Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: PO box.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Wow. It was quick. Look at that. Today is what is it? Friday, 04/24/2026 here in house transportation. And we have our alleged counsel with us again. We continue to work on the miscellaneous motor vehicle s three 26. And earlier, the side by side, earlier, we had sort of asked Yeah. To do some extra work on sort of all the specialty plates and pieces, and who gets an antique license plate and gets special pieces to sort of educate the committee at our vice chair's request. And I was hoping we could go over that this morning to start and then we'll see which other ones we get little items we can get to. This was sent from Damian and is out on the committee page.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. And I am waiting to join the Zoom meeting here.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: And this is regarding section 28 of the DMV bill.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Just a second, and I'll have to be just

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: 26326.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It's s three 26.

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: That's very

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: This is for this is for the Specialty. Limited use specialty vehicles, which are oh, whoops. I'm looking at my wrong the wrong summary here.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: It's not license plates or it is license plates?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Not that section. I'm not regarding to cover them up. Regarding to giving the specialty vehicle the reduced rate and then also what other vehicles have applied. I was going to pull that back to grab it. $100,000 vehicle that gets a $26 registration fee.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: But there are other pieces that are out there. Right?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Limited use of the actual road, right? It's not a tax use. Find that. Comparison specialty vehicles. Damien sent out to the committee on April 16, if you're looking at it in your email or if you're looking at it on the committee page, comparison requirements Could

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: you please let me into the meeting?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And limited use specialty vehicles. That was on the sixteenth. The sixteenth Yep. And then Under Damien as a witness. Comparison requirements for antique exhibition street rod and limited use specialty vehicles. We're talking about the door request.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, no. I think it's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Imitations on use inspection Really good to see whether or not the section is heated. It's a one pager. Right?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. It's a one pager. It's 11 by 17, so it's probably looking small on your screens if you're looking. But I will share it here in just a second.

[Candice White (Member)]: Alright.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: So I've broken out antique and exhibition vehicles, street rods, and limited use specialty vehicles. So first, I'll start with just what these vehicles are. An antique and exhibition vehicle is a vehicle that's maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, and other functions of public interest that is not used for general daily transportation of passengers or property on any highway. Generally, these vehicles are at least 25 years old. So if you went out to the k truck mini truck demo day, One of the trucks there, the fire truck, had an exhibition or actually an antique plate on it. And I think that was a 27 or 28 year old truck. Street rods are a vehicle with a body and frame that were manufactured before 1949, and that has been modified for safe road use or a replica that resembles the original pre 1949 vehicle and has also been modified for safe road use. And this can include substantial and material alteration or replacement of the engine, drivetrain suspension, or brakes, or alteration of the body, which may be chopped, channeled, sectioned, filled, or otherwise changed dimensionally from the original manufactured body. Can all of you picture a street rod?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: We might need a

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: We don't know. Sorry. But

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: if you want

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: Yeah. So

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: here.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: They're great. But here's a

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: pull this up,

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: share a different image here. So here's a great example of a street. Pre 1949 vehicle modified. In this case, a lot of times they have an exposed engine. When I was a kid, I called them Dick Tracy cars. But it's that early American automobile that's been modified for current road use. So Little red sports car. Little red sports car. Exactly.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's a skit

[Candice White (Member)]: in our future.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Next year, you can do the street rods, the antiques, and the limited use specialty vehicles. I mean, so in contrast, a limited use specialty vehicle is a motor vehicle that is built by either a manufacturer that manufactures not more than three twenty five vehicles per year for sale in The US or by an individual and not for resale. So this includes basically two things. So senator or senator, I'm promoting you here, Representative McCoy. The representative McCoy's favorite term, the restomods, which are new vehicles that look like older vehicles. Or they could also just be a micro manufacturer of boutique custom vehicles. And then it also includes kit cars, which can be all the way across the board. But frequently, they're a body and a frame and some components, and then you buy an off the shelf sort of drivetrain to go in it. So when I was in college and reading a lot of magazines about this, a popular option was to get a body and then put a Ford Mustang drivetrain in it. So that's sort of the that's an example of of those kind of cars. And then it has to be maintained solely for occasional transportation, which could include just like the antiques and exhibitions, exhibitions, club activities, parades, and other functions of public interest. And it's not used for daily transportation, passengers, or property on any highway. So that the BNC you'll notice matches up to the antique and exhibition vehicle, and that was intentional in the senate's construction of this language. Street rod is set out in the inspection manual. It's defined. It's not actually defined in statute.

