Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: You're left.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This is Senate Transportation. It is Wednesday, the twenty fifth, and we are here to talk about the miscellaneous DMV bill and hopefully get it out.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sir. Good morning. For the record, I'm David Leonard from the office of legislative council. This morning, the draft of the miscellaneous DMV bill you have in front of you has highlighting where there have been changes since the last draft that was edited. Some of these we went through yesterday, so I'm just gonna sweep through the changes quickly, answer questions, and then then we can move on to a discussion about whether there are any further changes that need to be made, etcetera. So the first change is in section seven. It's on page 12, and this is the change we discussed yesterday when the funds are not promptly paid as required by the commissioner, and this gives flexibility to allow a term for repayment. The next change is down on page

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: 15.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 15. Yes. Section

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: 11. We move on to it. I would just say to the department that if you do change your policy and it's not thirty days, it would be nice if you let us know.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So section 11, although the whole section was not highlighted, it's actually a new section. This is adjusting the definition of title for the titles for snowmobiles, vessels, and all train vehicles. The language was never updated when the chapter was expanded from just vessels to include snowmobiles and all train vehicles. This makes that change, and the language is consistent with the other instances in the chapter. The next section, we're just renumbering the next few sections. So I'm gonna skip ahead until the next substantive change, which is in section 17, bottom of page 21. We looked at this yesterday. This is the gross vehicle weight rating language. So that's the definition of gross vehicle weight rating. And then in section 18 on page 22 is the first of three instances where instead of a shipping weight of up to 10,099 pounds, we're saying a gross vehicle weight rating of up to 13,500 pounds. We also make that change on page 23 and on page 24.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: You know, I asked yesterday, I can't remember the answer. Where did the both the numbers, the 10,099 and the 13,500

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Those were proposed by the department. The 13,500 was a compromise as I understand the department and the dealers association and the truck and bus association. So it captures some medium duty vehicles, class three trucks. Is that correct? But not all. Is it

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: referencing some other regulation or federal designation or it was just a number of looking at the trucks and saying, these trucks are over, these trucks are under, this is

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a good number. Understanding, it's the latter, but Matt Russo, deputy commissioner for DMV. The last three vehicles go up to about 14,000, and so we lowered it to about 500

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: pounds just to give them some wiggle room for that class.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So to be considered a class three vehicle, you can go over 14?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I said, I believe,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: 14,000. Yeah. And is that the same with the 10,099? Was that

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That one's been in there for a while. I'm not sure what

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: that You don't know where the connection is from.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 10,000 are, that's a common number in our statutes for, pleasure cars, and for light vehicles but it repeats throughout type of point three.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Thank you.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 10,099 is because if you remember last year, we had this truck registration language where it says shall include the next hundred's waiting. That's where that 99 comes from. And so it's at some point, there was that language was adopted, I assume, to deal with the fact that cars were not always right on the weight that was specified. And so if you were 12 pounds over, they didn't wanna charge you

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: for the Is there a legal definition of that weight? Like, cost one, it costs two,

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: as your car So the the federal the federal weight classes are set out in federal rules. Light duty is typically class one and two less than 10,000 pounds. Medium duty is between 10,026 pounds, which is classes three through six. So class three up to 14, class, four, and six. Fill in the remaining gaps, and then heavy duty is over 26,000.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: One and two. Yes. You added that 99 just for the Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. So can what we'll need in this is just practical example about this to be able to explain it on the floor. And functionally, and I like this in writing, functionally, will then does this broaden anything? Which I don't think it does. The intention here is not to broaden anything, but a statement talking about this does not broaden and functionally this is what it does. It would be nice to have from the department a statement, this is really designed for clarity for people that are out there. Is not about changing policy, this is about clarity.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Go ahead. So thank you. It's just we're using two different types of measurements in these conversations and we just have to be careful because the weight of a vehicle is one thing, but then the ability of a vehicle to have additional weight is another thing. So I just think we need to be really careful because this used to be the actual weight of the vehicle. Now it's going to be the capacity of the vehicle. So I just think we need

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: to say that every time. Yeah. How many states are using capacity of the vehicle and not?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: For a max tax? Yeah. I'm pretty sure California is the only one that has a max tax. It's at 26,000. Okay. I'm not sure if any other states have a max tax for pleasure vehicles.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It would take me some time to pull Well that

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: the pleasure vehicles are just, their weight, It's not their capacity.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Right, and I mean, you know, max tax beyond

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: the other vehicles, anything anything that Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay. And it's close eye with the other than a farm property in New they don't pay any tax.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So if you

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: This tax proposed section is the Yeah. Use tax?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct. So this is the purchase and use tax. So you're excluding the farm trucks from paying the full tax. Yeah. Right. Or any Good question. They

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: do pay tax unless they're

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a five zero one c and they're pretty sure of this as purchasing these tax deductions. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So what do they why are they other than farm trip?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so if you look at the next paragraph, it says for any other motor vehicle. So in other words, anything that's not called out in that list.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay. So farm first.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You pay tax at the rate, but you're subject to the max tax account. Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Alright. Thank you.

