Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And we are. Thursday morning, April sixteenth twenty twenty six. House Transportation Committee continuing to watch the evolving events downstairs in the basement, working on our house bill. We'll see what they can return back up here to the penthouse. But I hear rumors that it might go out of transportation today and might head to finance and we'll see what kind of trouble that brings. So keep your eyes downward to see what's happening. And we're going to continue to work on the miscellaneous motor vehicle s three twenty six. I think deputy commissioner Rutland has joined us. There's four or five sections we haven't heard the DMV's opinions on. So if you wanna start out, figure out where we are on section seven, I think, to start and work our way through. Matt Russo, deputy commissioner for DMV, long time no see. And I think we're gonna start with section seven. It's the personal list. Insufficient funds. So these are NSF fees that currently apply to per statute to return checks.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: And as you know, as we advance with technology, there are more ways to pay, not just a check, and we're still incurring fees for electronic payments, not just for checks. And so this this amendment would include any fees that were received and returned to the bank for non sufficient funds. I know there were some questions about suspension or paying the fees. By statute, we do have to give them a time frame for a suspension. And on top of that, we give them thirty days to pay the fees in full. In practice, you give them thirty days longer than A total of thirty. I believe it's fifteen days is required for a suspension notification. Representative Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, thanks for calling. So just to clarify, this is just adding the new electronic fund transfer, not increasing the costs or the fees or anything like that. Generally, I'm just like a backfill. Exactly. Correct. Thanks.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: We did have, I don't remember, I guess that was all the question there was. There was a couple of notes when we originally had it. And this was originally requested by the DMV, recognition of what's happening today.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: I think I just had

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: turns around just a notification that somebody like snowbirds, you know, bailing it out and don't realize that

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: it bounced, you know, just

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: how that process worked through the notification.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: I guess that is what it is.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: We are working to currently, if not already, to forward mail that was previously not forwarded. Yeah. To remove that little stamp on the envelope. So if they are in Florida, they would get their mail forwarded if they had a forwarding address. What's the kind of percentage of work that gets done by the mail now compared to what's almost entirely on DFB account and whatnot? With the MyDMV, how much mail transactions that work? I remember it used to be a big deal, don't mail every day to process it. But what's that look like nowadays? I don't have a percentage for you. I do know that we still receive a lot of mail for registrations. But we're trying to move people towards online notifications with their MyDMD account. So rather than having to wait for something through the mail, even suspension notices, for instance, are being posted to their MyDMD account rather than just snail mailed. Representative White?

[Candice White (Member)]: Could you just remind us of the time frame for when it has been determined that a bad check or insufficient funds were sent to DMV? What is the process for notifying people that they were insufficient funds, and how much time do they have to pay the funds, and when the penalties start to incur.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Sure. There are no additional penalties. There's just the flat, I believe it was $20 an insufficient fund fee.

[Candice White (Member)]: Dollars 20?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Once we are notified by the bank, and every bank is different, they it could clear within two days, it could clear within four days. It depends on when we're notified by the bank that it had not cleared. Once we get that report, that's when we send out the letters notifying them that their payment was not accepted and the payment is due in full. And from the date of that letter is thirty days.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. Date of and and that's from the date the letter was sent out? Or Correct. And it's and it's snail mail, not electronic mail?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: If they have myDMV, would go to their their online account. Okay.

[Candice White (Member)]: Instead of snail mail,

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: you can just Both. Okay. Thank you. Unless they've opted, she cannot receive snail mail. Represent birth. And you and you don't need

[Candice White (Member)]: to specify the thirty days. Mhmm.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Not within this section. It does appear in other sections as far as hearing notification of suspension. Section 22. Actually, I don't know why I had a note. I don't It'll throw you off a little bit if we were going from seven to eight. Just regarding the smuggler's notch piece. I don't have the DMV checked off as understuck. You had requested section eight in the smuggler's notch, which you had requested the up the increase in the fines. Right? Correct. So I guess as far as hearing from you, the Oh, we had come in previously. Yeah. I just didn't I I had some notes in here, but I didn't check your office having previously commented on that. That's all I was you know, everybody else remembers that better. I just didn't check that section off, and the DMV did comment on the 10,000 to the $20,000 in penalty on this month. It was your requested language. If there are additional questions, we can certainly provide for me. I guess around '22, I'm flipping ahead. 22 k vehicles. These are also known as Japanese mini trucks. I know we spoke a little bit during the overview at the beginning of the sessions. These are the manufactured in Japan. And there are other countries, but they are not allowed to be imported into The US unless they're 25 years or older. We've always registered them. We required an inspection first. This is just to codify something that we're already doing in practice. They are roadworthy. They can be inspected. They're just a smaller sized vehicle, not the go karts that are in the parade. And they this would also add some specifications as far as what the definition of a mini truck is or a k vehicle. This language is all originated with a senate or senator request, not the DMV? Yes. That was from the senate. And you're saying that if I understand that correctly, that deputy, you've always had the policy that these could be as long as they passed inspection. They were importer. They could pass inspection. They could correct. There seem to be some confusion about that. This just further clarifies what already exists. Is that what your testimony is then putting in statutes codifying what we already do. There were some constituents, I think, that were confused or there was some misinformation about whether or we registered them. We do. We always have they're able to be inspected. And I think this is just codifying that practice. Is this expanded any further than what was already happened? It does not. Also includes a definition. And I believe there's something in here that states that it the transportation committee or the traffic committee is not able to add any subdivisions or restrictions. It's c ten forty four c. Shall not adopt any rules or ordinance that would have the effect of prohibiting. On the road as a pleasure vehicle, it would be treated the same as a pleasure vehicle and on a farm as a farm truck, would be treated the same as a farm truck. Other political subdivisions seeing that towns can't take specific action on Kia trucks, is that towns or municipalities? That other political? Prohibit that. Prohibit political subdivisions. So if a town wanted to ban the trucks, they couldn't? The way it is works now, can you make individual I know that there are instances, we were just talking with secretary, ATVs, for instance, there are rules depending on the municipality, which will allow ATVs. I think what this is trying to get at is that because this is considered a pleasure vehicle, just like a car or a truck, that it shouldn't be treated any differently from a car or a truck. What does a farm truck get for advantages over a vehicle, I guess? A small registration fee, but you're only allowed to drive within 150 miles of your farm. It can only be used for farm purposes. If you want to pick up grain, transporting hay can only be used for that purpose. It can't be used for your personal use. That's different than putting the triangle on the back? You can also use that as well. I'm not sure if the restrictions are the same for the triangle as far as