[Candice White (Member)]: Not for daily transportation of passengers. Do any of these limit, you know, whether you can have a passenger with you?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. You can have a passenger in any of these vehicles as long as they have a seat belt, and they're you they have safe seating. But what it's limiting, basically, with the limited use specialty vehicles and antique vehicles is that they are not for daily transportation. So they're, again, limited use, basically, vehicles. You'll see down on the limitations on use, there are none that are listed for the street rods that I'm aware of. But for both the antique and exhibition and the limited use specialty vehicles, it's not to exceed one day per week. So theoretically, law enforcement, if they saw you taking your vehicle out multiple days a week or on a daily basis, could pull you over for violating the registration.

[Candice White (Member)]: Representative

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Burke? Some of these not have seat belt?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: It's true. Some of the antiques may not have seat belts. Yeah. Yes.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Virginia, is this comparison is this working with what is an existing statute? Or is this limited use specialty vehicle reflective of what we've got in the DMV bill?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: So the limited use specialty vehicle is language that's being added in the Senate's proposed DMV bill. It is based on the antique exhibition provisions in the statute. So their intent was to try to mirror that as much as they could with some exceptions you'll see around the inspection requirements. They're they are subject to a safety inspection, whereas model year 1940 and before vehicles, like some of the ones that representative Burke just mentioned a moment ago, are exempt from the annual inspection provided that they're equipped with standard components and good mechanical condition. And that would be a judgment call for law enforcement there if they see something going down the road that they feel is not in safe condition. Yeah. The big difference between the limited use specialty vehicles and the antique exhibition is that the limited use specialty vehicles, including the kit car type, are going to have modern safety and vehicle components in the car. The antiques may have old style brakes, narrow tires, etcetera. So they may not have, you know, what we would consider modern safety features. Keeping with the inspection, the after model year 1940, antiques and exhibition vehicles are not exempt from inspection, but they're inspected under the special motor vehicle provisions in the manual. The home built vehicles that are registered as exhibition vehicles are exempt from the onboard systems emissions requirements, but they may still need a visual emissions, making sure they have an exhaust system that's functional under the vehicle, doesn't have holes in it, that sort of thing.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah, just on that. Shouldn't we say something more detailed than no emissions inspection if we are wanting to make them subject to a visual? I would question why we would allow these newly built specialty expensive vehicles to not have an emissions inspection?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: That that's a policy decision for you. The proposal downstairs was that they would have the annual safety inspection without an emissions inspection, understanding that in order to get one of these vehicles built and made street legal, you have to build it with components that comply with California or EPA emissions requirements.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: And that is part of the definition of this?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: That's under the federal Clean Air Act. So you

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: build a car today unless you are using these particular pieces that are

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So for example, I mentioned before people taking a Ford Mustang engine and putting that in. Part of the way that works is you have to install the engine and the emissions parts to specifications of the manufacturer, which have been tested to meet the emissions requirements under either the EPA or the California standard. In Vermont, we follow the California standard, which is a little more stringent than the EPA. The thing here is this is just at the point where it gets a VIN and it gets registered on the road. After that, it's not under the senate construct. It's not subject to even a visual emissions inspection. You could require visual emissions. You may wanna hear from the manufacturers on the OBD two emissions. My understanding is that if I remember what was in the report correctly that was done on this type of these limited use vehicles, Some of the vehicles may not be able to meet the OBD two, particularly home built vehicles. But they all do need to be built with a compliant engine and exhaust system from And the get