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

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: It would also be good for a prop that we get here. The certificate that people if he had a sample certificate and a snapshot of the door of the car So then I can or whoever has that section, when we get there, can

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. If you look inside your own car, very likely, it's gonna say gross vehicle weight rating somewhere near the top of the sticker. And then in the rows where it says the tire pressures, it will also have an axle weight rating. So I've I've now been looking since we did this. And so far on on all of the, you know, cars that I've looked at, you've had something along those lines in there. So you could even use your own vehicle as a prop for this.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, whoever reports this section will

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: will

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: it would be nice to have a prop to be able to show it because for me, the key here is we're now moving to a number that is solid on the door, not having somebody walk up and go, we might be this in the future. You've got a number now. Yeah. And it's stamped on your car, and you can't play with it.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You also don't need to worry about scale calibration Yep. For this one, I mean, imagine one or 2% from 10,000 times.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yep. Go ahead. Can you remind me if you know when we set the 2486 as the max? Which

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do not know when that was set. I can look back in the green books. Oh, it

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: was a

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Two two years ago? Was it? Okay.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I don't know. It it

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: would be helpful if we knew that.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Like, did we increase it a year? We increased it to 248668.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: When we reduced the

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: registration fees, which

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: For the size? Yes. I think I was saying

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And if we got that

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: part, I think. Well, I don't want this

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sound quiet. Do you mind going in the cabinet and grabbing the title 32? I can tell you exactly what we set that up. Assuming, of course, that it has to lock it. That's our lawnmower.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: There's the box that drops the street.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Nowhere. Was just going by one.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Got it.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But it should have a pocket part in the back. It may not. But

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: yeah. Well

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Is it looks out? Yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Because you said two years

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

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And he was.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I can say at least it's it was since 2021.

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

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the we don't have the pocket part in this guy, but we know that this was last republished in 2021. And at that point, it was 2075 2075. So it's in the last five years. Okay. Probably

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: was that 2030?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Oh, then I can get you

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: an exact date. Okay.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Like See,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: you probably did it this year.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Well, yeah. I was thinking we might have done all the registration fees that year, which I think was '23.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: But the cap had existed, maybe the amount had changed over time. Is that correct?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah, think that is where it got raised. 2486. 01/00.

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

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. The next change is in this is the section 20 now. This is commercial driver's licenses. We went over this yesterday. This is clarifying getting rid of the weather related emergency language and clarifying that an emergency is a situation, condition, or event that involves some significant imminent working ongoing risk to public health and safety infrastructure property. The next substantive changes in here are in section 23. This is clarifying that it's a hunting or fishing license, not a hunting or fishing permit. After that, the next substantive change

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Was that was that you guys think Korean business? Oh, yeah. Alright.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it's probably. Trade your assignment for the week. The I do wanna highlight that on section 26 is the inspection manual update. I don't know if you wanna make any changes to that following last night's public hearing. Do you wanna hold discussion on that until after I finish the walk through, or do

[Unknown participant (likely staff or member, not in hint list)]: you wanna

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: we it now. To this week.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then sections 27, 28, and 29, are they limited use specialty vehicles? I did email the language to the agency of natural resources yesterday. I did not hear back. I don't know if Megan received any written testimony from them.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Why?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then section 30 is old new language that's been added back in. So rather than remembering everything, I added the license plate language back at the end. So this takes the license plate language from before with the the new language here that provides that numerals and letters on number plates shall not be colored, tinted, or changed in any manner. And then I've updated the language in c based on the committee discussion to say a person shall not cover or obscure any numerals or letters on a number plate with any material or substance. So this would still allow people to have the little border that goes around the outside as long as it's not covering any letters or numbers on the plate. So it can't be a particularly thick border, because, there are, you know, Vermont and other things around the edge, but it would allow some border, but it would not allow any material or substance over that. And I I looked at a number of other states. Some states call out the type of material or translucent or opaque based on the committee's discussion. It seemed like just shawna cover obscure made the most sense. And it's also important here that this applies to a person doing it. So the language already says the plate shall be kept entirely unobscared. It's in winter, we all know that that's difficult to do. So this language here is not going to change that, but it's also making clear that a person shall not intentionally put anything over that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I had an interesting example driving in yesterday where I wonder if this would be that this is a license plate that looks like it was a, like, a Maryland plate, and it colored the plate green. But they didn't color the numbers, so we like that. So if you look at this photo, would that be? Oh, wow.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I don't know. Let me

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Like, they did cover the numbers.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Oh. But

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: they made it look like a per month Let

[Unknown participant (likely staff or member, not in hint list)]: me see.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So That's interesting. Why are we

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Oops. I don't

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: know. But I guess it could. You're obscuring the well, what if someone got pulled over again?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that would seem to be a loophole.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: There's Serious things.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You know? Yeah. You know, that's what makes

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I saw a black one. Yeah. This one, I was partial.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: It's just

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like a Vermont. This is great.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Are are you attempting to I mean, are they trying to evade the law? Because their Maryland place is not good, they would want someone to look and see think it's a Vermont place, or are they being cute?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. Good job. Vermont. Like You know?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If your wish is to address that Well,

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I guess suggest registered and study and

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: and you can see can read the numbers. But I don't know when you when law enforcement sends in a number they need to know the state, like just sending a number in

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: multiple states with those numbers. So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I don't want I think you got a good language here. I don't want to sort of rinse into it, but You could say

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a a person shall not color tint or change in any manner from its parents at the time the plate was issued. Shall not color tint or change in any manner a number plate from its parents at the time the plate was issued or something like that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So not just letters and numbers, but the whole plate. Right. Right.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So you could we could but we wanna finish this now. Right? So we should

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I can go up on the screen and show you language and you can give me thumbs up or thumbs down. Or

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: we can let the house know and suggest that they think about this. They're gonna ask for a conference meeting on this if we got the language in our pocket. We can say Oh. As

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: long as they change this section.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So Well, she doesn't have to change this section. You can, you know, if

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. He can

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: get a if they do a strike call or anything like that, you know, which they're likely to do.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: They can't help themselves.

