Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You're live.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. We're live. It's Senate Transportation. We're here to discuss the miscellaneous DMV bill and do a walkthrough to see if we can start closing some sections out. And we're here with Damian. I will say to the committee, it would be my hope after all the time that was spent that maybe we could be done this by next Friday and and have this out of here, and then we'll start concentrating on next year. And maybe if anyone has any particular bills on the wall, we could look at those and, you know, just take a glance at those. Go ahead, Damien. Alright. And at twenty after or you can you stay for ten minutes?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I will. Yes.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And then and then go down. Yes. Do you need to be out of here? I've got she missed arriving. Won't be in till ten at

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: their Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If you need to do something on the budget adjustment, the next fifteen minutes would be the time be because because I need to go to my

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: at nine at 09:30 to introduce a bill. Okay. Coming down the hall.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: So what are we gonna do right now? Just go through.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: We're gonna go through and start closing sections on this.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Okay. That's fine. K?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Alright. Okay. Thank you. For the record, I'm Damian Leonard from the Office of Legislative Council. So you're looking at draft 1.1 of the committees. Right now, it's a strike all amendment. We can change that to instances of amendment if you prefer. The first section, non driver identification cards, this is identical to the bill that the committee introduced. Basically, it is is it provides that an individual can have both a non driver ID and an operator's license at the same time. You can have one or the other.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Is there any concern about this section? Not in here. I think, okay. That's the Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The the only flag I have on this is just that your counterparts in house corrections and institutions have been working on language related to this, and I'm continuing to work on that with my colleague, Hillary, and I'll let you know if We they do

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: are going to have the chair of house institutions in to talk about her language. She asked to come in next Friday. I am pushing to see if we can have her a day before that. The plan would be, if there's not objection in here, to incorporate that language into this and then the language would be in the same place. That really relates to section two and three. Yes.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: So So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: we'll hold section two and hold section three. And

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am in the house corrections and institutions at noon today with to go over their language with them on these two sections. And I I I can't speak for the committee, but my understanding is they're looking at incorporating what you have in your bill into their bill. So I don't know if they'll do that, but that's that's what we're looking at today. Section four is the insufficient funds, and this is expanding it from a bounced check to electronic funds transfers and credit and debit charges. And as we went over before, it would allow the department to suspend temporarily suspend the license or registration if a person's form of payment didn't go through? I know the committee had some policy concerns about this. The language has not changed.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So let me just ask the commission. So the process is if it goes through and and it's insufficient funds, does the department or the bank come back around a second time and try to run the money, run it through again?

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: Yeah. So our all to now is this is

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: not

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: instantaneous. This is usually a thirty day out. We do try to contact and and make it available. I I know that word immediately it was in there, but that's just current language that's already in there. We really we, as policy, use a three day window. We do try to reach out and and try to get the funds for any action that's taken.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Thank you. So then I think if we're not doing it immediately, we should take out immediately. And just you'd say, like, finally or something. But then just a question to you, do you contact the person themselves?

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: Yes. We we try to make contact with

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Not just the bank.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: The Not not the bank. The actual person. Yes.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: But there's office. Could I ask you the the immediately here isn't this is way after he's

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is after the written notice. Yeah. So send written notice of nonpayment to the person that if the required amounts are not paid immediately paid, the commissioner shall suspend a license or registration. You could change that to, are not paid by the date set forth in the notice. The commissioner shall suspend the license or registration. So that would also and I don't know what the notices look like. But if they say, you know, you have until, you know, ten days from the date this was sent to pay, then, you know, we can just update that to reflect that it's not instantaneous, which is how you agree immediately Yes. Upon receipt. But instead, you know, within a certain number of days, which would allow also allow for clearing a check or something like that.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So this was the email back from Jordan. DMV receives would receive notification from the bank that a check has been returned NSF. Our accounts payable team reverses the payment and applies the $20 statutory return check fee. The customer is then required to pay the original debt in addition to the return check fee. The bank makes two attempts on the check prior to notifying us that it is NSF. But once we are notified by the bank, there is no way for DMT to deposit the check again.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: The second time? What? He bonds into the second guy. That's what they said.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I think I missed this one where you went through it before. I just have concerns because the post office, you know, it used to be two days you could rely on getting mail and your check getting somewhere. Now it could be a week or

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: more. Yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Can, and then the $20 that's a, that's, that amount could be a a hindrance to someone getting a license and it's just so important to have a license. Did you talk about other alternatives or?

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: No. So this is we're just taking what's currently here, and we're trying to add because we're seeing that shift towards credit card and electronic payment, and it's just adding the electronic payment section to capture times when

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Just to make Right.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: When the because it takes a couple days to actually fall into the account that if there's a bad electronic transfer that we have the same ability as we would have if it was like a check to

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: How many of these do you get?

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: The numbers are on that memo I sent. I can

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Rebecca, sorry. Like I said, I missed this, but I'd like to just have a some conversation on that.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: We got it where Renee's in there later to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: have those numbers. Thank you. We'll put that on the form. Okay. Now section five. So I'm gonna

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: catch up with my notes. So section five, this is the license plate section. So this section here, the the provision in here is relating to prohibiting coloring or tinting or changing the appearance of the numbers and letters on the plates or covering them with any material or substance that changes or tints the color of the plate or the numbers or letters. And this is in addition to current language that provides that number plates shall be kept entirely unobscured, and the numbers and letters shall be plainly legible at all times. And so this would address both folks who are getting their plates colored or tinted as well as folks who are putting some sort of transparent or translucent covering over the plate, that may create glare for camera or otherwise obscure the plate from certain angles, or change its appearance.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Is this already illegal?

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: So I

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think the the question is the current law says the number plates shall be kept entirely unobscured, and the numbers and letters shall be plainly legible at all times. The question is, have you obscured or rendered the numbers and letters not plainly legible if you colored or tinted the plate or if you've put one of those transparent plastic coverings over it? We have seen other states, and other states have adopted similar language in recent years. And I think the the effort is to try to close potential loopholes or gaps in the law. And so this would be reflective of what other states have done. I think the intent of the original law was that you shouldn't be making it so your license plate can't be read. But I think the language is not necessarily ironclad as it currently stands. It's open to interpretation.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Did we change this from before? Because we talked about because of the original language isn't here. That's just just says obscure. Right?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the original language is on the bottom of page six, lines 18 to 20, which would have said the number plates shall be kept entirely unobscured, and the numerals of no letters thereon shall be plain and legible at all times. Page six. Page seven. Oh, page seven. I'm sorry. My my word document updated slowly. Bottom of page seven, lines 18 to 20. Right. So that my question was that