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: how far you can go.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Those are usually used for the big farm factories traveling between the farms back and forth. Representative White. Yeah, thank you. I'll see there's some

[Candice White (Member)]: conversation about pay vehicles that were produced after a certain year versus earlier ones. I don't remember the specifics.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Federally, they're not allowed to be imported unless they're '20 five years or older. The only vehicles, the only mini trucks that we've seen, the register, have been twenty five years or older.

[Candice White (Member)]: And is that in the definition here somewhere? I'm not seeing it. Or is that It's a

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: federal standard.

[Candice White (Member)]: It's a federal standard. So our legislation doesn't need to reflect that if it's federal?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Correct. It would trump first, it would be assumed.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: So that's a rolling number, I'm assuming, twenty five years?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: So they continue to make it, but they just got hit the twenty five years? They get hit twenty five years before they can be imported. Can't bring a new one. Can't bring a new one. Are some manufacturers that are in the process of creating mini trucks that will be federally acceptable. But as far as these specific Kate vehicles, they must be 25 years old or older.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: You know, the rationale behind that? I don't know. Why was 25 years old?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Like, it had to do with emissions? Well, you figured emissions were the pool. It's weird that it'd

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: be rolling. You figure because they just have a date after such Yeah, know.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Know. That's what you think as far as It's weird why it's a

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: rolling and not like, alright, anything before or after the search.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Any reason why other towns I guess you're saying I'm sorry. The part about the other towns is you're saying it's not it is a pleasure vehicle. Therefore, it would be treated as all other pleasure vehicles. It's not like it. So it's all ATVs are not allowed on roads unless acted by the municipality to allow them. Correct. You have to take action to allow them versus taking action to not allow them. On municipal road. Okay. Anybody else have any questions about? So this is, to my understanding, basically this is for effect. This is already a policy. This is a indicative of an already existing procedure and there's no problem for the PMB's perspective to highlight what you consider already existent practice in all of Section twenty four and twenty two and twenty three? Correct. We're not opposed at all to keeping this in.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Do you know of any towns that have Bennington or not?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I do not. I haven't heard any complaints or anything specific to what this would include. Is there any particular need to publicize this in some way? Is this a group of advocates that want it, but it doesn't change anything on a day to day basis. Correct. So we're going have sections that are for one vehicle, we have sections that just reinforce what we already do. Boy, we're really getting to the troubles in the world. And we've solved it pretty much solved the Smuggler's Notch issue to

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: the one truck that got stuck last year,

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: and we're gonna whack them. So we're getting through some meaty, real meaty substance in this bill. I'm sorry. Secretary Chittenden, always welcome your input if you have something to add.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Thank you, and I'm sorry to do that.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I know you weren't counting on me. No, no. We're happy to have you. I just thought I would

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: I think the deputy commissioner made the point that I would reinforce. This is simply to clarify any confusion that might be out there among either owners of K Trucks, potential owners of K Trucks, or even inspection stations. There's been a lot in the news. There's a lot if you look on social media. If you're interested in a K Truck, the state of North Carolina had to make many changes to allow them legally. We started getting some inquiry. We actually know some people with them, and the people that have them here in Vermont had said, gosh, we had no problem doing this. So we're really just trying to, as Matt said, make it clear as a bell, there's no question. It could be arguably unnecessary, because we do register them today, but this would facilitate anyone's doubt. It's sort of like Mollie S. I think was our position on this. Also removes the doubt on behalf of either a service station, which is unclear. Whether you present this vehicle for inspection, what am I supposed to do?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I don't know. Somebody told me