[Unknown participant (likely staff or member, not in hint list)]: I'm okay with that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Leave it for now?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Leave it for now, and we'll come back to you.

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

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: As long as, he remembers. Well because I'll forget. Memory.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. You can send that to him.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know, the other another thing is, you know, the department, if they want that change, can always ask the house to make it. Yep. And then you can you can agree to that change.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This language is better than it was. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. It's it's kinda fun to see what people do with their notes or plates. So the alright. Let's see. The next substantive change is just to the effective date section. It's now called effective dates. We have the it was just effective date, singular versus plural. And then the only new dates here are the dates for the non driver IDs and detained individuals licenses and learner's permit. Yep. Are there any questions or

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I guess Let's go back to the talk us through, at section 26. Sure.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So currently, 26 provides the the Department of Motor Vehicles shall amend the inspection manual to increase its focus on conditions that constitute genuine safety issues, eliminate outdated procedures, and provide clear, consistent guidance for both inspection mechanics and members of the public. It then provides that the amendments to the inspection manual shall specifically address conditions of the following vehicles, vehicle components and systems that would warrant failure of an inspection or that a vehicle owner should be advised of, and then it lists tires, power steering, suspension, brake rotors, lighting, electrical systems and components, windshield, windows, windshield wipers, vehicle body, and in the discretion of the commissioner and any other vehicle systems or components, include the elimination of the on highway road test for brakes and the headwind aiming test, and provide additional visual guidance regarding when certain conditions warrant failure of an inspection. It then requires that on or before 08/01/2026, the department would file with the secretary of state proposed amendments to the inspection manual necessary to implement the provisions of this section and adopt emergency rules to implement the provisions of this section while permanent rules are pending, and then which we would then deem to have met the standard for emergency rulemaking. There were some questions earlier about whether the language in beginning on line 13 of page 35 would require the department to amend the sections addressing those. And I think there is, I think as it's written, it, leaves leeway for the department to argue that if, for example, one of their proposed changes that they showed us the other day is not ultimately, they decide not to move forward with it based on feedback that they get from inspection mechanics, the general public, etcetera. I think this leaves them there'll be a way to do that because it there is some judgment in what are the conditions of these components and systems that would warrant failure of an inspection or that a vehicle owner should be advised of. So they're reviewing that. There are other ways that you could, word this. You could say the amendments to the inspection manual, the proposed amendments, or you could also say that in drafting the amendments to inspection manual, the commissioner shall specifically consider what conditions of the following vehicle components and systems would warrant failure or should it or that a vehicle owner should be advised of. And I'm stumbling over my words because I'm a little sleepy this morning. But, the I I think there are other ways to word it. That said, I think as it's worded, there is some wiggle room here, and the commissioner is not required to follow the draft that was presented to this committee if based on further testimony they find that, you know, something that they proposed isn't gonna work out because of something that they hadn't considered.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's helpful because I think we've heard last night in the public hearing, just like one thing that resonated with me was the tires piece. So I do appreciate that if you did get from the DMV perspective a lot of stakeholder engagement that said, actually, here's where it wouldn't be a safety issue for tires, for example. It sounds like, if I'm understanding you correctly, they could potentially alter those recommendations. So I see it as a positive the way you worded it, but it also makes me a little hesitant because I would be nervous that then they don't have to do any of this or that there's a good reason to not do any of the changes. So I guess I don't I I like the flexibility for them, but I do hope that it actually doesn't turn to a, you know, a a long process where we ultimately don't see substantial changes because at the at the end of the day, I think we heard loud and clear that the general public in Vermont, I think, does not like how stringent it currently exists and that, at the very least, we need to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: address this year. So

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: That's why that's why I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I think there there is direction here that the the department needs to go through these different systems. They need to review whether the components and systems there are conditions of the components and systems that clearly warrant a failure and conditions that a vehicle owner should only be advised of. It does not specifically require that they change everything in there. I think that you do have language above, though, that says that they shall amend the inspection manual to increase its focus on conditions that constitute genuine safety issues, eliminate outdated procedures, and provide clear, consistent guidance. So Yeah. I think the question when it comes back to LCAR is were they compliant with the intent that the inspection manual be simplified and focused more on genuine safety issues? And then within that, if they did have to exercise some discretion and leeway in there, is it still consistent with that overall drive at the top?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So So It is and this is for you. If it did change the direction of what you showed us, how would this committee know him?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We would let you know.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I can assure you that we're not planning to not do anything, or if there's any changes to what