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: and I think the commissioner said it's kinda up to the or not up to or obscure by troopers at least was I've seen your covering as obscure. Right. You can make an argument that it's a clear covering is not an ups

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not entirely unobscured. Yes. I think you can. Yes. The other option here too is to clarify that a plate shall be considered to be obscured if the numbers or letters are colored or tinted or covered by any substance or material.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I'm okay with b and c. I just wondered if if somebody still put a clear cover that doesn't doesn't let a camera read it or makes it difficult to read from certain angles.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that is that?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. Seems like a clear thing is that they can only be not allowed if you consider it a clear covering. Yeah. I

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think yeah. I actually think if you wanted to address that, c should be I would either clarify and see that any material or substance that changes or tints the color of the plate or creates glare from certain angles that renders the plate difficult to read, you know, something like that.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Or just any covering of any kind of Yeah. Like, it doesn't have

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to Yeah. I mean, that's that's the other thing. Shall not be covered by any material or substance of any kind.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: And that that doesn't have to do these things. It could be it could we could also say such as the changes for something, but if there's something that we can do to make it clear that a clear covering is not allowed

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can do that.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I would appreciate it.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will clarify that. I would

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: put this on hold. I will just say for I'm at this point in time, I'm in in I'm fine with what the committee decides. I'm almost to the point where I'd say anything to do with license plates this year. I take out of this whole thing. We've gone back and forth with their parent anything, but we'll put this on hold for right now because they want that to be a decision of the whole company. Okay. I thought I had a good license plate. Sorry. I gave it my best shot. You know?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section six is the smuggler's notch penalties. So there are two different parts of the penalty. The first is the the monetary penalty, which would be either for the employer or for an operator of a vehicle that's being operated for personal reasons, which would include both a personally owned say, you buy it or you you have a long RV, whether you own it or are renting it, and you drive it through the gap and gets or the notch and gets stuck, you'd still be on the hook for the personal reasons. So the monetary penalty increases are going from 1 to 10,000 and 2 to 20,000. And then the subdivision b and the next section relate to assessing five points for the individual operating the vehicle. So it's really two separate things here. One is the cash penalty, and one is the points for the operator, which would be regardless of whether they're an employee or operating for personal reasons.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Go ahead. Could we get any information about whether a judge might take 10,000 or $20,000 if it's an amount? Don't have that for you yet. That is that's my only concern here is that it would get thrown out.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, I I'll tell you my concern is with the second part of it. I have sympathy for a driver that is unsophisticated, that might feel taking orders from their employer and the employer's front office has said, here's the way you're going to drive and you're gonna drive through the notch. And if they the employer does that, I'm fine with them getting the the whatever we increase fee by. The points on the license, I have some sympathy for somebody if they're doing what their employers told them to do and their job depends on a license. If we give them points and we put them over the limit so they can't drive, I feel sorry for that person. But that's Yeah. You know? But I'm I'm okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's worth noting that you could limit the points assessment to individuals if you didn't take it out altogether. So you you can keep it as it is, take it out altogether, or you can limit it to individuals operating for personal reasons. That's another option in there.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Like a self employed trucker.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's that could potentially catch an owner operator. Yeah. But it could also catch, you know, someone driving an RV or something like that.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, I personally don't have any sympathy for RV drivers going through. Gotcha. No. But I do have if if a front office has said, here's the route you're gonna take, and you're somebody that your job depends on following orders from somebody.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I personally think the the flashing billboard that said they're gonna be fine $20,000 now would open my eyes up more than the five points worth. But,

[Mr. Cody (RV industry representative)]: you

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know, I don't think they

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: so I'm okay with even taking the five points out.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm fine with the $10,000 amount. Yeah, that's As what I long as Andy's question is about the judge, but the points I'm skittish for.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: And we're looking for a deterrent that that finds you would do it. Right? I think. I think it's don't think of like, we changed the fines before what we thought was gonna be noticeable. Think because I don't think I I don't

[Mr. Cody (RV industry representative)]: know if there's anybody that's done it twice.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. Well, it's it's stuck twice. So, like, so, like, it's it's a big enough detergent churn just to do it. Like, so it's they're not gonna make a gamble or something because you can't get through it. Right? So it's not

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I think even if you said this is to have we already have a lot of signs. The signs are $20,000. They're like, well, that's obviously for somebody else. I'm going look at me. I'm following the blue line. That's not me. All these signs that don't go this way, that that means something else because, obviously, Google's telling me to go this way, so this must be the right Well, what I'm thinking is if this notice would go out to on the other issues, they're all in for instance Mhmm. To him and he sees it, he's gonna buy all his make sure maybe he does already, but he's gonna make sure all his trucks have the right GPS. Mhmm. Right. I think Not with them. Yeah. Those that are don't already do that. But I think it's your I assume I don't know who these people are that have been stuck before, but I assume it is they never even go to Vermont before. Like, they're

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: just they're just Well, Darren, I I think if you're from New Jersey and you're a trucking company, you're a Belavance company that's in New Jersey and your front office has sent this driver Right.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: He doesn't speak English, and they're like, just go do this. It's a one time, and we don't usually make trips to Vermont, but we have this many trips to do.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The English thing is just for what it's worth getting much more difficult with the changes in federal regulations. So there the federal regulations for English proficiency for CDL operators are getting much more stringent under the current administration. Yeah. Well That's just

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. Perfect. I've been around some for forty years, and the administration's come and go. Yes. Right.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But like I said, for what it's worth.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And if we're setting the decision law for the points or something, that's it.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: K. I'm I'm okay taking whatever the

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: share Oh, I'm I'm fine with leaving the fine in, but take the points out. Okay. Is that A little make sense?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Can are you gonna just, like, call judge or something? Like, we he he testified before. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't had a chance to touch base with our judiciary team who usually covers this. K. I'm hoping to do that this afternoon when things quiet down. Usually usually post twelve on on Friday, things get quiet enough here that we can actually catch each other and Okay. Talk. I'm sure. So I will have an answer for you by next week.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So the we'll put the the number six in is contingent upon hearing that.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And if if if they don't have any problem with it with the court that it's in.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. If the judiciary team says you should have judge zone AM, then I'll let them know.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. And if they say no, then, it saves them.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Right. So that means section seven would come out. Yep. All right. So salvage certificates, this has changed from the bill is introduced. This is the language that I worked on with the DMV's counsel to address and clarify. So the new language starts at line eight on page 10, and it tracks with what we had before with a little bit more clarity, I'm hoping. So supporting documents used to transfer ownership of the vehicle to the insurer following payment of damages shall not require a notarized signature, may be signed electronically, and may be printed on hard copy. And then we're defining signed electronically to mean that a person with the intent to sign the record uses an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person. That is the definition we have used in our statutes historically for electronic signatures as we've legalized them for different things. So I kept that consistent. And then for purposes of this, though, we're following

