for the EZ Pass because the EZ Pass can't reach your license plate when you get that clear inflection.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So we don't

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: pay for

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that reason.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, when we get 22A

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I saw that. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to pretended

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: submit, yes. It won't be able to follow the existing route if you want to call it an inter, we would have to change it to an interrupt. Right, Damian?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I have to go I'm

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: going go from

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Fairhaven to Hampton and back into Pouech.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: That is an inter route, but intra. Why? Well, the current route is intra. Yes. Is. It is.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: 22 A?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It is intra.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Or 10:30? Continued. Oh, he wants to go all the way down. Is it? It does go.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But it is it's a different South Of 4. Is it a different route number in New York? It's 22 A in New York as well.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's not shit. South Of Route State. In the main urban state.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not aware of

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: any decent living South Of Route 4 anyway. That section of the state, let's move on. May I check for

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: the endorsement?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So the next section here is the motor vehicles. This would require that motorcycle manufactured after basically from 1986 forward must be labeled in compliance with federal law and equipped with the muffler that meets the requirements of federal law. There was a question about aftermarket mufflers yesterday, I believe. My understanding is that some but not all aftermarket mufflers will comply with these requirements. And so there are aftermarket mufflers that will not meet these requirements, but would be legal under current requirements. So it's not simply that it has to have a baffle. Each model motorcycle is certified with certain mufflers, and they have a matching stamp so that you can check compliance when it's manufactured. This essentially requires you to have a muffler that's certified as OEM equip equipment or equivalent for that motorcycle. So that that is just something to to note. And I'm not an expert on this, but that's my understanding is that there are certain aftermarket mufflers that may still have baffles and so forth, but that wouldn't meet this requirement. And but, yeah, I can if that's a ongoing concern for the committee, I will look into it more and get you a a more certain answer. I looked into this last year, and I'm pretty sure I have notes somewhere on this. I just haven't had a chance to find them yet because this was in the motor vehicle noise s 66 bill as well. And that is it.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: My understanding and looking at the CFR regulation got looked at before, The reason the EPA stamps it isn't really for admissions. It's really just for noise.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It is. There is a noise. That's the reason. It cannot exceed a certain decibel level. And so you can still have a muffler that has certain sound deadening requirements, but it goes above that decibel level, and it will not get the EPA stamp.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: When you were driving again, did you say that there would be mufflers that are on vehicles on motorcycles now that would become illegal with this section? It's not a grandfather situation.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: If motorcycle's older than 1986, like it was manufactured before 1986, then this wouldn't apply to it anyway. And then for motorcycles manufactured 1986 and newer, if they have their OEM, their original equipment muffler or an original equipment equivalent replacement muffler, then they should meet that standard. The issue is if you've bought if you've replaced the original muffler with an aftermarket muffler that doesn't have the correct stamp on it, so it's not certified to meet those noise requirements under federal law, then that would not comply with this. So there is a potential that you have a muffler that works for your bike, but it's not certified for your bike because for whatever combination with that engine, it doesn't meet the noise requirements.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: And currently, it would get inspected.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Currently, it would pass inspection. But under this, it would fail. This year,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: if this was effective January, or I'm sorry, July 1, then your inspection comes up next time, then it would no longer pass. But you're not breaking the law today, I guess, is what you're saying. No. Pass inspection today. So what where was 1980 was 1986 something mentioned in reference something changed in 1986?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It's when they enacted the federal law. That's when the Or that's that's when the federal law that governs this took effect. Okay. Basically, if you preexist the federal law, then you don't have to comply with these requirements. But if you're manufactured after the federal law took effect, you do.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, this is something I'd like to see us move forward with because a noise issue. It's really a noise problem. But I'm also feeling like if we were to move forward with this, we would provide some level of like a one year or at your next inspection, it just becomes a warning that says, hey, by the way, they might not even know it, this doesn't pass. And you get time to decide what you wanna do. And if you go for an inspection the following time, it would then be, so the first time would be a warning, second time would be an expectation of compliance. Because I think it would be unfair for somebody to pull in with a motorcycle maybe they bought, not even be aware of.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Questions, comments, or any other questions mostly?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just wondering how that would work.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So you're even more

[Unidentified Committee Member]: on the back of the AVIS system. So if they go to the dealership, they'll have a different one, or they'd help me.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Well, would say it would be on there as we have already heard there's gonna be some advisory things that are, the assumption is it would be on the right.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So when we ask the DMV that's listening out in the ether how this could be implemented and whatnot, when they come to testify in this section, probably be able to answer that question for us when they get here. Think, right? But since they do tend to somewhere out there, they're listening.