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: that is clear enough that there doesn't need to be any additional language?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: It's under federal law. So, yeah, we we don't have any authority in Vermont to modify those requirements. But the question is, do you wanna check each year to make sure or every two years if we go to two year inspections to make sure that they still have working emissions equipment based on a visual inspection, which is what cars that are older than sixteen years are subject to at this point.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: And just one other point, which I think we had brought up before, we're saying maximum of 12 vehicles registered per year. I think we had said maximum of 12.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: This just reflects the language as it came over from the senate. So, yes, I have a note that the committee wants to correct that to 12 additional vehicles registered per year.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We need to see language do that. And I also want to comment that the testimony from I think also from the I've been on the it's emissions. These engines don't have any place to plug in to test. So they keep fast if they keep plugging. But if there's a

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: visual inspection, then you're not having to plug anything in. I'm not exactly sure what's involved with that. But at least it's some type of nod to the commission's performance.

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: Representative? I was gonna make the same point.

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: We had testimony that said that those vehicles were not able to be tested because of the way they were built. But because they were built under the new standard, they are assumed to comply. And there's so few of them, I guess,

[Candice White (Member)]: don't harm

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: or foul

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: type of thing.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes, represent Tomlinson.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Well, to be clear, all new vehicles are built under those emissions.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. They're sold in The United States.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: By that same logic, we could just not have emissions. I I guess the volume of cars is much lower, but the logic doesn't really follow to me, except that there's not the plug in. But for a visual inspection, that seems doable. And it's odd to me to make an exception for cars that are, like, more than, like, a half million dollars. But k.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Again, that that becomes a policy call for the the committee, and the senate chose to go with no inspection. But you can propose otherwise to them.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And that's one of the reasons why I wanted to just turn it out and sort of lay that. I

[Candice White (Member)]: agree. Think you want. Yeah. Have

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the other ones. Why not? I don't think it's a big feeling to vote by that.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: And then on the fees, the registration fee for the antiques and exhibitions and the proposed registration fee for the limited use specialty vehicles is $26 for each. Again, the Senate chose to just match up the antique exhibition vehicles. The registration fee for a street rod is $89 So it has a regular pleasure car registration fee. One of the special notes for the street mods it's $89 is the registration fee. Believe there's an admissions fee on top of that. It's a couple of dollars. Clean air impact fee that goes on top of that. The title 23 registration charge is $89. All of these will have the additional charge that comes under I think it's under title 10 that that charge is imposed.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representing oh. Mhmm. Perfect. I'm assuming that the promotion for DMV. It's already

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: That was it? Okay. Thank you. I stand corrected. So the yeah. So the street rods have certification of verification for street rod, which is basically when you're initially registering the vehicle, it has to go to one of I think it's four or five designated inspection stations in the state where they have to certify that it meets the standards for street rod under the special vehicle standards. And then with the antique and exhibition vehicles, there is one registration plate issued on the two that you get for a normal pleasure car. And then Vermont registration plates issued prior to 1968 may be displayed on the vehicle instead of the issued registration plate, provided that the issued plate is carried somewhere within the vehicle and can be produced upon request by a law enforcement officer. And then to get the antique car member plate, it has to be at least 25 years old or older to qualify.

[Candice White (Member)]: The visual inspection for the hot rods, is that just once to get it registered? Or

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: No. They they go through an annual safety. Yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. They go through an annual inspection under this for vehicle provisions.

[Candice White (Member)]: Certain places you can have the

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: visual It's a good question. Can they the annual inspection can be anywhere. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Just the certifications.