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: the I

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: believe it's the NHTSA requirements for electronic signatures that the electronic signatures on the supporting documents shall utilize a secure authentication system that identifies the signatory with a degree of certainty equivalent to or greater than level two as described in the National Institute of Standard and Technology's June 2017 digital identity guidelines and then the reference to the special publication. So that's a standard federal guidance. The levels basically, if I remember right, go from level zero to level four or five. And so this is an intermediate level of security here, but this is what they recommend for these documents. And then supporting documents include bills of sale, title documents, odometer disclosures, and powers of attorney. And then adding in the language here that the insurer shall indemnify and hold harmless to the department for any claims arising from the issuance of the certificate of title or some of the section. Yeah. So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Any concerns? Yeah. This is really just adding the signature.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's adding the signature and clarifying what we mean by that. And then the indemnification language at the bottom there is also additional. But it is it is a salvage title. There is a chance that there could be a claim. This is basically saying if you're gonna take title, gonna hold the department harmless. Any concerns? That's in.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Alright. Numbers nine duplicate titles.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This has not changed from the underlying draft. As I mentioned or explained in the earlier drafts, both this and section 10 provide that if you're obtaining the duplicate title at a DMV location, they can hand it to you at the location while you're there instead of having to mail it to you.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Good. We're okay with that.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me select and bring us to section 11. Okay. Section 11 is the clarification on the location of title appeals. It doesn't change the underlying law. It just clarifies that we're in the civil divisions, not the criminal division of the Superior Court in County.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: You do everything in Washington County.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: You know?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Can't move it someplace. I think we're okay with that.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. The abandoned motor vehicle certificates of title, this is just a technical renumbering to try to enhance clarity in the section. No changes from the underlying bill. Okay with that. The fees for Cohen from public property, you went over this with the department a day or two ago.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yep.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so this increases the fees to $2.50 as proposed, and this adds the agency of transportation language. So you'll find that on line 18 to 21 on page 14. If the agency of transportation has a vehicle towed from a state right of way, the agency of transportation upon submission of proof acceptable to the commissioner that the agency has paid a towing service for towing the vehicle from the state right of way, the fee shall be paid too.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: This is a very confusing sentence.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'll rewrite it.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I'm looking at it now. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It seems great at whatever time it was that I rewrite it. But

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: so I understand what's happening, and I agree with it, but I don't think this is the best way to say. Right. They were bringing that up, but I was sure. No. I thought we knew. Yeah. I was

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: struggling with it as I was reading it. So I

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: saw you skipping some words to make try to make it. I don't Alright. I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: don't understand.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: we'll put this on hold. Alright.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You'll get a better draft next time.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And we And it's the only problem with this section is you, Damian. We don't want everybody else to be

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, man. Yeah. It's like the demotivator posters. It could be the problem is you.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Right. So

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: anyway, diesel fuel tax. This is a technical change here, renumbering to make sure that the subsections and subdivisions line up logically. It doesn't make a substantive change. Purchase and use tax. So this has changed from the underlying bill. There are a couple of changes in here. So as a reminder, the definitions here, we're clarifying the definition of purchase price. This is the same as it was in the underlying bill clarifying for vehicles purchased outright and leased vehicles. The taxable cost let's see. Change here. Oh, this was the technical change the department requested clarifying for vehicles that don't have a clean trade in value that the commissioner can develop a process to determine that value, and this lines up with language we enacted last year. Technical change in subdivision two to clarify the National Guard rather than a guard unit, and then adding definitions of month, shipping weight, trailer. And importantly, we've added a definition of trailer coach. So a trailer coach is a trailer that has living quarters in it. So this is your tow behind camper. It can also be a custom trailer that's, you know, hauling a you know, you could see them for hauling race equipment around that also have bunk or kitchen quarters for the the folks who are going traveling to a race, whether it's a bike race or a moto frost or motor vehicle. For the tax imposed going into section 16 These two fit together. They they fit together. Yes. The you'll notice that with that definition of trailer coach, we've lined that up with motorhomes, so it's subject to the full purchase and use tax. But for the definition of trailer, we've lined that up with the capped purchase and use tax. So if you're buying a trailer, whether it's a contractor trailer or just a regular utility trailer or a semitrailer for your business, you're capped at $2,486 in tax. However, if you're buying a custom tow behind trailer coach, at that point, you're subject to the tax up to whatever the full value is. So that that's the separation here, and that's that's really the cleanup that happened. So we do have

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: the deputy commissioner and tax scheduled to speak at eleven on this. I am gonna take and are you representing the truck the truck, the bus? No. The the the Vermont Autumn Eclipse. So

[Mr. Cody (RV industry representative)]: state your name. Madcota, Meadow Hill, I'm big association. And could you raise your concern? So appreciate the change that clarified that trailers that are used in hauling operations, moving fuel and logs, exams as I understand the rewrite from things.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're they're subject to the cap. Sorry.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. Yes. That's what I meant

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to say.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: No worries.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I just wanna make sure.

[Mr. Cody (RV industry representative)]: There are a handful of dealers of RVs, that have been charging the max tax on either a fifth wheel or a travel trailer that has living quarters. Those vehicles that most of them that are over 28 feet are going to be above 40,000 retail sales so then would no longer qualify for the max tax with this removal. It's not every travel trailer, but it would certainly affect sales if they're going from $2,485 in the max tax to a $100,000 trailer that's gonna be a dollar tax. Just making it clear that this will have an impact on certain sellers of travel trailers and the choices we should make whether to buy them here or go elsewhere.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And is it DMV's intention to expand the number of trailers that would be taxed?

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: So, Renee, ahead, Rebecca here, but I

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: just want we're trying to

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: clarify because trailers, with the exception of semi trailers in the case law, were never supposed to have the max tax. So we're actually now defining it, we can follow the established statute. And then we're just trying to mirror what we

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have for motor coach on

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: the max tax with the travel trailers, so we can have some parity between the two or not having one off. Our intention isn't to try to capture anything differently. It's we're just trying to mirror what we have available on the vehicle side with how we apply it to a trailer, so there's some normalcy or consistency

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: in language. I I'm not sure that if Nicholson's ends up with their tax doubling or RVs that they're selling up there that they would consider this, you know, I I I would think think that they would consider an expansion of that. I would and I'm not sure that we wanna do that without a lot of testimony or at least some testimony. What do you think? Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I would wanna take some more testimony on that, and I'm wondering what mister Cody's testimony about where they buy it. It's would be where they registered it. Right? Right. Where they buy it.