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: they saw YouTube and North Carolina doesn't allow this. I've never seen one before. So that's really the reason for As far as the piece on the municipal governments, I think our intention is really just to be sure that no one interprets this to be taken like an ATV. As in the case of an ATV, whether it's a side by side or a single ATV, the local jurisdiction can appeal to the agency of transportation for permission for ATVs to run on our roads in their geographic jurisdiction from A to B. They have to define where they want them to go. And we will go out and we'll look at safety considerations, and it's sort of similar to allowing the vast to run alongside of a highway if there's a bridge and they've got to get beyond the bridge. So if our traffic engineers see no obvious concerns, we authorize the use of ATVs on that section of Brook, and we work with VASA in that case, which is sort of the vast of the ATV world. And so the intent of incorporating K trucks into that thinking was simply so that through no fault of any local board, let's say they don't think of this as a bigger side by side and therefore you can't run.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Just to try to eliminate any question. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Representative Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I think we've talked about ATBs and how different municipalities allow them. And you're saying on state roads versus municipal roads.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Correct. That's what I said. I mean, on a back road, that's up to the local jurisdiction. Yes, the municipal road. If you've got a class one road, like 1171 And 16, 105 going up through Newport, 114 going through Canaan, 111, I believe it's up in Derby. It it depends. You know? The Northeast Kingdom seems to be more welcoming. But wherever it is, it's not currently legally allowed, but we will allow it if a community tells us we would like this. We believe it's a choice of recreation, and our issue is safety. In fact, two commissioners, three commissioners ago signed a deal with New Hampshire that allows New Hampshire registered ATVs into Canaan, Vermont. Because at that time, there wasn't fuel in that part of Northern New Hampshire. I mean, was, but that'd be either a Cold War or West Pittsburgh, and now there's fuel in West Georgetown. So, sort of easing otherwise unnecessary restrictions for areas of Vermont that welcome this type of recreation, and I'm not trying to push it on any community, but what that did is that allowed an equally registered TRuVASA, an ATV who departs Canaan, Vermont, to a thousand miles of trail in New Hampshire. So the value there of reciprocity through cooperating in that case, the DMV cooperating with Keenan, really, I will tell you, the people in that part of Vermont really appreciated that. And as did people in New Hampshire at that point, because they could get fuel much more conveniently than otherwise could. Now that's changed. There's a new station there now. So that's our position on ATVs. It's really the local community. We will not It's not about whether we like them or not. We don't have a position. All we're concerned about is if they wanna go from A to B, they have to tell us what that route is. And if we don't see any safety concerns, we'll prove that.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Just clarifying, I wasn't aware that they were allowed on state highway.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: In one case in Derby, said, No, we won't allow that, but what about this? And we came to agreement, you know, so we really try to work

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: with the community. Thank you.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Represent cases. Well, about fourteen years ago, or whatever, maybe thirteen years ago, I first came. A few years in after being a cyclone there in Hubbard and we went through and made it so ATVers could ride our roads. Then I think we were 30, they have the squarely boarded cops. But

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: we haven't had any problems. We had more problems before we did it

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: because they would get out in the roads and wow, I'm not supposed to be out there and not everybody, but some people would give it some give it some juice going from one place to the other because they don't wanna get caught. So I don't know. It hasn't been and and towns around us have have been doing the same thing in Orwell's I don't know. We got some sort of thing they're working on now to try to get them on there, but they were driving on the roads anyways. And I don't know if law enforcement was really targeting them, the guys. For the most part, they're just out enjoying Vermont, basically. It's been So I think it's been good for us.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Represent what?

[Unidentified Representative (from Orleans County)]: Yeah. Orleans County too. We've got a lot of towns that allow them, and it's been real good for everybody financially, recreationally, and that we welcome them, bring them on, open up all of

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: our towns, let them roll.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: And I might add, I did wanna say that I know I know, ATVers down my way appreciated the ease and ease and the restrictions the kind of a year.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: They're definitely happy with that. Okay. Interesting. That's what we take. Where we go? We're going to Section 28 now, I think. Yes. So in our display, this is I think I'll use the word clarifying what the intent was originally for in our display of license plates. It I don't think it was very clear that there should be no covering over the numbers on a license plate. It should be put on the vehicle the way that it was given to the driver. This is clarifying by adding language to say that there should be no covering over the letters or the numerals on a license plate. I we had discussed earlier the business locally that was creating the the colors around the outside of the plate or around the outside of the numbers, this says that you cannot do that, which clarifies. I mean, there's some also some some clerical corrections. It was mentioned, I guess, some kind of whole piece. Guess it probably was understood that you couldn't do this, but apparently it came up that it was unclear. So that's what you're trying to do here or something. A little ambiguous. Is it true that the Vermont Strong play is the only play allowed on the front still at this point? Are there two versions of Vermont Strong play, I believe? Or Right. What's the the only option other than just both of them are in statute or only I don't know if it's both. Both both allowed.

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: Both allowed. Yeah. There's two versions of

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: the Rondstrom. The original. Don't remember we ever had actually put some.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It used to be the 400 plate shape plate too,

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: but I think

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: we took that out of

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: the But I used to be like, so I think they took it out,

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: but we couldn't verify anything.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: You get your Vermont strong plates and that's it, otherwise you have to a Vermont plate off the front. It's still required to have the front plate. I'm sort

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: of on thinking sort of on that same topic. Has the agency looked at, because there's been discussion, let's just get rid of the front plate as it can save money or whatever. Just any comment on that?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: That was a hot topic. I think there's a lot more to it, a lot of other factors. So I think that can be decided right now.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So the agency's like, no, no, we wanna keep the thought process.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: For now. Yeah, for now. Is that Burke? Yeah, I just wanna comment, appears to me,

[Candice White (Member)]: because of law enforcement, it's what was the issue. That's

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: something we would want to have them weigh in on.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Absolutely. Represent fees. Shouldn't you make a consideration for a Yankees plate or an

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: old son's plate? Only one, though.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Ironically enough, former sector Sue Minner there when she was on this committee, we looked at trying to buy the logos for sports teams. Oh no, you'd be shocked at what percentage we had

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: to get back to the that

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: didn't go in again. We wanted patriots and really big Boston fans. In