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we propose, we will let the committee know.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Would you have any problems saying that in here? No problems. There's a way to Yep. Have them report to the two transportation committees if they decided not to move ahead or they made substantive changes in what they've showed us? Yes. The so there there are a couple of things that will couple of different points here.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So one is when they file with LCAR, you as the chair of this committee and then your counterpart in the house

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: will get copies. I'd rather it go to the whole committee if, and I would rather know that they're going to change that before I get the draft from.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what you can provide in here is that at the time of filing the proposed rules, and at the time of filing the final proposed rule with LCAR that they submit a report to this committee outlining the changes that they will be making, and then any changes between the proposed rule and the final proposed rule. Okay. That

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: way that way everybody is on the same page. Knows exactly.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So I'm gonna add a subsection c. And I think that this would be this wouldn't require them to provide you with a copy of the entire rule filing, which contains a lot of extra pages that are more dealing with process. But they could give you, for example, an annotated copy and a summary, and probably when they do their final proposed rule, there's something called the responsiveness summary where they summarize the comments they got and whether they made a change or not in response to each comment. But and the and then and then the commission.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: My feeling is that we should give it up the safety inspection. I'm still not convinced it's unbalanced and good for Vermont the way it's been done. So if I'm willing to go along with this language in the hopes that it drastically improves the experience Vermonters have in the inspection process, which means a lot less failures and a lot of clarity so that when when a inspection station says it fails, it's it's clear. And in that regard, when I looked at this language again, I wondered if it could be stronger. Is that what our intent is, that we basically want people to pass inspection more. I don't know how to say that exactly, but when it says increase the manual's focus on vehicle conditions that constitute genuine safety issues, I could make an argument right now that all the ones there are genuine safety issues. That's why they're in there. I've asked already for some of them why they are, but I think they're all in there because there is a safety component to all the ones that

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: are in there.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So I feel like if I was an LCAR and they just said, yeah, these are the genuine safety issues. I don't know if there's a way to be more clear that we want it to be easier to pass, basically, without just saying easier to pass. Don't know if the genuine safety issues is strong enough language to make it clear. As we just said, they could not change any of these things. It could still be just as hard to pass an inspection, but they say, there's a genuine safety issue, for example, for tires, or if the high beam light reverts month two people have failed because of their high beam light, well that's a genuine safety issue because if you're shining your light beams with somebody, they might not be able to see the road. So I think you can make an argument for all of them why it's a safety issue. So I don't know if there's a way to make it clear that if there's a better word out than genuinely for safety, imminent like danger or something. I don't know. I just I don't know if we can't help with the language because I know we want to get this out, but I'm also saying for the benefit of the DMV that's here that if the changes aren't made, that aren't really noticeable difference in people's experience getting their car inspected, the efforts to get rid of the inspection entirely will just amplify. So I hope they take that seriously. I think from the testimony, they will, but you never know what happens between working you know, that experience, in my view, of what we say today and then what happens when by the time we come back. So that's that's my concern.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Go ahead, Pat. Just a question maybe for DMV. And then the commissioner's on too. So Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Where where have you started the process of tweaking the manual, or is this a list that we have just the first step?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We've spoken to our vendor. You have?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I mean, we've we've worked with our we're working with our vendor right now. Already? Don't you

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: have ideas for each of these categories? Yes. Do we have those?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. We yeah.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: We got them. I thought it sounded more similar.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That is good. Yeah.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Last question is, who did you work with? Did you work with folks in the field also, or was it just?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We just leave our job.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Okay. Good.

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

[Andrew Collier (Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Good morning, Andrew Collier. Excuse me. Commissioner DMV for the record. I just wanna know the concern that we had. It's not that we're planning on making any real substantive changes to this. But anytime I see the word shall, I just don't wanna run afoul of the legislative intent. And that was our concern is if there's one item that maybe comes up in the process that we just have to alter. Trust me. It's not the rust on rotors that will be in there. But if there's some item that pops up because I I believe suspension, we just had one item in there. You know, if that ends up popping out, are we gonna run afoul? That was my one concern when we when I brought this up with Damian. As deputy commissioner mentioned, we've already started work on with the vendor to get this ball rolling as this works through the legislative process. So we are we are committed to making these changes. It it was just the that word shall. If if when we do our public outside the emergency rulemaking, when we do the actual rulemaking portion, and if there's feedback or something we're because we're gonna have this implemented already on the emergency rule. If we have to make a change, are we gonna run afoul of the in town on this list? So that was my concern. That's what I expressed to Damian. If that's not the case, then we're fine with that language, but that was just our concern on that.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Wendy? Thank you. So something I heard a lot last night was that the issues are as much about unethical inspection stations and I think that's more, that's not the same everywhere in the state. Of course, everyone wants to save money in some way, but I'm not hearing as much from my folks, maybe now I will, but about difficulties or not appreciating the actual inspection itself, it's I think when people have bad situations and someone takes advantage of them and says you have to get this fixed and then you'll get it okay. And so I don't see anything about increased enforcement in here. I don't know what kind of enforcement we've had in the past. If there's a mechanism for the customers to go to VTrans and say, I had a bad situation. Or what I would hope that we start doing just generally is have easy comment forms that can be online where you just say this was good, this was bad, you know, that kind of thing so that you can evaluate that and I would hope that VTrans would take away the ability to do inspections if there is a bad actor. Don't even know if we can do that, but we haven't talked about enforcement and it seems to me that enforcement would be very helpful and that's not in this plan. So that's one item and I know I'm bringing this out late but I just learned about it last night so it was very helpful. Do we

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: inspect inspection stations? If

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I may, real quick. Yeah, go ahead.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I think what we're trying to do is take away the ambiguity. Inspection stations, because of that ambiguity, they're afraid that they're gonna mess up, and so they want to make sure that they're checking every single thing, and it's all about how they're interpreting that inspection manual. And so our plan to remove that ambiguity is going make you very black and white on what passage does it, and I think that will assist people with the issues of not passing inspection or having a tough inspection station in the future.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: But it does sound like some inspection stations are not ethical.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've heard that.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So do you do anything about that?