[Mr. Cody (RV industry representative)]: If if I may, Olivia Nicholson volunteered to come down here today. I told her not to. I said I said I think that the chair would provide an opportunity to address this this, how you tax it, what vehicles you tax, and how you pay it.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: But it's where you register, not where you buy it. Like, if if you went to New Hampshire to try to avoid the tax, you'd still get taxed when you registered it. If you registered it. That sounds correct. Right. But still, it's the it'd still be an issue when they go to buy it and their total taxes Right. There might be more work that needs to be done because, you know, maybe there's a reason why we don't want the cap. I think the cap was I'm not

[Mr. Cody (RV industry representative)]: sure why it was set.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: The thinking was that some of these things that are yeah, over a $100,000, is that the right path that we could have that discussion probably to be more testament to talking about.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Well, I I was just thinking of I had a concern over someone who uses a similar to a coil or a utility trailer, you know, and I can think of examples of a 40 foot utility trailer that a guy uses for business, but he has a little small living quarters. This would this would suck that into that category, wouldn't it? If he has a bad So let me read the definition of trailer coach, but I I think it would. And I think that's that's one of the kind

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of questions here is what do you want included in there. And the the way trailer coach is defined. This be your onion trailer? No.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Which I don't have anymore.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: No. Well, you used to have? No. Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So a trailer coach is any trailer or semi trailer designed to be towed behind a motor vehicle and designed, equipped, or used for sleeping, heating, or living quarters. So that can be kitchen in there. It can be sleeping quarters with no cooking quarters, or it can be some sort of living quarters. Although, you know, I'm sure you could imagine something. But yeah. So this could be something that has, a small bed and or cooking apparatus in there. I'll give

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: you an example of just, you know, somebody who buys a and I and I know people who have this, you know, I'll say a beer truck, a box truck for their concession business and all all their supplies and stuff so forth are in the truck, but in the front, a few people have living quarters. So they work all day and they sack out in the front of the truck. Now that would make that that would remove a cap for that would make that a motor coach at that point.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, trailer coach has to be that's it has to be something that's trailer. So it's towed. It doesn't have its own Well, safety then your let me just find motor coaches. Oh, what's the definition here? Give me a second here. So we're looking at motor homes. And that is defined in a separate place. So let me just pull up the right statute and get that for you. But that is I think

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: yeah. I'm not sure if that would get caught or not. So Well, that's just a concern, but the other concern is a tow behind trailer, same scenario. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Used for supplies and stuff. And yeah. Yeah. That's a common occurrence. So the motor home is a newer used pleasure car designed to provide temporary living quarters built as an integral part of or permanently attached to a self propelled motor vehicle chassis or van must contain at least four of the following facilities, cooking, refrigeration or icebox, self contained toilet, heating or air conditioning, portable water supply, including a sink and faucet, separate, 110 to 125 volt electric power or an LP gas supply. So it it actually doesn't speak to, for example, a a truck where you just got, you know, bed or a pop up tent on the back. Mhmm. And I'm not sure it speaks to a fox truck, which would be a motor truck pleasure car. Or does that sound a sleeping facility, isn't it? I don't.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm gonna make a suggestion. Okay. I think the department needs to work with Matt's organization and Mackelson's and some of the and bring us back something, I think, from what I understand, if we're not changing the rules as they're enforced right now, and we're trying to create just create clarity, there's some sympathy in here for that. We aren't willing to make an expansion in here without being clear on what we could work. If I'm trying to get this bill out next week, if sometime before Wednesday, you could come back and you could work with Damian, get language that articulates what we're doing now with not any changes to clear up the statue, we're all for that. If not, what I would say is we do have the t bills later in the session coming. We could always include something there. But if you if you guys don't agree by next Wednesday coming in here, this is out of of at least this miscellaneous DMV bill.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: Yeah. Chair, we're we can certainly do that. I think the easiest solution is we just take out credit, coach.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I know you sit down and you work with everybody involved and work with them through Damian and and get us something that everybody agrees to. And that goes for both fifteen and sixteen. Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 17 is this is the penalties for operation of an unregistered snowmobile, And so this raises the penalty from a $135 to 450 for a first offense and 500 for a second or subsequent offense within a three year period. This was the language requested by Vast that the department put in.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And we took testimony from them. I haven't had anybody has anybody contacted either one of you? No. And I think we're good to go with that.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Section 18, I'm going to pass over. So this one, I discovered last night that there's another complication with the federal regulations. I'm gonna work with DMV's counsel. I did find a similar provision in New York State that I think we can use as a basis to move forward and try to get as close to as possible to to what the DMV is asking for and stay within the the federal requirements. So I'll work with them to refine that language. I apologize for not discovering that issue earlier. So can you

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: explain what the federal and the problems here? Sure. So

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the the problems with this language is so what we're trying to do, as I understand it, is DMV is looking to allow for a waiver of the CDL requirements when you're operating a state heavy vehicle for the state, a commercial motor vehicle during a weather emergency. The the language in here incorrectly references 49 CFR part three ninety, And that should actually say parts three ninety point five t for the definitions. That was a typo. That applies to operators of motor carriers, which are commercial businesses, not the state. Part three eighty three applies to the state. Specifically, three eighty three d two provides an exemption that potentially can be read this broadly to include things besides fire trucks, police, and emergency medical during an emergency, and that's what New York has tied theirs to. And they've worded their language broadly to encompass other state response vehicles being exempt from the CDL requirements during emergencies under that provision. So what I would propose and what I'll work on with their council to ensure that it's works for them as well is to draft language in here that provides that, the operation is expressly permitted pursuant to the terms of the governor's declaration, and it's consistent with the requirements, of 49 CFR per, section three eighty three point three d two, which is the exemption for state emergency response state, and it could be local as well. K. But that it it what I discovered last night was that there's a separate section of part three ninety Mhmm. That expressly says the exemptions in this don't apply to state employees. You have to go elsewhere for that. So we were incorrectly referencing that, and I apologize. The

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So there's an issue of type of vehicle, and then there's an issue of state employees versus non state.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And and and part three eighty three point three, they provide specific exemptions from the requirements for commercial driver's license. That's where you find the exemption that we've talked about in here for a farm vehicle within a 150 miles of the farm. It's where you find the exemption for fire trucks, for National Guard. So, for example, if you're in the National Guard, you don't need a CDL to drive a large military truck. And there's also a broader emergency exemption. So the fire truck exemption can be broadened at the state's discretion. And based on the way New York has adopted theirs, I think that can be used as a model for us to adopt one that can be read broadly and then by cross referencing the federal regulation. If DMV or agency of transportation gets guidance from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that what they're proposing is beyond what the federal regulations allow, they can simply trim down to what the federal regulations allow. But if what they're proposing is permissible, then they're good to go, and this will give them the full breadth of what the federal law permits. We'll put this on hold in if you could, earlier in the week. I'll I will send on proposed language this afternoon if I can, and, hopefully, we'll have something by next week. I think I have a good sense of where it's at, and then we can set up a time to meet, and I'll make myself available to work through it with them. And, I apologize for discovering it so late.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. Know, it What's frustrating to me Yeah. Well, that