[Candice White (Member)]: So in the manual to do inspections, it talks about this particular class.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There's a special vehicles chapter within the inspection manual, and that breaks down the things that are checked and the standards that they have to meet.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Other questions? Would

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: you like me to move on to the noise emission standards? Just

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: a second on that piece. This idea of this one day per week, is that an exact copy of the antique exhibition? That was taken directly from antique exhibition. There was a question on my notes of whether or not we did or did not wanna change any language related to the one day. But what I'm seeing here is that we copied it. It was copied to what was already there. So is there any sentiment? I had three things noted for these sections that were questions to be, and now there's a fourth, I guess. Whether we did or didn't wanna do anything about the one day language, sounds to me like it's copied of the way things are already handled and expected. So I don't know if that's a big question anymore or not, but whether there's a need to change anything. Yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: And we didn't have anything in the testimony that said, we need more than one day. It seemed to be satisfied with just getting that category.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So I'm just looking at things that I want to check off that was mentioned, whether we did or didn't want to do something about that. To me, I didn't realize it was the same.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah, just don't recall testimony regarding how often they would drive these specialty vehicles. But if they did say, one day seems appropriate, then that seems mean, if they were using it every day, I would think that we'd want to change that. We'd also maybe want to look at the registration fee.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: When the when the senate committee chose the registration fee, they just chose to continue mirroring. So that was

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: I thought the question was if they were going to a car show, and it was, if they needed to stay overnight, it would be two days. And the antiques and

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the exhibitions are running under the same language and have been forever.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if we want

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: to wade into changing all that or not.

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: Yeah. It's a plus.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well,

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I'm thinking about, like, at the Guilford Fair, they have an antique car exhibition. So somebody's gonna be driving car to the place someday and maybe driving a pet the next day or two days after that

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: to give everything to the airport.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Did you have anything? Mean, if you might be able to consider this better, but I believe it's between exhibition and an antique and it also states that you can drive up once per week for pleasures going to the ice cream stand or to parades and exhibition shows.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: So if you were driving to an exhibition, you'd have that leeway to be in a driveway. Yeah. That's right.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: The way the way it's worded is that it may be used on public highways, in exhibitions, club activities, parades, and other functions of public interest and occasional transportation not to exceed one day per week. So it's It's a

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: lane to have when it's too far.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And that applies to antiques, exhibitions, and it would now apply to this limited use specialty vehicle. So if you went to the ice cream stand on the July 3 and then were in the fourth of July parade, I think you would fall within the permitted uses of the statute.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's not broke. We don't need to fix this.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: And just, again, the creamy stand is open for the season. So

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: That's my thought.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: My priorities here. And

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the other question is, do we need to change the language on this better than 12 per year? So

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: it's the way it is right now, it would limit I think it would arguably limit DMV to having no more than 12 limited use specialty vehicles registered at any time. So you may wanna say 12 additional if that's the intent that you could gradually grow the number of these. Although, again, it's it's a very small tier versus the total number of vehicles registered in the state. Is this an issue, a concern? We wanna do something about

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: this or not? We're gonna

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: the insertion of a couple words would be sufficient.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There's no one?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: That is through fancy car events that people come from. Lots of different states. There's 12 and that for So

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: this is for Vermont registration. This is to get Vermont plates. This doesn't prevent someone who has valid registration plates from another state that permit their car to be used on streets to come into Vermont. Yeah. So that's important to note. This is just Vermont owners registering their cars here in Vermont as within this category. It's not going to affect someone from New Hampshire who drives across to show their car at the fair here or at a car show or something like that.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I guess I'm just concerned about, are we meeting vans? Do we understand the van? I guess sufficient, the 12 is the question.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and I don't know the answer to that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're hearing one. But there could be other companies, it's just a question that

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: you said, 12

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: per year, that's it. So whoever comes up with this thirteenth is out a lot. That's all

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: that's worth noting too.

