Senate Transportation trims S.66, directs AOT to develop noise standards and enforcement plan

Senate Transportation reviewed S.66, a bill that would add statewide vehicle-noise rules, and agreed Thursday to pare back parts the committee found difficult to enforce while directing the Agency of Transportation (AOT) to recommend measurable standards and an enforcement process.

The move matters because Vermont currently lacks a statewide objective noise standard for motor vehicles; the committee heard testimony that the patchwork of municipal ordinances and existing inspection guidance leaves residents without a clear reporting or enforcement path.

Committee members focused on four main issues: whether muffler and exhaust changes should be enforced roadside or through the state inspection system; numeric sound limits and how to measure them; special rules for heavy trucks and engine-compression brakes (commonly called "Jake brakes"); and how to set up enforcement without overburdening law enforcement.

The committee kept the bill’s core inspection linkage but agreed to remove or revise language the members said was subjective or would be difficult for inspection stations to apply. Damian Leonard, counsel to the Senate Transportation Committee, walked members through the interaction between the proposed changes and existing inspection law, citing the inspection statute and the DMV manual’s sections that address exhaust systems. "Reject vehicle if the vehicle has no muffler," Leonard said, reading from the inspection manual’s guidance and noting other inspection failures such as nonmanufactured holes or components not securely fastened.

Members discussed two enforcement pathways: (1) make muffler and exhaust requirements a basis for failing the periodic vehicle inspection at DMV-qualified stations, or (2) allow roadside enforcement by law enforcement with civil penalties. Several members said inspection-based enforcement is easier to train and more consistent with how the inspection manual is already used. One senator who spoke in favor of heavier enforcement said the roadside-stop option was why the bill’s authors included certain language designed to catch people who temporarily remove mufflers for inspection and then reinstall them.

The bill as discussed included numeric sound limits: for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except motorcycles) the draft sets 72 decibels at 35 mph or less and 80 decibels above 35 mph; for vehicles over 10,000 pounds the draft sets 80 decibels at 35 mph or less and 87 decibels at higher speeds. Committee members questioned how those numbers would be measured in the field, whether meters would need calibration and distance specifications, and whether some sports cars or stereos could exceed the proposed limits under normal operation.

Several members recommended AOT consider Maine’s model, in which an officer who perceives obvious excessive noise can issue a citation and the vehicle owner then takes the vehicle to a designated test site where a calibrated measurement is taken. "If we're going to do something, they want a standard. They want a metric to base it off of," one member said during discussion, urging an objective, testable standard rather than a purely subjective enforcement approach.

On heavy trucks and engine-compression brakes, the committee expressed support for requiring that compression-brake exhaust be routed through a muffler when feasible, while preserving a narrow safety exception to allow unmuffled brakes to operate during an actual emergency. "I will die on a hill for section 3," one committee member said, arguing the provision addresses the recurring complaints from residents about loud un-muffled engine-compression brakes.

The committee removed or agreed to remove several provisions from the bill text as drafted: the clause criminalizing any "device or modification that amplifies the noise" because members called that wording subjective; a subsection relating to measuring exhaust smoke/fumes at inspections (members called it difficult to assess reliably in an inspection setting); and the bill’s standalone penalty language, which a number of senators said was unnecessary because general penalty provisions already exist in statute.

Absent a formal roll-call vote during the hearing, the committee agreed to direct AOT to draft proposed rules, calibration and testing guidance for measuring vehicle noise, and a recommended enforcement and reporting workflow for the committee’s consideration. The committee asked AOT to recommend a list of qualified test stations, a process for limited measurement testing (to mirror the Maine approach) and proposed rule language, and requested a report back by Dec. 15. Members discussed whether an effective date of July 1 would leave too little time for updating the inspection manual and training; they suggested staging effective dates for different provisions and flagged July 1, 2026, as an example date mentioned for some inspection and tinting changes.

Committee members repeatedly raised enforcement capacity concerns. State police and municipal law-enforcement witnesses told the committee that enforcing noise rules is resource-intensive, that noise cameras and calibrated meters are expensive, and that noise measurements can be difficult at intersections or in busy environments. Several senators said they preferred an interim approach that directs AOT to propose pilot locations and measurement procedures rather than immediately mandating widespread roadside enforcement.

The committee also discussed citizen reporting: members acknowledged that constituents currently lack a clear path for reporting noise complaints and that municipal ordinances vary. Rather than adopt a statutory citizen-reporting system in S.66, the committee directed that reporting and intake processes be part of AOT’s recommendations back to the committee.

The chair scheduled further drafting and asked counsel to prepare a revised bill and side-by-side language for the committee’s next meeting. Committee staff and counsel told members a revised draft and fiscal figures should be circulated ahead of the next session; members tentatively aimed to take the amended bill up again the following day and to complete as much work as possible before the committee’s deadline.

At the close of the hearing, no formal roll-call vote on S.66 was recorded; the committee’s actions were recorded as consensus directions to staff and AOT rather than final legislative votes.