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: find it at a time when I've been expecting What one to be able to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I am gonna ask after this is we didn't have the tracking document. So if you could get a tracking document color coded and say this is closed and here's what's open. So members of the committee that are not here can bring that up. We're looking now at nineteen. And this is the same no. This is

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 19 is different. That's the fee, and that is unchanged from the underlying bill. I'm not aware of any issues with the federal law on this one, and it's really a question of whether you've heard any objections.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Heaven. The this draft includes can you we this issue was raised by someone in in '20 by the department.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Hold on a second.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Catching up. Yeah. The yes. The motorboat validation stickers. This is new language that was proposed to bring us into compliance with federal requirements for the validation stickers. So, basically, if a state issues registration validation stickers, they have to be within six inches of the registration number Yep. On the vote. And so this language, you find on page 20 starting on 25 and going on page 26, provides that, it's six inches, in front on the port side and six inches behind on the starboard side of the motorboat. And other the other changes in here are simply just renumbering and replacing gendered references with references to the title of the individual.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Do you have the email made in the truth?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. No. Assume you sent to senator White.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Was sent to senator White. Senator White forwarded it to me. I can pull the email up if you'd like.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I Make sure

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: that No. I if if Mandy could take, five minutes and just repeat this to us, then we're on the record having listened to somebody, I guess.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: But you you you made the change that Mandy suggested?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So it was exactly. So the the request came in, add the language validation stickers must be placed within six inches preceding the registration number on the port side and within six inches following on the starboard side.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Can we so can we get Mandy in here as soon as you get a block of time and give her ten minutes? This doesn't seem like but I'd rather just be on the record to be Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so she's from Department of Public Safety.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. What section in that? 20. Thank you. I

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: don't think I've ever seen a vote that doesn't have the CT within six inches. I I I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: don't think this is any problem, but I would rather we get somebody on Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Record. And so the other thing to just note with this section is below that new language, I've made a number of minor technical changes. I'm happy to take those out if it's too much text and it's drawing away from the subject that I thought while I was in there, I'd make them.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: You get rid of the buy before read in.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't stand that language. It's sort of pathological at this point.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Dealer's place of business. Is that that reads that to me?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I've I've broken things out into subdivisions to try to break out the ideas because it was one very long paragraph. The person engaged in the business of selling or exchanging as defined in subdivision 48, it is actually the definition is dealer, and that was just parroting what the definition said. So dealer in motorboats works better there, and then changing his or her per dealer in multiple places So and correcting a cross reference. Just send Mandy his new language, and if she says yes, we're done. Yeah. And

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I don't think she needs more than five minutes. Yep.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section 21 is the personal flotation device language that senator White proposed. Yep. I have not made updates to it based on yesterday's testimony because I wasn't clear on where the committee wants to go based on the testimony from the Vermont Traditions Coalition.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I don't think we haven't had any discussion, so I don't think we are. Yeah. Let me ask and I wanna hold any decision on this till senator White is here. But let me ask two of you. Is there any sympathy for what was raised, these issues by the sports news yesterday?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I I did it. You could see that there's instances you're in two feet of water and you're both fishing or otherwise, there's so many might be technically underway. I mean, you're not really underway with that. And so if there was a way to word it, I don't know how easy that would be to do.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: What do you think, Damien?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: You know, hunting or, you know, hunting or fishing.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think, you know, certainly, you could say something like the provisions of this subdivision shall apply to an individual that's actively engaged in hunting, is, you know, located in or boat fishing or something like that, we could say. I think I think

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: what do you think?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I'd like to hear how you would do it, but I I'm sympathetic to the like Andy said, I I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm would say I'm particularly sympathetic as long as it's shallow water.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How you define that is the question It's also a question of how you enforce it. So, you know, it's We could I mean, you can say officer. Yeah. And fewer than you know, you could set a limit for, you know, water with a depth of less than or not more than blank feet and actively engaged in hunting or boat pushing. Feet

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: sewing. We're talking bow hunting.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And the question that is being discussed is the you know, whether there's interest in creating an exception for folks who are hunting or bow fishing in shallow water, as opposed to folks who are out in, you know, water above a certain depth where you couldn't, for example, stand up in the water. Yeah. That's But you know?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So It's still grounded with water, though. But I do I would be supportive of that concern.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That's that's kind of where we were at.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. That's right.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I guess it sounds to me like hunting and bow fishing are or, you know, in in fishing with with the use of a bow, or do you just want fishing or hunting in fewer than I would you could wear a vest if you're just casting. And you're not gonna be

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: in shallow water. Mean, I guess, it could be for some. I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I could let somebody else struggle with it more, but I have sympathy if you're I particularly had duck hunters come that are sitting in the stand. It's all covered up, and they're in less than a couple feet of water. Mhmm. And that I, you know, I have sympathy for. I I lose sympathy if you're out in deep water and you're moving. So I don't know what why don't you take a stab at some language and we'll entertain it and talk about it, but

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: If the concept gets in the bill, I'm happy. I'll say that. If there's an amendment to it, I think this is

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't think anybody is I will say outside of the committee, the only, the people I heard from were people in drop the lines in a flat bottom boat that are in basically six inches of water. Yeah. I get it.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Do you have a sense of how how shallow Three feet. Three feet? Okay. Great. Okay. Good. Good. I think this

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: is Simple Right.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't wanna be a person making a policy choice on what's permissible here.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So Good. If we see the language, we can have folks Yep. Right. Yep. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And and we're up to mini trucks, and we're gonna have a document here printed up. I asked for color coded and what's closed and what's not, and then you can look through. If you have any questions about that, we can go back in.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And you're on section 11?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. We're we're on Just section 22.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Oh my gosh.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: There you go.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. We're we're flying. So the mini trucks, there's really two parts to this. And so I think it's worth considering section twenty two and twenty three separately. Section 22 is the definition. It creates a definition of k mini truck, which are commonly known as k trucks, and it includes them within the definition of pleasure car and farm truck. With that being done, you would now have them subject to the registration or clearly included in the registration for pleasure cards and farm trucks there depending on how you're registering it. Section 23 gets into the uses of mini trucks and limits them to highways with the speed limit below of 55 miles an hour and below and prohibits municipalities and the traffic committee from adopting rules or ordinance that would prohibit them on the their use on those highways. So that that's really kind of a separate issue. The one other thing I would flag is that so there are k trucks and there are other k vehicles. You are specifically limiting this to the mini trucks here. If you wanted to expand it to things like the little mini buses or the the other smaller vehicles, all of which have to meet this 25 dot 25 years of age for federal importation requirements, then you would wanna take out the language on line seven and eight that says that is designed, used, or maintained primarily for transportation of property. And and so then it would just be a motor vehicle that has four vehicles, an engine displacement of six sixty cc or less, and an overall length, height, and width because that meets all the requirements for a k truck and would fit within that or a k vehicle. Excuse me. And so there, these are all within that broader, category of K vehicles or Keiji Dosha in Japan, which are light vehicles under their law.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. I don't know why we would lend it to just trucks. Because we see means of motor vehicles. It doesn't have to be a truck. It just has to be transportation of property. So somebody could use I passed them one of the minivans today, Henry, too. So you could use a minivan for transportation of property, I think that would still meet this definition, but I don't see why we would limit it to somebody that's using a minivan for transportation of people. Well, that's my view.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes. It's