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: the last part of this, the very last line, it says something, thereon shall be plainly legible at all times as provided pursuant to subsections of this section. Are there times that it wasn't required or something? Why did we need to add in as provided pursuant? Intrinsic. Was there a time where you can't have, you don't have to have them? Or there were temporary or interim to reg oh, I think it's a little bit different. Registration shall be kept entirely unobscured and numerals therein shall be plain and legible at all times as provided in this Pursuant to a? It was section a? As pursuant to subsection a. Yeah. I think that's just a clarification. So it ties back to number of plates. Okay. There's nothing extra to that particular glass. Suggested by our legal Page 36, there are ways to merge and work off of. I don't think as provided, but so it must be just more clerical in nature or Correct. That was suggested by our legal counsel. Doesn't change anything in the policy behind it. It does not. Clerical in pointing to. Mostly display it the same way as in subsection a. I realized this well, yeah, so 28. Other questions on twenty eight? Twenty nine. K. I this was not the NZ requested language, which was added in the senate. Correct. It was added by the senate at face value. It would seem to make sense that there there are some issues that DMV has with that. And I'm sure there there are other people that can speak more to this. Not all OEM exhausts have its same for sticker, And it would be very hard to identify that at inspection, especially when you have a guard over the exhaust. It's not requiring the inspection station to to break that break that down to try to inspect if that exhaust has the stamp or the sticker on it. And in some cases, it does not. So that's DMV's position on that. Are there other means that they had proof of purchase of this thing? Will there be a way to prove them? Is that saying it's not on the thing, but they saw the proof? I think there would be unintended consequences. I don't think that's out of the question. I'm sure there are other ways that it was I think I don't think the purchase order would would tell you if it was it may not tell you that it was an OEM part, and that could also be a problem.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It's my understanding that the EPA marking is embossed in the pipe, not the sticker.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I was told that. I'm also hearing that not all OEM parts have that.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Right, if they're not approved, I they

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: wouldn't have was told that there are parts that are acceptable to on a motorcycle that would not have the embossed.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Acceptable to the EPA? I'm not sure. I think that there are The EPA is using it to measure noise levels. Exhaust levels. Yes. Noise. Ordination. It's not emissions, it's noise. Decibels. Decibels, yeah. Okay.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: So I don't I guess there are people that could speak more to that, that will totally be able to answer that better.

[Candice White (Member)]: And pardon me if you said this and I missed it, but and this is in here because it was unclear in the past or why are

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: This was an addition suggested by the senate. Okay.

[Candice White (Member)]: But then what was

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: the practice? As far as intent, I'm not sure. Yeah. I think it had a lot to do with the noise issues and the noise bill.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: But this is

[Candice White (Member)]: a change of practice for the DMV?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: This would be a change of practice. And the DMV is saying that not all exhaust may or may not be a dent in the pipe, but that's contested correct. It's also potentially difficult to inspect. The DMV didn't request it, but so are you saying that you We could be opposed to this. I think there would be a lot of unintended consequences without any research. So we were we're opposed to this section. Is there a difference for inspection stations? Do they all I guess it may sound silly, but if you are an inspection station, then you have to be able to inspect the motorcycle as well? Is there something called qualifications inspecting a motorcycle? Do you go anywhere for a motorcycle inspection or normally I don't believe you can go anywhere. I think there are certain inspection stations that will do that. Just because you're monastery inspection doesn't mean you do motorcycles. Correct. Are there special rules just for motorcycles in any There is a full separate section in the inspection manual. Just so when we were hearing on section 24 in regards to changes, that was specifically geared toward pleasure vehicle. Yeah. I should clarify. That's very specific to pleasure vehicles. That wouldn't affect any commercial vehicle? Commercial vehicles there. Okay. They're separate. None of what we're proposing for inspection changes have anything to do with anything other than pleasure vehicle or if that's how the term is. That's correct. Pleasure vehicles, which include trucks, small small trucks. Like, can we trucks. Ski trucks. Yeah. But does not those inspection changes have nothing to do with any other vehicle or at words are open. And the rules and the inspection have a whole separate piece related to motorcycles. So we have them looked at. Correct. And are there a certain number of inspection stations just for motorcycles? Yes. Could you We can get you a list of Could you make a note of her? I I kinda like at least to see I don't we don't need a full presentation of every requirement, but I didn't realize they were a subset or and how many there are, and Perhaps we might be able to hear from more than one.

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: We're going to hear from absolutely one. Excited about that. I apologize. I'm not aware of how it works exactly. Representative Casey? I do know one criteria. The person who's doing the inspection has to have

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: a motorcycle license. That's what I heard. I think it's a lot of lying beyond that, but that's

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Can you That's what I was told. Yeah. I we can we can get all the data together for you for inspecting just motorcycles. You confirm if that's true. I don't know. Don't know the specifics. I understand. Can you find out that? Absolutely. We're gonna need a little bit of background on I I mean, I'd like to hear I know that you do need to be certified. Probably know. Yeah. There is a certification for that. Yeah,

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I have a truck and a trailer, if I went to one inspection or I talked to somebody and they said, Oh, we don't do those. Sorry, I'd like to know. So I think, I'm not sure if they register for what they do, they, so they say upfront, we do these things.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: They do. You need to apply and be certified to become an inspection mechanic. And then you also need to apply and be certified to become an inspection station.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Right, but then do they say, I'll do trucks and trailers or I won't, I'm just doing closure.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Yes. Can and we can get that list that you would know. It's I think it's posted on on our website as well. Yeah. Yeah. As far as a list of inspection stations for both. Other questions? So in some of the previous testimony, everyone reviewed this section, it was suggested by one of our committee members that perhaps there should be some level of perhaps an education piece that would have to be sort of delivered out to that group of motorcycle type of people that would be impacted. And that perhaps there should be some sort of staged, stepped, I don't want to be sort of a In other words, if it becomes illegal today, you go in for your section, you didn't know it or not, you have an opportunity to get a warning or to come back before you get next year's inspection that it would have to be replaced or updated. I'm curious if there's a DMV thought. Know you were published in this section. Have you done similar implementations of something like that when it relates to motor vehicles, any kind of stage or education in stage? Are you suggesting an advisory with a notation that you'd have to come back and have it replaced next year? If it could be an advisory for one year or two year, and then it would have to be then it would become a failure in that particular case. In other words, if you drive, if it's effective June 30 and somebody shows up July 2 and they have no idea that it's the case and now their motorcycle is uninspectable even though it's safety wise, ready to go, they're given some kind of period to say the next time or within twenty four months or eighteen months or twelve months that you don't have to comply, can that be managed within the DMV? It could be managed right currently. Right now it's a failure regardless. It's failure.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Based on this. And