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: We do. Every inspection station has an

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: inspector that will work with them

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: on investigating audit.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So have you taken away

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: the inspection and there's

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: process that they have to go through in order

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: to be shut down, but there's also warnings, education, They can be cited.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Has anyone been shut down in the last, like, five years?

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Pat? Well, there is another avenue that we talked about yesterday in the attorney general's office, the cat program, consumer protection. I think we heard there were some motor vehicle complaints there. So they they handle real egregious cases.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think the number one complaint comes in Was motor vehicles. Was motor vehicles into the attorney general. That that encompasses car sales, car dealers, you know, everything. Yeah.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: But, the second question I had was for DMV, and it just popped into my head. When when your initial inspection fails and maybe because a guy took his job a little too seriously and, you know, went too far on the inspection, you can't get a second opinion. Correct. Right? You go down the street and you're already in the system that's failed. Is there a, you know, I don't know, an avenue for seeking a second opinion. Like, you when you go to the doctor to tell me, you want to say, Hey, I don't quite trust that. I'm going go see him in the doctor. Do we do about that when a guy fails?

[Andrew Collier (Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: So I will say we have instances where people will contact us reporting my vehicle failed. It shouldn't fail. And our enforcement team will go out and visit that person and and review the vehicle with them and see what see what they're seeing and and see what the inspection station did. In cases where the work has already been pre performed, we'll still do an investigation, but we can't we don't have that evidence, if you will, because it's already you know, the brakes are gone or something like that. So it's those after the fact ones that that are challenging, but we do have cases. They people will call us, our enforcement team will one of the inspectors will go out and and look at the car and see what see what the and and go through with the customer or or the Vermonter and see if there was if it was failed erroneously or if, know, it was properly inspected.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Okay. And does, if they were failed erroneously, do they get a certificate or something from that inspector that says that they can take to the next inspection station?

[Andrew Collier (Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I'm not sure of the the the operational side of it, but if if they have if it's if they're able to work with them, we'll get them back into the that inspector will work with the inspection station.

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

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I thought we had some of your people had gone through other people and got it approved. So is it's the case that once you're failed, you can't get another garage to pass the vehicle. I thought if you went to one place and they said like, no, you have too much rust on your rotors and you're like, that's a surface rust. I'm just going to drive around the block and go to this other place. They can't pass you and say like, they can't pass you at all or could they pass you if they say, yeah.

[Andrew Collier (Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: We'll get the deputy for this one because I thought you'd go to a different location as well.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: I heard last night that somebody said that they weren't able to.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: That was the whole premise for the patch.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: That was Deborah De Young?

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

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: From Saint Johns.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: You you put an inspection shop. So Yep. Once you're in the system that's failed, you're in the next guy's system too.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: It is. But the but the next person should pass you said that did some work. I got it. That's the question. Like, what do they need? You don't have to. You go back to the same one. You might have to pay for another inspection. Yeah. But I thought you could. I know I thought we've had testimony of of an example of these unethical inspection stations where they go to inspection stations and like, oh, you can't pass and then they don't buy it. So then they do shop around and then get it passed somewhere else. Like I don't know if the V hip or whatever it's called, the tablet, the AV hip system does prevent somebody from getting an inspection.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: you have to eventually get it inspected somewhere so I can't imagine but I think we have to look into

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it and get you an answer. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So I think we've heard it. I've never tried it myself. I've heard it both ways.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I have a different question. On the first page, line 17, where we say identify specific actions that are necessary to ensure that if possible, Vermont remains in compliance with the requirements of the Panera Act. I don't like that it's

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: possible. Versus?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Line 17.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And it's on what page?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: One. Sorry.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: S two eleven.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Isn't that what we're talking about?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. We're talking about 326. That's what I mean.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Well, we'll get to that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I think for the commissioner's comment about the shall, I think the first shall in the requirement is okay. The shall on number two, I could see a reason where we have to do room and ask one through whatever that is. But I think just slight change on that word, could say, such as these and let them do these and or others. Unless we want them to be specific about these like, yeah, because for some reason they look at suspension and decided that the existing suspension section's fine. But I don't know, maybe they could still meet the shall by just saying, or that a vehicle owner should be advised of. Maybe they just the amendment could be small, but some of these sections just don't need the shot. And then also, sorry.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I agree. Are we is this, a change we can track and, like, look at? Or

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I plan on we've got two hours between now and lunch. So if we have changes, I'm gonna have you come back in about half an hour, hour, whatever it takes to get us clean.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: That might just