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: like I would like it. If we're gonna do this, why why wouldn't we open it up to all that safeguards and not just any trucks that are used for transportation problem. Thank

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: you, mister chair. Yes. I would agree as well. If I had my brothers, I would strike out the primarily for transportation property piece. But I do have a question because I thought the issue I I similarly decided to purchase, like, I thought the issue with this definition for the k vans wasn't that section, but it was the sizing of everything. Are they so they are within the same size ratings?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Believe that they are.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. Well, they are. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I believe that all of these vehicles here, they're there are very specific size requirements under the the regulations in Japan for these vehicles. So they have to you can't have an engine displacement above 660 cc so that limits speed, and you can't have a size above certain amounts. And the reason they did it that way is that they wanted to create small, you know, affordable vehicles in the postwar Japan. And then it went from there and has become kind of a staple in Japan and other countries where, you know, you have different sized streets and cities and so forth, and these fit well with that sort of street architecture and so forth.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Done a little history reading

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: This is great.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Learn about

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This for purposes of this bill. But so there there is a variety of these. Some states have gone to k vehicle or another term, like, defining it as all the vehicles. Some just limited to the mini trucks. And I think a lot of the states that limited it to mini trucks, their focus started with agricultural vehicles where farms were using these as utility vehicles.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Have you been able to run this by anybody at the UND?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't know DMV's position on this. I'd leave it to them to speak to it.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: They have the same. I have seen I sent them the language, like, a week ago, so they should

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: We're happy with that change in the section 22 so we make sure we encompass all vehicles. Our only question was the 55 mile per hour one, if we wanna throttle that or not we should have a speed limit in there. I get it. I'm just thinking of the end user of this or law enforcement. It it how are you really enforcing

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Why don't I just just say, why don't you take it back, review it, if you can live with this the way Damian's got it, or if 55 is an issue? I have no opinion on that. Do you mean Yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: The reason so I drafted this with Damian looking at what other states have done. So I think our policy right now as a DMV, it does not have any limitations on speed. So this would be a restriction that we don't currently have, but I wanted to include it in case there was trepidation about generally kind of including mini trucks. So this was more, I would say I wanted to see this language in part because I thought it would ease folks who might have uncomfortability with Do But people don't have any discomfort, then I'm happy

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: to Do they have any opinion?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Well, I mean, I I read that and they said, yeah, because they're not allowed on the interstate. Is that correct?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They They are. They are. They are. Okay. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: And if they are, then I don't care about speed. It's

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, the biggest thing on the interstate is if you have a vehicle so say you have an older a truck that cannot do 65, if you could get pulled over for, you know, potentially traveling to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So the only open issue on this seems to be 55. Why don't you take a look at this draft if it comes back to us after you have dealt with DMV and 55 is will be in or out as they call it, and you bring us a clean draft on on on Tuesday, and if we don't hear anything more than that, it's in.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Can we take out the Ford transportation priority piece? Is that I

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I that mark could be deleted.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I mean, so minimum speed on the interstate is 45 anyway, isn't it? Right. Yeah. So we'll see slots.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Bring us a clean copy and run it by them.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. But it would be like any other motor vehicle. If you have a motor vehicle that can't handle the interstate, that becomes kind of a responsibility issue there and you know? Or if you overload your motor vehicle. Do you have any enough? Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, we do pass the seat

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: price deflation. We need a little display day just so

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: you know. If

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: you write in

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Probably comes over and get a mini dump truck. $30.30.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Good gas.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That's not bad. That's cheap.

[Mr. Cody (RV industry representative)]: I mean, that's

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: why people are buying it. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can well, anyway, I can't can't go into personal comments.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Breeze back a clean thing of this and and run it by DMV.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the next section is rule making for the inspection manual. The DMV has been sent this language, but I have not had a chance to discuss with them this language and and how it works for them apart from discussing the broad parameters in advance of drafting it, but they haven't had a chance to comment on the draft. Yep. So this requires DMV to amend the inspection manual to increase its focus on vehicle conditions that constitute genuine safety issues, eliminate outdated procedures, and provide clear, consistent guidance for both inspection mechanics and members of the published. I essentially took that from their handout. And then the amendments to the inspection manual shall specifically address conditions following vehicle components and systems that would warrant failure of an inspection and that a vehicle owner should be advised of. And the commissioner did highlight for me in an email exchange yesterday that there is some concern with DMV that if they get down the road and on hearing feedback or public comment, they realize that one of these changes that they proposed is not advisable. They'd like more flexibility. So I'm I'm gonna try to think about ways to build in some flexibility to incorporate public feedback or or not, but that was something that was raised, and I'll let the commissioner speak to that more. But this would I pulled out the different components that they identified. Tires. So this is clarifying whether it should warrant failure or that a vehicle owner should be advised of. Tires, power steering suspension, brake rotors, lighting, electrical systems and components, windshield, windows, windshield wipers, vehicle body, and in the discretion of the commissioner, any other vehicle systems or components. And then also include the elimination of the on highway road test for brakes and the headlamp aiming test and provide additional visual guidance regarding when certain conditions warrant failure of an inspection. And it occurs to me here that you may also want an another line saying in the discretion of commissioner, eliminate any other procedures or provide any additional guidance. Commissioner deferments, you know, would be consistent with the section. And this the other piece here is this requires rulemaking to commence on or before 08/01/2026. That is a placeholder date that I just came up with. It's a month after the expected effective date of this, so that may be too soon. And so I would just say that what this requires is that whatever date you choose to substitute for 08/01/2026, if you don't keep that date, they would file simultaneously permanent rules and emergency rules. And what that does, the emergency rules take effect on that date, and they should encompass everything that's proposed in the permanent rules. And then that gives them a hundred and eighty days to adopt the permanent rules get through the rulemaking process. Rulemaking usually takes from four to eight months. They can extend the emergency rules if they don't make it at six months.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: The