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: so we wouldn't be able to do anything as far as a waiver. Right. If you change the language and If you change the be able to manage such a Yes. Have you done something like that for other implemented The the emissions waiver previously? We've done that for for pleasure vehicles.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I think I was the one that brought up that this should have a stage that you'd want to have won or even two years, where you sort of let the person know, hey, by the way, your muffler isn't gonna pass in 2027. I see what you're saying. Yeah.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: 'twenty. Stage as far as implementation.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, just so, and that would also, with education, you know, people who are gonna buy mufflers in the next twenty four months, you know, realize all the pain. And dealers and motorcycle supply folks could let them know too.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Represent, please. How are they

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: gonna test for noise? Anybody know?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Gonna have to have

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: one of those meters. And how far away do they stand from the motorcycle?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I don't I'm not an expert, but I would say I don't I don't read that. Wouldn't be tested. They're saying that would say that the muffler either does or does not have an approval from an EPA, meaning it's embossed in there or it's thicker in some way that it would be this would Yeah. It's got to be an EPA approved muffler. Yeah. To clarify, goal, I believe, is if it's stamped by the EPA, it removes the noise level. So we wouldn't we wouldn't be using noise meters. So I assumed different mufflers create different levels of noise, but they could they're either approved or they're not at a federal level as well. Okay. Representative Moore?

[Candice White (Member)]: Is there anything on the DMV web page where you can find a list of currently registered inspection stations? Yes. Can you tell me where that is?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: In the search field, you should be able to type in inspection station.

[Candice White (Member)]: Look that. And I saw information on calendar and get the storage on the inspection station.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Under enforcement, maybe on the left on the on the tab, this is enforcement. Otherwise, I can get you a link.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I'm just Maybe if you

[Candice White (Member)]: could just set us a

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: little Absolutely. Yep.

[Candice White (Member)]: Thank you. Mhmm. Because I'm just I'm thinking that if there's a list, there might be a list that breaks up motorcycle inspections, auto inspections.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I believe it's a downloadable list. I don't know how many motorcycles are registered in the state of the world or ballpark. Sure. I'm Any idea? I think I did have it. I mean, actually. May. I imagine it was a shorter I had that with me with the inspection testimony. Imagine the shorter seasons, probably not as many as some other cities. I no longer have it with me, but I can definitely get that for you. Okay. Would you be interested in that? Would you interested in little more background in general? How many inspection stations there are and what's the kind of the rules are a little bit different for motorcycle than what kind of subsection of Vermonters we're impacting here. I what kind of numbers we're talking about, what kind of number of people we're potentially impacting. I don't have any idea what scope of what we're looking at.

[Unidentified Representative (from Orleans County)]: Representative Loch? Just a statement here. You talk about motorcycle sound and stuff like this, and I can understand those jet beds that are at those high decibel levels and stuff like that. But our Harley Davidson is actually a beautiful, glorious sound. It's America. So we gotta go easy on those harps.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I heard that Harley's when I was growing up. In 2031, that's five years from now. Okay. It's an African. So we'll get back on schedule on the sympathy end of that piece.

[Candice White (Member)]: And

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: other questions or comments on? It kind of queues us up for our very much appreciated witness. Probably knows far more about all the questions that probably answers. So I thank you very much. Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You. We'll be seeing you again soon, I'm sure. Probably. We've a little ways to go still. And I really appreciate John. I haven't met you before, but I appreciate you coming. Okay to come up here. Absolutely. We're welcome to have you up. Well, thank you for having me. My name is John Lyon. I give you

