Vermont senators hear sharply divided testimony on S.66, bill to curb vehicle noise

The Vermont Senate Transportation Committee on Thursday heard more than an hour of public testimony on S.66, a proposed state law that would tighten limits on vehicle noise by targeting aftermarket mufflers and restricting the use of engine/compression brakes (commonly called "Jake brakes") and certain self-inspection practices for fleets.

Supporters said the bill is aimed at protecting residents' sleep and health in village centers and other populated corridors. "Vermont has among the weakest muffler laws in the country," said Karen Atkins, a Stowe resident and filmmaker who has researched transportation noise; she told the committee her film documented "120 to 160 high noise events per day in excess of 80 decibels" in parts of Stowe. Jamie Banks, founder of Quiet Communities and chair of the American Public Health Association noise and health committee, told senators, "It's not simply an annoyance. It's a threat to physical and mental health and well-being." Several residents described disrupted sleep, lost enjoyment of their homes and heightened stress from repeated low-frequency vehicle noise.

Industry witnesses — including truck dealers, fuel-distribution companies and fleet owners — urged the committee to revise the bill rather than adopt it in its current form. Larry Cobb, vice president and general manager of New England Kenworth, told the panel that surrounding states put muffler and emission requirements into their inspection manuals and said changing Vermont's inspection process would be a simpler fix: "This would solve the problem," he said. Matt Coda of Meadow Hill Consulting, representing vehicle and fuel trade groups, and other fleet witnesses opposed a provision that would bar owners from having their own technicians perform inspections on vehicles they own. They warned that forcing fleets to use outside inspection stations would raise costs and reduce vehicle availability for deliveries.

Safety concerns centered on engine/compression brakes. Multiple trucking witnesses said compression brakes are essential for controlling heavy vehicles on long descents; Eric Wiesen, owner of Wiesen Trucking, said an engine brake "can account for up to 50 percent of the stopping power of a heavy truck" and urged enforcement through qualified commercial vehicle inspectors rather than by citizen complaints. Jim Curley, a carrier with 25 years in the industry, said limiting those brakes without accounting for safety risks would be dangerous.

Several witnesses proposed alternative or supplementary remedies. Trucking representatives repeatedly urged the committee to change the Vermont inspection manual and the state inspection criteria to require working mufflers and emission systems; they said other New England states include explicit muffler and noise-failure criteria. Supporters pushed for objective decibel standards and independent inspection of carriers with multiple trucks; Atkins and others said current practice allowing companies that own five or more trucks to self-inspect creates a regulatory gap.

Committee chair and members introduced the hearing and noted Agency of Transportation (AOT) staff would discuss inspection rules later in the day. The chair closed by saying committee discussion will continue and that senators had heard a range of technical, health and enforcement issues to consider.

Votes at this hearing: none — the session recorded only testimony and no committee votes or formal actions on S.66.