[Candice White (Member)]: A good question for us, guess. Yeah, I'm all right if you say no more than 12 a year. Otherwise, I think the DMV would have to keep track of exactly how many they have. Additional ones. Yeah, I'm saying.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's also based on a waiver. So they don't meet emission standards. So this is a waiver to allow them to get a registration in event. So I'm not sure that we could see but it can be tracked in our system easily. We're not sure if we should only see TORL? I'm not sure the specifics of the waiver, but it's based on a waiver that we're getting. Don't like federal aid for emissions.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: So it's a federal waiver. Okay.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That we can allow these on the roads without meeting the emission standards, that's why it's limited to one. The idea was that it would be limited to ones per week. Okay.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And this is based on 12 per year. Yeah. The 12 came out of essentially, we took the California proportion, which is also based on that same sort of waiver. It's limiting the population of these vehicles or the number of these vehicles within the overall population of vehicles and saying that they have a de minimis impact on emissions within the state. The

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: way it's worded now, we are limiting a total of 12 vehicles forever in the state, as opposed to adding a maximum of 12 per year. So I guess I need, what does the federal, if we have to follow federal requirements, can we do that?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm looking to see if I can pull up the California statute here.

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: Let's see.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: We're just leaving at twelve because I don't think they're gonna be burning.

[Candice White (Member)]: So, we'll call

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: it back in

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: the next year. I'd

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: like to be able to move on in the sections. I wanna make sure we're already set on the questions. Yeah. Are the three questions I had. I wanna make sure we're I'm making a change or we're and we're

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: gonna accept it all as is. I'm alright.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We do that. We're

[Unknown Member (unidentified)]: at this. Okay. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: And I can get an answer on the California if you want it, or I can leave it as is, whichever. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I mean and I guess the only thing is visual inspection. I guess we're looking over there. Well, I mean, I'm representative White, representative Tomlinson, I think I concur with that.

[Candice White (Member)]: Start pairing it to the other ones. Yeah.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: We wanna be consistent. Yeah. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is that issue creates a problem at all?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: If you want visual inspection of the emissions, I'll make a change in section 27.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is there a concern that anywhere else? Is that the direction the committee wants to go on? So I guess you'll have to bring that back to it. Something comes up this section. We're leaving the 12, and we're leaving the fee, and we're adding the visual inspection to be consistent with the other specialty vehicles, antiques, and exhibition vehicles by the consistent cost to your chart. Go again.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: You wanna move on to the federal noise emission standards?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: An estimated time on that. It's on the questions. Let's say there were none. And you just put into the info and then we'll come back to the questions at another point.

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: I can do it in five if there

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: are no questions. Well, we won't take any questions till you go through it. And then we'll I grabbed you to revisit it. But we're gonna get done in the next

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: So For those of you who wanna look at this more closely later, I've provided a copy of this to the committee.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm not about section 29

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: related to Yep. The research that was requested from the committee. Yeah. So the federal noise emissions requirements for motorcycles, there are the requirements change when you go before 1986. Essentially, those motorcycles can be louder. But for motorcycles used for street use and dirt bikes manufactured in 1986 or later, street bikes may not exceed 80 decibels at the time of initial sale to the public, and dirt bikes may not exceed 82 decibels. The exhaust systems and components have to be designed and manufactured to ensure that they meet those federal noise limits and be properly installed at the time of sale. Or they they need and then the noise limits are based on proper install and maintenance. The motorcycles are required to have a label that has this wording. So this blank year, blank model specific code of motorcycle, and the model codes will have a three letter code for the manufacturer and then additional information designating the model. And then a serial number meets EPA noise emissions requirements of 80 decibels if it's a street bike or 82 if it's a dirt bike at blank RPM by the federal test procedure. Modifications which cause the motorcycle to exceed federal noise standards are prohibited by federal laws, the owner's manual. And then the motorcycle exhaust has to have matching language that said this manufacturer's name exhaust system meets EPA noise requirements for the following motorcycle. So it's one or more motorcycle model codes listed there. Installation on motorcycle models not specified may violate federal law. And essentially, and then the same language here is for the aftermarket parts here. So if you're buying an aftermarket part, that language is there. That said, there are plenty of aftermarket parts that you can buy that do not meet these requirements. And it's just at the time of the sale. This doesn't necessarily prevent the person selling the motorcycle from swapping out the exhaust as part of the sale. So you can get straight pipes and other modifications commonly are available. But this is basically when the manufacturer ships it and then it's sold by the dealer. It has to have those parts initially. And then it's up to the owner what they wanna do after that under existing laws. Represent Keyser?

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: How do they measure it? Now you're saying 80 decibels from how far away? There's a federal test procedure

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: and I forget the exact distance, but it is a certain distance away from the motorcycle measured in a certain manner. It's decibels on the A scale, which is a scale where essentially our perception, it's a logarithmic scale. So the noise goes up sort of on this hockey stick kind of curve instead of going up on a line. 80 to 82 decibels is actually a fairly significant jump even though it's only two decibels. But I can get you the exact test procedure. It's in the federal regs. And I'll pull that regulation for you and send it to the committee to share. But it is a specified test procedure where I forget if it's 50 feet or something like that, but they measure the sound and it's at a specific rate for the engine too. So most of the time when you're driving around, if you're not revving the engine, it may not meet that. But then when you rev the engine part, it's going to meet that. That's full requirement. And then, like I said, in Vermont, as far as I know, there's nothing that prevents you from installing an aftermarket exhaust, provided it meets the other requirements for the motorcycle safety inspections and emission standards.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: the other states do have requirements like a motorcycle and the testing requirements are all over the place, but there's a breakdown. Some of them, it's based on the speed of the motorcycle. If it's measured from a certain distance from the midline of the highway, they have a sound sensor, then you're you're in violation if you exceed a certain limit. Oregon has a test, which has a much higher limit, but the testing device is placed a few feet from the exhaust, so the sound's gonna be a lot louder. So

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: so we does every law enforcement officer have the tools on the road to measure?

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: So this year would be requiring labeling. So if the exhaust was not labeled to match the motorcycle, that motorcycle would fail inspection. And so it's at the time of inspection. The senate proposal is that at the time of inspection, they would have to check to make sure that the motorcycle the label on the motorcycle and the label on the exhaust true up so that the model number on the motorcycle matches the certified model numbers on the exhaust.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: The the the we we heard, a gentleman from Harley Davidson sit there and say that, you you can't some some pipes don't have stickers. That's correct. There are

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: at the time of manufacture, if it's going to be sold in The US, federal law requires them to have that matching. But there are numerous options on the aftermarket parts that you can get for motorcycles that do not have a certification. This

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: wanted to know what the federal regulations were at the time of manufacture at the time of sale, not at what we're doing the inspection. But it was asked what were the federal regulations at the time of manufacture and sale. Yeah. And they have gone through this test and this information to be approved to be able to be

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Is the yeah. This is the federal noise emissions requirement.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: What happens after that is where we're headed next, not the day. Not the but where we're headed next, want to know what that federal regulation was. Two

[Candice White (Member)]: things, one is, so based on the federal law, if you buy a brand new motorcycle, as the EPA for noise limits safety issue, they consider that. And

[Virginia (Legislative Counsel)]: then you swap it out. Does the federal law just sort of say, well, we don't care? Or is that federal law saying that's what's required? So I was looking only at the federal labeling requirements. I can dig into this more deeply for you. My understanding is that the feds don't enforce this beyond that initial labeling requirement and that it varies by state. Many states don't worry about the labeling. They worry about a roadside test.

[Candice White (Member)]: And then other states have labeling requirements. Then the second thing is we did have testimony from the Harley dealer who said, hey, during inspections, we're looking for not necessarily what's there, but looking for modifications that, you know, they implied modifications that would not meet the standards, the safety inspection standards. So I'd be looking to ask the DMV to give us a clear understanding of what the safety inspections are that they're looking for.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And that's coming next. Unfortunately, this piece, we are going back into this in a much bigger detail. This was to for our alleged counsel to present the what I thought was requested about what the federal standard was. And so with that, we're adjourned for today. Have a wonderful weekend. Great job yesterday as a team, and nice to hear all the great compliments of the group, and particularly nice parts about how well the how much the committee was obviously enjoying doing it, regardless

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Nice of whether to to.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Regardless whether there was an audience or not. No. It didn't matter if there was an audience. Apparently, we were cracking ourselves up. So we are adjourned.