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: a little background on myself. I was a practicing attorney for a number of years, lost some family members in a family business, which is Harley Davidson dealership. Left the practice and been there twenty years. We also acquired a automotive shop. So we do I both have my inspection license in both the automotive and the motorcycle dealership as well. So we're comfortable with what the changes that have occurred over the years. We think we've BMD certainly moved in the right direction on a lot of fronts. Certainly this committee, the discussion, I think, around moving to safety is sort of been very well received with our inspectors both in both dealership the Harley Davidson dealership and, the automotive shop. I've been doing that twenty years. I do have a prepared statement, if you don't mind, and I'll read that, and then maybe you can answer some of the questions that were posed by committee members. Thank But you for inviting me to testify with a focus on page 36, which is motorcycle exhaust requirements. I want to make sure I use your time wisely. The section goes after a stamp, in my opinion, not a real problem, which is excessive noise. The federal rules this section points out to are not as simple as they sound. The section incorporates a code of federal regulation. So if you turn to the section under 40 CFR, which I'm just gonna call one fifty eight, The label is on the motorcycle itself. It is called motorcycle noise emissions control information. And it tells you that the motorcycle was built, it met and when it was built, it met the EPA noise standards under the federal test procedure. Simply put, one fifty eight is the label on the motorcycle itself. Under 40 CFR two zero five one sixty nine, the label or the mark is on the exhaust system or a component, Two separate labels. So one sixty nine, which is the label or the mark on the exhaust system, the wording then changes depending on what kind of exhaust product it is. There's one label for original equipment. There is one label for replacement exhaust systems. There is one label for different exhaust components. There is one label for competitive competition only systems. And then there's also one label for the pre 1982 systems, the section outlines. This is why this is more of a bind to stamp problem. It's more of a classification problem. Federal law distinguishes between the label on the motorcycle and the mark on the exhaust system or the component. So this bill is not simply asking an inspector to locate a marking. It is asking that person to determine what kind of product is installed and what federal label language applies to it. And that misses the real inspection question. Section one fifty eight, one one sixty nine tell manufacturers which labels to put on a motorcycle or exhaust product when it is built. They do not answer the practical question facing a Vermont inspection mechanic today, which is whether the bike in front of them has been properly muffled or excessively loud now. That is the core problem with the provision. It is important to point out you can make a quiet bike, fail this bill, and a loud bike pass. A state inspection should not become a challenge of finding a faded federal stamp. When I testified in the senate, I brought a brand new exhaust with me. Many members had difficulty locating the stamp. That experience reflects exactly what technicians will face in the real world. Heat, water, road grime, and time make these markings hard to locate, but none of these things make a motorcycle louder. Just as important, this will increase the time required to inspect a motorcycle. If a technician has to spend additional time locating a stamp, removing cowls, determining whether it is legible, and just deciding whether a kind of exhaust product is installed, that time has a cost. That cost will ultimately be passed on to the customer. So this provision does not just create confusion in an inspection bay, it also risks increasing inspection time and inspection costs for law abiding riders without meaningfully reducing noise. This provision will not create much meaningful change aside from irritating the technicians who perform inspections. It fails to solve the problem. This provision is both under inclusive and over inclusive at the same time. It can miss bikes that are actually loud and catch bikes that are not. A motorcycle could have a visible EPA compliant label and still be noisy because of the internal alteration or removed baffling. Another motorcycle could have an intact effective muffler and still fail because the required marking is difficult to locate, faded, or because the exhaust did not go through the exact federal labeling process. It also creates a practical inspection problem because the legal standard depends on locating a market, not evaluating the actual exhaust condition. The federal rules say the labeler mark must be readily visible when the visible position when installed, but that requirement was written for manufacturing and labeling, not for years later verification in an inspection bay after hundreds of heat cycles, corrosion, road debris, and wear. It also risks making inspections less consistent, not more consistent. Vermont is already trying to revise the inspection manual so focuses on genuine safety issues and provides clear, consistent guidance. This section moves in an opposite direction because inspectors will inevitably disagree about whether a particular marking is present, legible, original, or visible enough. There's also a used parts and aftermarket problem. The federal labeling rules use different language for different products, including replacement systems and systems intended for older motorcycles. That marks the field question much, that makes them field question much messier for Vermont inspectors dealing with older bikes, aftermarket systems, replacement components, or mixed setups. And then respectfully, if the goal is to reduce noise, the law should target excessive noise, remove baffles, straight pipes, cutouts, and similar modifications. Other states do exactly that. Connecticut, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, and Maine all focus on noise, baffles, cutouts, and amplification, not a stamp. Instead, they send in an inspector with a motorcycle where the baffles are removed, and they penalize the inspection stations failing to follow the current law. Vermont should do the same instead of turning inspection to do a search for a stand. Vermont already requires vehicles to be good mechanical condition and properly equipped, and the current inspection standards already address mufflers and baffling. When I was in high school, I worked at a beverage center in Northfield, counting bottles and handling bottle and can returns. From time to time, I also helped in the liquor store. We had a sign above the register that said, you must be 21 years or old to buy liquor. The kind that Vermont liquor control requires bars have on display. Every so often, liquor control would send in a young and underage person to try to buy alcohol and test whether we were following the law. If we rejected the underage sale, the officer would come in afterward, tell us we did a good job and remind us to keep it up. Not once did the officer stop and ask whether the sign was hanging in exactly the right place. Why? Because they were focused on the real problem. They were testing whether the law was actually being followed. They didn't ask the legislature to enhance signage. The better answer is to educate and test inspection stations on the standards we already have. If the concern is that some shops are passing bikes with removed baffles, then test for that. Use enforcement. Use bait bikes. Find out which stations will pass a bike with a baffle removed. That would target the real problem. I understand the house may wanna move with a larger motor vehicle bill. My request is narrower. Please remove or rewrite section 29 because it creates inspection confusion without directly targeting the bikes that are actually too loud. Based on DMV that they're against this provision, respectfully, that should carry weight. They are the ones that have to make this enforceable in the real world. If they're telling us this is not the right standard, I would respectfully encourage the house to take that seriously. The real problem with loud motorcycles is usually remove baffles or altered internals, not whether an inspector can find a tiny federal marking on a hot, aged, road worn exhaust.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Burke and then representative Keyser. So did you present this testimony in the senate?

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: I a limited amount of testimony with the I brought the exhaust in with me. And I believe that that would suffice, that that was going to cover the concerns that I had with the provision, that they wouldn't be able to find the marking, and so that would essentially end the provision.

[Candice White (Member)]: But they absolutely do.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes.

[Candice White (Member)]: Representative

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Keyser? For us, would say. So

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: say I drive around with my baffles out of my bike, the day before I go into inspection, I slide those baffles back in, tighten the Allen wrench. So, agree with you. I think it should be, if they're out and about riding, can tell the motorcycles really loud, they go investigate it further and then it shouldn't be

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: up to the officer. Think it shouldn't be, you know, it's an easy way to get around it. Just what I just said. And you had mentioned it during your testimony also. It's been my experience in the twenty years that people that ride around without baffles end up being pulled over. And if they don't have a current inspection sticker, whatever the case may be, they're ticketed for that, and then it's moved on. It eliminates the question of decibel levels in the testing because the baffle's not there. It's defective equipment of some sort. I'm not a law enforcement expert, but I know that they've rolled in where they've

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: been given a ticket and

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: they need to replace the exhaust. It's not as easy as it used to be to remove baffles and put them back in. It used to be very easy to just tighten it up. It's much more complex.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Did you and I appreciate you coming in very much. Said that they deal with this very differently in Connecticut in terms of did you get at noise? Is that what I used to say? Well, on a direct approach to attack to go after motorcycle noise?