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and then the only other thing that we do here that's worth noting is we waive the emergency rulemaking standards because that requires an imminent peril to health, safety, and welfare, which it's hard to say that this would mean. We do this regularly when we require interim emergency rules just to get around that because otherwise, LCAR has to reject the rules because they don't meet emergency rulemaking standards even if they're consistent with legislative intent. The only other piece that I would highlight here that has come up in the past is the way I've drafted this is you shall file these rules and adopt the emergency rules. It doesn't actually require the adoption of the permanent rules. So you may wanna tweak the language to set a date by which permanent rules would have to be adopted because we have seen in at least two instances that I can think of where an agency has filed everything on time, but because of the way the rule making process has gone, has declined to adopt a permanent rule ultimately. So the rules just reverted, and we were back dealing with it in the coming sessions. But that that would be more complicated language. I want put simple to start. So I would encourage getting feedback from the department on how this looks to them and also deciding if sent the language to them if

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: we have it further back from them. Yeah. Just as my hope is that we can have this bill all put together by next Friday except for this section. We've got the hearing on the twenty fourth. The hearing will happen from five to seven on the twenty fourth. And, the twenty fifth, I'm hoping that what we can do is just, draw, the language that both, department and us have agreed to depending on what we hear in that hearing. And this will be the only thing not that we will be waiting on until after we hear from the hearing.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Go ahead, Emily.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Thank you, mister chair. So, yes, I really appreciate that comment. I think it would be hard for me to be supportive of changes to the rulemaking process around inspections without other language being present in here. I think that would be kind of what would make my decision, what would be better. I don't have that in support of this language. And I do, I guess I'm a little confused about the very start of what you were describing, Damian, which is you had said that the DMV had potentially asked for a way to get more public comment even in this style of kind of shortening the process.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so Yeah. We're under It's like The way the rule making process works, so with emergency rules, agency has discretion as to whether it takes any public comment at all before it adopts them. And they go through they take effect on the day they're filed unless the agency specifies a different date. LCAR can still object to them. Mhmm. But it doesn't actually prevent them from taking effect or undo the emergency rule. It just eases it shifts the burden of proof if someone decides to challenge the validity of the rule. The with permanent rules, the rule making procedure requires that there be a period where public comment can be submitted. It also typically requires a public hearing to allow for folks who don't wanna submit written comments to come in and weigh in. And that's usually a hybrid hearing where they're present in person somewhere, and people can also come in by Teams or phone. Typically, it's one hearing. Often, they're sparsely attended. Occasionally, they're not. And more often than not, much of the substantive comment is submitted in writing by, you know, industry groups or particularly involved advocates. Some areas have practitioners who get very involved. The you do with issues, that tend to touch a lot of people. Often, public hearings will be more heavily attended, so an inspection is likely to be something that could have public comment. Oftentimes, a lot of the public comment is things that they don't have discretion to address in the rule because it's required by statute. So people will say, get rid of inspections. Inspections. And they'll say, we got, you know, 50 comments saying, get rid of inspections. We can't do that. So we're declining to make a change. Okay. But there is a requirement that they sort of acknowledge that they received public comment and so forth, and that's for the permanent rules. And that's part of the the statutory procedure we've set up. And this is their request to go outside of the APA would have taken them out of the requirement for that.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And that's what we're

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: doing here. We are keeping them in the APA.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh, oh, oh.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Here. So in the Administrative Procedure Act, but allowing for these rules to take effect more quickly with the emergency rulemaking process and then to what the permanent rules allow is basically for a more formal lengthy process where those emergency rules can be tweaked. So if they roll them out and inspection mechanics were to say, you know, everything except for this change here is working. This change we can't implement. They can make that change. It is an administrative a lot of administrative work rulemaking. Yeah. So Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I would encourage people if you haven't seen it. There's a memo from the commissioner about these changes that is posted to our website in relationship to our hearing. Great. So if you haven't seen that, it kind of, from a high level says, here's what we're looking at. And then but we I don't wanna finish any work on any of this until after we have.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I know. Well, that's fine. I agree with that. And I bring this up a little tentatively because it's gonna be an interesting discussion, the whole system tinted windows language that two years ago, we passed legislation talking about tinted windows and inspections, changed the language, passed an act 165 or something. It was a miscellaneous DMV bill in 2024, and it required DMV to do some things that I think weren't done. I would like to readdress those issues. I mean, it's it's it's in the legislation that says it will be done, but there was a reason why they didn't do it.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I thought I think we should we should address that. Does the does the senator from Washington have some language that he wants bring his point if you need him?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I I can I can work on that? I can

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If the senator had some language, I and it was something that we could entertain putting someone on schedule next week. I would like to, that's somewhat related to inspections, but not totally related. It is kind of a standalone issue.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: It is an inspection issue.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But it is a standalone issue too.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Let's say put it in again. We just do what we did last time, just put it back in.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Brings Existing laws, we don't really need to put it back in there.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Oh. Well, that brings up the broader question. I don't know where we are with that, Yeah. So I could talk to you or I

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: could talk to Damien.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This is another I believe I made a request to get DMV and and the judiciary public safety, and I personally have a conversation with them about what we see about the lack of enforcement across the board. There is, you know, the drop off in enforcement, I think we've seen is quite striking. I'm at a little bit of a loss on where to go with all of that. Yeah. And so I thought I would start as chair of the committee a conversation with them and bring back what I hear from them.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: Let me just read your part of the DMV bill from two years ago. The Department of Motor Vehicles shall, unless extended by LCAR, adopt amendments to the inspection of motor vehicles consistent with the legislative agenda section 15, which was about if you were not meeting the federal regulations, you don't pass inspection, no later effect, a day no later than the effective date of this act. That's pretty clear, but they had a reason for not being able to do it, I thought we should either we should clarify if they're still supposed to be doing it or they're not supposed to be doing it. But I'll work on it. Just had to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: remember If you could come up with some language that but I didn't bring up all of the other things that we are it would appear that we're handing out less tickets for in Yeah. Across the board. Yeah. Yes. Happy to Yeah. You know?