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yes. And I don't know if the judge counsel has any suggestions on board b and b on how to strengthen the first paragraph a one. Hold on. Make our intent clear so that if there's a disagreement about what we're kind of agreeing to with DMV, going to get a sale card, that there's some words on the page that we could go to. And then chair, I also have this language about the motorcycle.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I have notes here on both issues you raised whether or not we wanted to talk about this.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay. K.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Give me two seconds to catch up. I just drafted your reporting language. Oh. So I know you guys have limited time schedule here.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, we got till noon, and you can if you need to have some a little time to correct this. It isn't that much, but

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Alright.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we're looking at

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Can I ask why is this, April for or August 1?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So August 1 is I selected that date based on typically, this this bill gets signed by the governor sometime in the June. So even though we adjourn in the May, it takes time for the bills to go over. In an ideal world, this could be signed before the May, but oftentimes, it's not till the June. The effective date is July 1. That gives thirty days roughly or thirty one days for them to go through the process of filing the rules and to prepare the filing. That that's why it was August 1.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Your kindness. When what's your timetable in the department? When will you be done with the vendor?

[Andrew Collier (Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: The vendor will said they'll have a a hard date for us on Friday or Monday of next week, so we don't we're hoping since we got started, they have the developers getting started with our list that we can hit this, but I we won't know until Friday or Monday at the latest their exact date that they could make the change.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: K.

[Andrew Collier (Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: We're happy to bring that up with the house if that date needs to vary just a little bit and keep the August 1 for right now.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm sure the house is gonna want this language exactly the way we should have to come out of this committee. Yeah.

[Unknown participant (likely staff or member, not in hint list)]: They will see the wisdom of the sun.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You're gonna keep using our eyes.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm sure. Are you I'm caught up.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So Are you caught up

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: with the draft? So my the draft?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Let me log in to the the meeting. So my understanding is that the other items that we've got the report here, but then there is discussion about clarifying the intent language at the beginning eventually. And then there's also senator Perchlik's potential amendment, which would be a new section.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And there's two parts of the section 26 that one is that what the commissioner brought up about that number two shall, because they're willing to clarify that if there was one of these ruminants that they didn't want to out that they didn't want to include in the amendment, they could, is it enough that it says should be abide the? I don't know if there's a way to address that. I thought the commissioner made a good point on a second child that that that might hamper them

[Unknown participant (likely staff or member, not in hint list)]: a

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: little bit in the process of payroll. Then, yeah, and then I don't and then it's in the first. I just don't feel it's strong enough, at least for me, from somebody that thinks we could get rid of the safety inspection altogether, that this is going to make this process better for promoters. Because in the big what I've heard from the DMV leads me to believe that it will be, but I'd like to have a clear life that doesn't have genuine safety issues.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That's The

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: HHS flush. Immediate Mhmm. Constitute an immediate safety issue.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, that that helps.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That's well.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Go

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: ahead. Thank you, mister chair. I'm trying to think through, Sandra Perch, like how you could strengthen it. And I feel like it's the concern that I have is less people passing or failing at a certain percentage, but more that it is a financial burden, specifically on low and moderate income folks. So I don't know if there is a way to characterize that as well. Because I know that we're saying safety inspections, but I do think there is, like, a bit of intent language almost. I know that we don't necessarily love intent language, but it does feel like we're we're trying to make a statement of we don't want this to be an undue burden.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if I may, when it comes to rule making, we love intent language. And I'm putting on my hat as the former counsel for LCAR. Intent language helps LCAR immensely to determine whether the rule is consistent with legislative intent. Is that just the main claims that they're charged with? And so in this case, this yeah. What you may wanna do is say the Department of Motor Vehicles shall amend the inspection manual, etcetera, and then say, add a new subdivision to, saying that it is the intent of the general assembly that the amendments to the inspection manual made pursuant to the section shall, and then

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Not have an undue burden on folks. Or

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. So you can Or have the immediate safety surgery.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know, shall limit, failing conditions to, you know, immediate vehicle conditions that constitute an immediate safety concern And for vehicle conditions that do not constitute an immediate safety concern, shall change those to advisory conditions or something like that. And then the and then you would change what is currently two and would then become three to say something to the effect of in preparing the amendments pursuant to this section, the commissioner shall specifically examine the provisions in the inspection manual relating to the following, vehicle components and systems to determine whether any of the you know, whether revisions are necessary to be consistent with the intent of the legislature set forth in subdivision two.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And it wouldn't limit for them for those last time they get No.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then there's any other vehicle components and systems. Right. So you can express your intent. And then the one thing I would say is that immediate safety concern that is to some to some extent subjective. Yeah. So you may wanna say in that judgment. Right. So you may say that in the judgment of the or as determined by the commissioner constitute an immediate safety concern just to be clear about, you know, the legislative intent is not what I think is an immediate safety concern or not with my complete lack of understanding about, you know, vehicle systems and so forth. But it's it's what the, you know, folks at the department would consider as I'll, to some extent, insulated from a judgment argument where someone can submit comments and say, well, I drove my vehicle with that, you know, problem for months, and it didn't fail for me.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I don't know. And, you know, that's that's just something that I