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: Yes, sir. So so I mean, every state has obviously its its different focus on laws. In talking with other dealers, many of them have just said that they've they're constantly tested, where where bait bikes are rolled in and their DMV enforcement says you pass, you failed. We've experienced that with our automotive area, and I think the same process could be implemented. I know DMV, it creates some additional work for them, but I think if the focus of this committee is to reduce noise, that's what we should be focused on, is test the stations that are allowing these motorcycles to roll out of there with no baffles, which has been my experience that happens.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Say he can have his baffles out, but still have the sticker, anything else you would not be failing?

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: What I'm what I'm suggesting is that at our dealership, if you do not have baffles, the inspection manual is very clear. It tells you that you can may not inspect the motorcycle, so it fails.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But you're also saying that sometimes some inspection stations, they get out without baffles.

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: There's Yes, inconsistency sir. My presumption is that there are motorcycles rolling around that find their way, just like rusty frames in the past that we dealt with. That seems to really be Rust and whatnot. D and B has done a wonderful job both in educating and holding inspection stations accountable. In fact, we went through a very similar process many years ago where there was a vehicle that came through with Rust at our automotive station and passed, and then six months later failed, and it went back to our inspector in our station. And so it was an educational moment. I think that's how we solve this, because the inspection manual is very, very clear. It's very well done. It was rewritten a few years ago by Dave Evans. Think he was involved with that, and he did a really masterful job in condensing and reducing and making it really overly clear.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative White, you're up, and then Representative Bennett.

[Candice White (Member)]: Thank you, John. Thanks for coming in. Or do Thank remember

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: why we worked

[Candice White (Member)]: together when we were together?

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: Much about economic development.

[Candice White (Member)]: Exactly. Yeah, nice to see you. So thank you for your testimony. I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So when a motorcycle has excessive noise, it's because there's a removed baffle, or could it also be a different muffler test bed? Don't know a lot about baffles. Of course. So if you could just review what are the different components or changes that a motorcycle could display that would cause excessive noise.

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: Of course. That's a great question. So this provision, I think, covers exhausts that are sold. Maybe they're acquired through Amazon or they're acquired in different places. It's just not been my experience. You're asking me to testify experience, and it's not been my experience that these exhausts are what's causing the noise out there. The reason why is those exhaust systems that are acquired through Amazon or third parties that don't have any type of stamp, have poor chrome, their coating is poor. People spend a lot of money on these products. So the last thing they want to do is install an exhaust that all of a sudden starts flaking and whatnot. They're inexpensive. And so really predominantly, at least in our organization, the issue is the removal of baffles or the alteration drilling out of an exhaust. So you could have an OEM exhaust that comes on a motorcycle where people, you know, drill out the center of it in order to make it louder. It no longer passes inspections. Very clear. And we don't see these vehicles coming into our facility at the rate that we used to because we built that reputation for it just fails. And there's just no ifs, ands, or buts. They don't even get into our facility. This isn't like a car where the car is put up on a lift and then you say it fails and we're really sorry. We start the bike, we just say, Hey, we can already tell this is not going to pass. And so then presumably they leave and they go find some other inspection station.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay, so remove the baffle, an altered baffle, or a drilled out exhaust, those are kind of the types of ways a motorcycle could be amended to have excessive noise?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. And one other question, which came up earlier, but since you have an inspection station for motorcycles, do you have any idea So you've got an inspection station for autos and motorcycles. Any idea how many inspection stations in the state

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I wouldn't

[Candice White (Member)]: know. Specify to motorcycles now?

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: No, there are 8,000 Harley Davidsons in the state, roughly.

[Candice White (Member)]: Thank you.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Richard Pouech, you're up. Yeah, John, thanks for your experience bringing it to air. I think you bring up a point that you might have a muffler that's not loud, it meets the requirements, but may not be properly stickered. And then I think this community a couple of years ago looked at, well, maybe we'll measure the noise as to find out. I mean, don't know if everyone agrees, but in my opinion, there are cars and motorcycles out there that have been modified to make noise. And that's, we know that it's happening and I believe it is a safety issue. Or if you live along the road, you know, it's a real problem. So you're suggesting that, hey, you know, we can inspect mechanically whether there's been some modifications. I just did a quick little search here. Yes, motorcycle mufflers can be quite loud even with baffles and that baffles can reduce noise or tune or, They've got baffles, everything's there, but they're still excessively noisy. So in that case, they would have to be passed if that was the requirement.

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: I believe that inspection manual already covers modified. So if that exhaust has been modified in a manner, then

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: But you could buy a new exhaust system that isn't been modified, but is louder than maybe an EPA muffler speed.

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: Yes. The answer would be absolutely. An aftermarket exhaust can certainly be acquired that is louder than an OEM and predominantly it's defined as sort of a throatier, deeper sound. They're not rising to the level of the ones that are the complaints, the issues in my opinion. But that's more of a subjective perspective. I just would suggest that the ones that we hear about are the ones that are generally been modified and are just passing through the cracks in one way or another. And so we're after all of them when in reality, the stamp is really a real serious challenge. And

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: sort of follow-up, I wonder if we have inspection data for motorcycle inspections, pass and fail on mufflers. I'm sort of looking at I can

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: see what I'll also, as a caveat, I would assume that they're probably getting that fixed before they go for the inspection or modifying it after the fact. So they may not be apples to apples, but I can certainly get stats on the number of failures for exhaust.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I would say based on my experience, and I do live just off of 116 where the speed limit goes from 30 to 50, we certainly hear the motors, we hear all the cars and vehicles going by, but then we'll specifically hear some motorcycles for a long time. And I think that's the issue we're trying to find a solution for. Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And are you saying that those ones that you hear for a long time or you hear that have likely been altered as opposed to the original manufacturer or not? Is that just too general?