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: Representative Gacy? Where is the CPA tag on the mufflers? Anybody know? I can pull up a picture of it if you want. So It's embossed on it. Yeah. But, you know, they're not talking about super quiet. No.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I can

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It it says here 90 1996, 80 decimals. I don't know. From some

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And they don't have to do a test to ensure compliance. This is a it's simply it either has the correct stamp or it doesn't.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So they could take their stamp off their old mufflers and stamp it on their new ones. It's actually in the middle or it's the stamp Yeah. So yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: The federal requirement is at the time of manufacture, there shall be a permanent legible label or mark containing information for all exhaust systems or exhaust system components that are sold, and they shall be affixed in a manner that they cannot be removed without destroying or defacing them and must not be applied to any part that is easily detached from the product. So it's it's a pretty permanent mark.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So let's see if this is

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: yeah. I'll see if I can find you a picture of the stamp here. I need

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: to find somebody to give some examples of what it looks like and how it works in the day to day. I think that we have a witness who's going to come in and talk about what actually how the inspection works and what it looks like and she brings the bikers in and see what they fit. I have been in touch with Harley Davidson and Mollie. Mollie's dealership is on the list of witnesses who does bike inspection and sells, and so help us see what this part is amongst whomever else. Haven't heard from the DMV on it yet either. Nelson, do have any idea how people are talking about here at all?

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: Yeah. So here's an example pipes and others looking don't really wanna go back to my stock books.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Here's an example allow, though. Of the stamp that is on this is a Honda exhaust system. So it meets EPA noise emissions requirements, 80 decibels for the Honda model b b 1,000. Installation on motorcycles not specified may violate federal law. And so this is the the stamp you would see on the pipe. In this case, it's right in the middle of the the pipe itself. And then there's a corresponding model stamp on the vehicle that will correspond to this model number here so that you can match them up even if you don't know if you're not familiar with the particular model.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: The inspection station is excellent.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There I mean, the instance here is if it's a less common model of motorcycle sold in The US that the inspection mechanic hasn't seen before, they're able to match. There's a stamp on the bike itself that has information on the model. And then on the muffler, there's this information that tells you the model that it's certified for. And you can match the two of them up. And that's with this language here, the idea is that that's how compliance would be done. The questions for all of you are whether this makes sense, whether the enforcement is doable, whether this is something you want to be done through inspections, etcetera.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: But

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: the the proposal here is that it would be enforced at inspection with a failing inspection if your your muffler on the bike doesn't doesn't have that certification.

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: Is that a case? So somebody could I'm not going do this, but I'm just saying somebody could and kids do do this, but they I could go get my bike inspected with stock buffers, right? Get inspected, go home, take my Allen wrench, two Allen wrench screws on each side of the pipe and just slide the baffle out.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: When the Senate took testimony on S-sixty six, there was discussion of the potential for mechanically inclined individuals to change out their exhaust, same with an unrestricted exhaust on a regular car. So I think with all of this, there's that question with inspection.

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: I spend a lot of money on exhausts and headers and stuff and probably won't be too awful happy that they have to get rid of them. Mine aren't that loud.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: If you roll right on them real hard it'll make some noise but I don't roll on them that hard but I

[Rep. James “Jim” Casey (Member)]: know some friends that do and they got some pretty expensive sauce. Maybe they comply, maybe they don't.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: But they might not take too kindly to it. James, didn't have a description of It's in compliance now. It that passes inspection. I mean, there's no muffler requirement then on the motorcycle today?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Not not for noise. There isn't a requirement that you have one of these EPA noise compliant mufflers. You do have to have a working exhaust system and so forth that meets it's probably a visual emissions inspection. I'm not sure how the inspection manual addresses motorcycle exhaust, but there is no this would be a new requirement in the inspection manual for them to look for an exhaust that specifically is designed to limit the noise.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Did the DMV testify on this section?

[Damien Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I do not recall DMV testimony. I may have missed. We're gonna hear from them.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Right? So okay. We're gonna hear from that. We're gonna hear from others. So we'll go. But we at least understand what it says.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I mean, I think we've talked to motorcycle people, but there are also people who are willing to testify about meals too. So there's two sides to it.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I bet you there's 10. For what we're doing today, there's questions on the particular language on what it may or may not mean, and then we will line up and hear from this much as we're gonna hear from inspections potentially and the other section that we talked about earlier about people have questions or ideas about who else should test by other section. We're gonna move into the inspection piece, this piece, and I'll go back to my notes about whatever else we need to make sure that we line up from here forward. Tomorrow morning, I don't know what the estimate for floor is, but representative Southworth has some language on one of the sections he'd like us to consider. So You should get an email on it if you didn't already, I'm not sure. Many of my emails are full yet. We may pick up another section for another, I guess tomorrow, we may not. But that's current scoop. Anything else? Thank you for coming back in and getting us to the end of the or end of the the DMV bill, and then we'll start getting more testimony on sections. Thank you very much. We're adjourned for this afternoon.