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: If you could draft that language you just said for the for a one and a new sub two.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Right. We, draft the language in a little. I just have to say, and this is off the subject, but not off the subject. And I'm very interested in once you're in the system, if you can go to somebody else to get an inspection. But I hear constantly as people go to a dealership, the dealership uses all brand new parts. So when you get something fixed that is related, they start from the very beginning with all brand new parts. If you take it to your local person in your community, they quite frequently will zero in on the piece that is not working. And they don't buy all the new parts that that the dealership would, and there's usually a pretty large price difference. And I've heard a number of people say, well, because I'm unsophisticated and I went to the dealer, they overcharged me. And that in comes some of the conflict there. I would hate to see somebody that is trying, you know, that doesn't have the money, that's trying to be economical. They end up going to a place and they face that situation and they're not being able to go to someplace else where they zeroed in on something and

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah, can I respond to that? Yep. So you all, I'm sorry, I'm looking at you, but I would think that the department has a lot of data, right? Because you know the inspection folks put information in and sure. So I guess what I'm asking is could you do a report on dealers versus independents and see what because the trends I think that would be helpful.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: You mean those were a fails?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Fails and the amount of the repairs that happened. Don't know if you know that.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: In the case I get, it's just anecdotal that it happened to be a dealer, but that's what I hear. But and we

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: heard that last night too.

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

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well, I

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: would just say, I think we're getting into the debate about, like, oh, the animal parts versus aftermarket parts, and that's like a whole

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Different.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Giant can of worms, and it's largely dependent on your insurance and what they're allowing or demanding even of the person. So I haven't I don't necessarily think it's like a dealer versus a other provider.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And that's what I'm I'm just I'm just saying anecdotally that's Well, I And and I get what absolutely get what you're

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: But I'll just say, there is a bill that we have discussed in the past and there was a report that was required by the agency of administration related to insurance coverage. And one of the questions was about aftermarket parts. That study has been delayed for they didn't complete it when they were supposed to last year when it was requested and it's still not complete now. So there is information on this that we had already requested one session ago that we have not received. And I respect that there was someone out who was supposed to be doing that report, but it would be nice for you to think these questions continue to come up because the difference in cost of repairs is very shocking. Right. And most Vermonters don't have time to go to six different people or even have six different options. But but it's you're you're getting on a very important piece.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But I I am interested if somebody gets in the system and they start with one, if they can't go to another, that I didn't I haven't ever thought about that.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Alright. But we're still concerned it's failed.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So do you have everything you need, Damian, to move ahead with this? Yes. Do we have anything else we'd like to add to the draft?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yes, I just wanna have an open transparent conversation because we're about to talk about S-two 11 and we're on inspections. So my understanding is it's not the will of the committee to include S-two 11, even the draft that we have from the chair in the DMV bill. So I'm gonna make my final pitch on why I do think we maybe should include it in the DMV bill because it sounds like maybe folks aren't fully on board with that, but I'm okay with that. I think it would be good to have it be in the DMV bill to complement the work that we already have around inspections in this bill. And I think it would send a message to the House potentially if we pass S-two 11 separately, not in the DMV bill, that it is kind of an afterthought or something that we're not interested in. If that's the will of the committee, that's fine. And I respect if we want to pass it as a separate bill or not pass it at all. That's again, not my decision. But I do think it sends the strongest message if we do want to move forward with this concept to include it in the DMV bill. I just wanted to say that so I could reflect.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm gonna let the committee comment, and then we'll go to the Any comments,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Chairman? I

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I'm willing to listen to more of this, but I I don't I don't wanna see it in the DMV, though, because I think it's gonna it's it's very contentious, and it's I think we've got more work to do on it. So I wouldn't mind talking about it further in another forum like a standalone bill in here. It worries me. I'd like to get this this section here on amendments, you know, to the manual with a chance to play out. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And I I don't know. But, you know, I was supporting getting rid of and stuff. Going to every other year sort of supports that, but it doesn't kinda fix the problem. So I'm hoping that this will will fix the problem. Now I will come back to that. But and and I'm concerned with every other on how we're dealing with AMBA and. Like, it seems like those are still unknown. So if if those could be figured out, so it's I kinda like the idea of pathing it and initiating those things. Yeah. That was the bug out. That's part of that. It keeps that discussion a lot. Yeah. A lot of members. I sort

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: of think it's a good Wendy. I

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: like the language that's that's already in the DMV bill to address this and especially with MBOF. That is such an important program that I don't wanna do anything that could make it not happen and if the cost of doing it is much more expensive, I think that's going to be an issue. I'm happy to keep talking about it and I think having it in a separate bill still shows that we care about it and we want consumers to have a good experience. But I'd also like to hear from insurance companies. Insurance companies have a lot of good data and that's their world. So, we can talk to them, they might have even suggestions.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Just wanted to clarify that you can go to a different inspection station and pass your vehicle. Perfect. That's good.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Don't know if everybody knows

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Because I've talked to I I I've done a little

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: bit of to be contrary.

[Rep. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Yeah. And and I've talked to inspection stations. Mhmm. And a couple of them have said, well, this guy showed up, and he was already in the system has failed. Right. So he's not gonna pass that same vehicle that a guy down the street can

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: If they if they look at work and they decide that it should pass. They can override that failed thing? Yep.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Whatever it is.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Maybe you can send that at next.