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: I think I wouldn't be able to answer that.

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. I'd just like to take a moment to say that John's a pretty humble guy, and I don't think you'd find a better person or a better expert witness on this topic. His dealership is, and I don't even own a motorcycle, although I still have my license, but his dealership is ranked among the best in the country. Harvey Davidson. And they take tremendous pride in what they do, I just have had the pleasure of getting to know John a little bit through my work. But I think more importantly, the expertise that is pretty clear. And I think you're hearing me now,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: so I just wanted to take that point to

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: say that. And then the last

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: thing I'll say is for those of

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: you that have seen the DMV Harley Davidson LiveWire motorcycle, John's dealership put that together. Motorcycle is a manufactured motorcycle, making it the first in the world that was a police motorcycle. It was constructed in its dealership with it, which helped I believe in the Milwaukee Harley Davidson factory and this dealership really was recognized by Harley as uniquely available or able to convert a by wire to law enforcement package. So there's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: been a good relationship, but it's

[Secretary Chittenden (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: the testimony you really have an expert here for you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Orleans?

[Unidentified Representative (from Orleans County)]: Yeah, long time Harley Davidson, owner of night trains, fat boy stuff. I bought my leather at your store down there, and my brother Randy was the NEK captain with our Harley boot for a while. My dad rode Harleys, my daughter even had a Harley for a while. She doesn't anymore. That potato sound of the Harley Davidson, that's the sound of safety. It doesn't have to be at that high decimal, but the manufacturer that comes through with their standard equipment, that's under control. And I think the bikers are safe, safer because of that noise.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Section, testimony wise, obviously, the DMV suggested take it out. But you went a little further to say instead of taking it out, that there's adjustments that we could make for the direction that we go in terms of enforcement related to motorcycles. I guess it's kind of one of those topics for the committee is what direction do we want to go and what makes sense and whatnot. I think we're going to probably have to look at who else do we hear from and where else do we go on this particular subject. But I'm not a motorcycle person. I don't know anything about how hard it is, what the spot is, how hard it would be to inspect. That's the first I've heard about the federal regulation piece in 40 CFR. So we're have to hear a little bit more from our alleged counsel in that direction. In my perspective, sort of a, where are we gonna go now? Who else do we wanna hear from? And I can't resist asking, would you like to talk about the section 24 since your other shop that owns is an inspection station. Some of the if you haven't read section 24, you saw it in the I

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: think it's a wonderful bill. I I think the entire bill is is a great bill. I I I have no no other comments with the exception of this one. Maybe let me reframe and suggest that I do not mean to modify the section, the section that we've been discussing, I think 29. My suggestion would be to completely remove it and focus on the law that is currently being done very, very well with maybe, and I'm not sure how these bills are working. I've not read the other one that is in the midst, but giving DMV a little more resources as it relates to holding dealers' inspection stations accountable. We would invite that. We would invite an inspector to come in and test us on a regular basis as it relates to exhaust sounds. So let me be clear. I I in no way suggest that we should modify this. It should be removed, and I think it's it's will be dealt with a great deal of of upset with any state inspection, motorcycle inspector that has been doing it for a while is gonna be really disappointed with this process because it is going Removing cowls alone on certain models is going to take some serious time to do. With Harley's, it's not terribly burdensome, but to DMV's point, there are shields that go over the top of this stuff. You know, I didn't ask my technicians to perform any analysis, but I could estimate another half an hour of time associated with this. So that's concerning. It's already quite a process.

[Candice White (Member)]: Yeah. So John, just to clarify, so if you feel like the current standards for motorcycle inspections are, if they are followed appropriately, we don't have an excessive noise problem. It's when motorcycles are getting through an inspection when they really shouldn't be passed. Those are the motorcycles that are displaying excessive noise. And you're further suggesting that a little bit of enforcement on the part of DMV to periodically do random checks to our current inspection stations could be helpful to making sure that the current law is being followed.

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: I think the analogy is very much similar to Rust. That was such a challenging topic over the years. It's how much and what should be done with it and frames and you name it. And it became a little more over time subjective. It's really cleaned up nicely and it's easy and our inspectors can figure it out. The law is already very, very clear. The spectrum manual is overly clear. I just don't think everyone follows it to the T. And looking back at our timeframe, we've tightened up over the years from, I would say 2006 was our kind of first year that we really tightened down on exhaust ourselves. And so we've got that reputation, but not My only presumption is that some of these folks are just passing through the cracks and whatever the manufacturer of the motorcycle is, they're just easily passing through the cracks, it's just going to take some time to clean that up. But yes, the law is already very clear.

[Candice White (Member)]: Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Any other questions in any other other parts since we have an expert in the field? It's a great chance to throw. I'd be willing to hear any questions on any other sections if the witness was willing to comment on them. And otherwise, I would say thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Coming in this morning. Really appreciate all

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: the time.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You. Thanks a way for your business, and we certainly glad to hear such a praise about your presentation. So

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: your statement, we'll get that so we can have it on. The

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: statement that I just read? Yeah. I I certainly if if needed, I can do that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. We are easy to go around. Yeah. Okay. It's not recorded? It it is only. I

[John Lyon (Harley-Davidson Dealer and Inspection Station Owner)]: see. Okay. Just want to remove all my scribbles and different areas. Maybe I can clean it up a little bit if you don't mind.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Wonderful. Or just scan it, I guess. But, yeah, it's always you. We should put it on here just so we can refer

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: to Understood. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.