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I think the whole year to go by without talking about infant vaccines.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: We were pretty close.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I know. I think about it.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We were pretty damn close.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: You almost stuck in bondage.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well, I'm gonna say I'm very supportive of us continuing the conversation around tinted windows. So whatever we have to do there, I'm very supportive of. There were two other kind of hanging pieces that we have talked about, but I just wanted to get a sense of where we're at. We've talked about the super speeders bill that Senator Chiffman has been introducing, and my understanding is it's going in a conversation about the T bill and not the DMV miscellaneous bill. It's my opinion.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, I So

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I just wanna understand if I'm losing my shot at that bill now, and I think the answer to that is no.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: No, it's good to know. It's, I caught up in conjunction with trying to have a conversation with the state police with the enforcement levels and getting it, maybe I could get a clearer answer from them about why all of this enforcement is down.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yes. His bill in particular creates a new way of enforcing, like, repetitive speeders where they have a device inside their vehicle that doesn't allow them to go over a certain mileage, miles per hour, I mean. So I do I just wanna confirm that that's where we would that's more relevant to the t bill, I assume.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It could go in either place. The drunk so it it's similar to an ignition interlock device. It the regular or the laws against speeding and the governance over DUI and ignition interlock is all entitled 23, so it could be a miscellaneous motor vehicle. But the t bill is, you know, the bigger umbrella that can include title 23, title 19, title five. So you could you could theoretically put it in either bill. It really becomes just a decision. As soon if it gets added in the house, it's germane.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you don't have to worry about germane ness. Okay. Because whatever comes over from them Yep. You know, is is going to fall on the germane. Yeah. Sort of a

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Our deadline is not till the thirteenth. One of the reasons I wanna get this Yep. Out of the way Yeah. Yeah. Is it gives us the last week of the month, and it gives us the week we come back from town meeting break. Got two weeks to be able to and I did say earlier in the day if anyone had any bills on the wall that they felt we should have people in on. Yeah, that's fine. Sponsors on particularly. I've had a request from Senator Gruwicke. Yes. You know, so I think we'll probably pull something out of it, but I'd like to get this miscellaneous done except for that

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: hearing. Yeah, yeah, that's helpful.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And then we can look at it, and it gives us a couple of weeks to do that.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And it was also helpful to hear that if it doesn't end up in our version of the DMV, then what the house does it, then it's still considered, And then my last, a

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: lot But I of hanging will tell you, for me, if we're seeing people stopped for violations that have dramatically dropped, that in itself is concerning to me.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yes, yeah, and my hope would be if anything chipped in this bill could actually help us with that. So that would be the cool part. And then the last thing is, and I've sent it to the DME commissioner, I've sent it to Michelle Bohmauer, and maybe that I'm missing it in my email, but I've asked a few times about the use of Poland Security and ICE's way of using license plates, including in Vermont, where they're not labeled federal vehicles, they're not like federal license plates, they're just regular license plates, and then swapping license plates, and in Maine, they've actually, their DMV commissioner unilaterally chose to end that practice. If you're someone who is getting a license plate and you are a federal agency, you have to have the properly, it has to be marked in the driveway, can't be like a regular license plate. So, I had asked to get comments on that and if not, concluding language to move forward with that same policy here. But I don't know, haven't heard back yet. So, that's my last piece because I think it causes a lot of anxiety and fear when folks see vehicles that aren't labeled as federal enforcement vehicles, but then they turn out to be through the actions of the people in the vehicle. Just like if, you know, any unmarked police car, unless at a very certain situation, that's why we have labeled sheriffs and police officers and DOD enforcement. It's very important. Okay. So, don't know if we wanna ask the DOD commissioner about that or if they have a comment on it, but I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: think, well, you can comment on it if I choose to, if you, we don't have language at this point, so. Correct.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: No, I was just gonna comment, Senator. The other day when you sent the email, I've been, had a quick glance at Maine. We haven't really had a chance to dig into it. Maine paused it, and they just created a a form, so they're getting ready to reissue again. Yes. So and it was from the Secretary of State,

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not their

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh, Secretary of State. They're getting yeah.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: So they

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: didn't ban them. They just paused it, and it sounds like they're getting ready to reissue again.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. But you should federal license plates.

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: No. Reissue. So it's a program. It's for the term of the license now, as you know. Undercover. Undercover. Thank you. Yeah. Undercover license plates. They're not reissuing as federal. They're still gonna keep the program going. They just created a form now, and it sounds like they're getting ready to reach you again. So it's just a pause. They didn't cancel the program. And that was just and the other day, I just started looking at it and just Ancidolia just in Vermont, we haven't seen any increase. The person that handles these, it's in a per our MRUs with all departments, we have to keep them under lock and key. So that one person, that's for now. But, incidentally, I think we've had three in the last three or four months, and they weren't.

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: We've had drones. Uh-huh.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I mean, yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So Yeah. When they took my friend, they had seven vehicles, and they were all not properly labeled. So I don't know how they got and they were all from out of license plates. So I don't know I know you're saying there's only three in the last few months. Maybe you saw seven back in 2025. I would love to see numbers on that and get maybe a statement because it is important to my voters.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. I will just say

[Vermont DMV representative (unidentified)]: if an agency or federal agency swaps their license plates, I don't really, I can't control that with enforcement, so I'll

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: just say that, so.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Thank you for letting me have that back.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: No. No problem. We have a placeholder here, and I know you have some interest in that card State. Right. In Milton. And I think you're working on some language for that. So that would come up.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I have, yeah, I have some bullet points from the advocates on that and some working language from other states, and I'm gonna try to put something together for the next draft that can be reviewed by the advocates in DMV. Yeah. Hopefully, we'll be able to figure that out next week, but I just didn't have time this week to put together the new language and get a draft for today. So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And then the whole issue of license plates, I'm thinking that this is probably not the vehicle for any of that. And

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: you mean also you mean the v brake there?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I mean, front plate. You mean

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: The, you know, I I personally am uncomfortable moving ahead with front blades without law enforcement. And Yeah. The leading agency in the state is state police. They were invited. They asked to be uninvited. And so I

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I don't

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm not sure that we have agreement across the board, in any respect

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You can get my local law enforcement company that's surviving somebody. Well Yes.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But, you know, if some If some of the players work out their issues and came back with us with a proposal, we always hit the T bill that we could do something. How do you Yeah,

[Sen. Andrew "Andy" Perchlik (Member)]: I'm fine with that. I think it's gonna it's a bigger issue than it started out to be.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And you, Andy? I agree with you. And

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You know what? I think this is a very good compromise in a way where both of the sides of the topic are not having a decision in this bill. And I hope that the house really digs into it.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I hope so too. I'm all for it. You're done. Send us over something. Exactly. I Four times. I think it's fair to say we've tried.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I think that does.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And with that, we did have scheduled for section fifteen and sixteen and eleven, but I think we're looking for language to come back next week.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It sounds like there's we're gonna make some revisions.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yep. And I'm hoping that the players involved can meet outside of the room and bring us back something.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think I I'm available to talk right now.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So I think at this point, I'm going to break the committee, and I hope everybody has a great weekend.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Happy Valentine's Day.