[Matt Russo (Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV)]: Yeah, we can clarify what the inspection station has.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah, for sure. At this point, I think we're pretty close. What, do you have one more CTAP?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Well, don't know if you want the the mufflers. Oh, yep. Go ahead. So the mufflers, we kept running past s what was the best? The noise bill last year. Yeah. This the same committee passed s 66, which had some noise parts in it. One of those was about a motorcycle stand, they gave me a draft language. I still have the draft version. I don't know if it's come back

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: from I have a Canadian version too if anybody wants to use Pretty simple.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: It just says that a motorcycle can't be operated if it's manufactured after 1985, 12/31/1985, but is not labeled in compliance with this federal regulation that meets the federal regulation, which they know has brought a stamp on it. And then there's, does not apply to motorcycle racing. So there's some exemptions. So you don't have to have that if you have to eat your lunch cycle raise, but it does require that they have to stay. How

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: do we deal about

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah, we did last year. So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: why don't you put that in, Damian?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And then, Damian, what I don't know about your language is how this impacts inspections. So

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this doesn't amend the inspection section. It amends the vehicle conditions. I don't know if the inspection manual has specific provisions related to the motorcycle exhausts. Right now, there are other vehicle conditions such as tinting of passenger and driver's side windows Yeah. That are advisory and not a failure of inspections. So I don't know if this would be treated the same that an inspection station would advise you that your muffler is not compliant or whether it would be a failure. I I just don't know about that. I know the language leading into this section that vehicle parts shall be in in good condition and Right. Or vehicle shall be in good condition and properly equipped is used as the basis for much of the language in the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: inspection manual. Here's my proposal that we consider this language that Damien wrote it to be added to the condition of the vehicle, and then we also added to the list of the items that the DMV is gonna consider in their amendments for the manual.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, the other option without having to add it to the the manual would be sorry. Let me just pull up the language here. It is just to say a motorcycle that is not equipped as provider pursuant to the subdivision, you know, shall not pass inspection pursuant to sections one twelve twenty two of this title, which is the next section. And that that would be what that would do if you put it into

[Unknown participant (likely staff or member, not in hint list)]: That's that's what we did, but that's not what we

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: did with S66. We just sent this. With S66, there

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: was a lot more language in there. Motorcycle.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I I just took the language out of that. I I be supportive of that. I mean and we can just see what the house

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: does if the community don't care.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Sure that they will have. Yeah. We can

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so So, yeah, with S66 as it passed this body,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So just advise everybody. I mean, because it's hard if it's don't know if it's a good mechanic.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. What I actually forgot to add into that is that we did have language that says a motorcycle that does not meet requirements of that subdivision shall not pass inspection. Yeah. And we can I can simply add that in if that's the will of committee? Thank you.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. Is that it?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. Unless we wanna talk about window today.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Do you wanna bring it up? Ouch. I think we

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Well, I I'm not gonna advocate that we make it fail inspection, but I don't know if there's I guess I'll just bring it up to so DMV can when they're looking at amendments, is there something that can be done to make the the notice that's given? So right now, somebody comes in with a vehicle, they have complete mirrored, blacked out windows. As long as it's not on the front windshield, it'll pass inspection. And then in the three page printout, it'll say in there that this is advisable that they get the tint fixed or whatever. It says that if it failed, but it does fail inspections. I thought it would be better if they got a separate note or said something like, you're driving an illegal vehicle and you could get fined.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay, There's also that in the conversations that we've had with the from DMV. Fine is slightly over $100 and the fine is so small that most of these people ignore it. So the question will be because I don't wanna do a fine in this pill. But the question will be in relationship to the t pills, if he added a line in some place to increase the funding. Yeah. You know, because at this point, if we add a fine, this bill ends up probably going to judiciary, probably going to finance on that. So yeah. At this last minute there clearly will probably be, an amendment someplace on account going forward as we get, to increase.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. I think that's a good good solution.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. You know, at a $100, people are going, And we know that law enforcement has not been tasked to hand out tickets.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Maybe we could send them emails saying,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: look. Look out for this. So

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: find your tell me that. Well, here's the window to take tickets. So they've increased since COVID, but it's still only 200 tickets a

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: year, which

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: is pretty small considering out of Mhmm. Gains. So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: what would you look? Would you like to do anything?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: No. I'm not propose that we amend this bill, so as far as just the statement and then help that when we get the T bill and

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: talk about We're gonna we're gonna look for you to have some sort of amendment.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So that needs to be.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. Why don't we take what what's the safe number, Damian? A half an hour? Twenty minutes? Can you be ready by quarter of?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think I've drafted everything here, I can send it to the editors now, and we can jump in

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: at 02:11 if you want. I wouldn't mind if do that. Right? We're gonna take a break. Okay. And then so how long a break should we take?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you wanna go right into 02:11? I can

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: We can do that if you want. We can go right to 02:11.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Why don't we do that after the break? I'm I'm good to go. I'm gonna

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Why don't we take twenty minutes and twenty of we'll be back here, and and we'll take up 02:11. And, hopefully, by before noontime, we have a clean draft.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Wait, are we back at 10:35 or are we back

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: at 10:15? Twenty is twenty minutes out.

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

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: 10:40. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay.