Senate Transportation hears S.66 to limit road noise; bill sets decibel thresholds, inspection rules and citizen reporting portal

Senate Transportation Committee Chair Rich Westman convened the committee in Montpelier to receive testimony on S.66, a bill to curb road and vehicle noise by setting numerical sound limits, tightening inspection requirements and creating a citizen reporting system.

The bill matters because proponents and health experts told the committee that repeated vehicle noise harms health and disproportionately affects lower-income Vermonters who live near busy roads. Senator White, sponsor of S.66, said, "noise pollution is a public health crisis," and urged the committee to create a clearer enforcement path for residents who have had "no path for redress."

S.66 is divided into sections that together address passenger vehicles and light trucks, motorcycles, inspection rules, engine compression brakes (commonly called "Jake" brakes), civil penalties and a citizen reporting portal on the Agency of Transportation website. Under the bill, the proposed sound limits for motor vehicles and light combinations (gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less) are 72 dB(A) measured at 50 feet at or below 35 mph and 80 dB(A) at speeds greater than 35 mph. Heavier vehicles would have higher thresholds: 80 dB(A) at or below 35 mph and 87 dB(A) at higher speeds. Motorcycles would be required to carry mufflers labeled to meet federal (EPA) requirements for that make/model if manufactured after Dec. 31, 1985; the bill treats motorcycle compliance via those federal labeling standards rather than adding them into the numeric limits for other vehicles.

The bill would also prohibit operating vehicles with gutted mufflers, cutouts, straight-pipe exhausts or other modifications that amplify exhaust noise, and would require mufflers on engine compression-brake devices unless used in an emergency. Vehicles that fail to meet the specified inspection standards would be unable to pass the inspection required under current law; civil penalties for operating in violation are proposed at $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second and $350 for a third or subsequent offense (the draft language uses "not less than" and drafters flagged that a capped range is typically used in statute). Separate penalties for compression-brake violations in the draft are set at $250/$500/$750 for first/second/third violations. The bill gives the Secretary of Transportation rulemaking authority, requires an AOT training program (for law enforcement measuring vehicle sound) and sets a default effective date of July 1, 2025.

Witnesses included residents, public-health and technical experts. Laura Hill Eubanks, an attorney and Northfield resident who described years of attempts to seek enforcement, said enforcement gaps led to a dead end: "DMV told me that they would only deal with complaints for specific inspection stations and specific vehicles," and she urged a clear, objective standard so enforcement can proceed. Noise policy consultant Wes Wofford critiqued a recent DMV report, saying parts of that analysis were not relevant to S.66 and that the report "missed some real opportunities" in investigating enforcement approaches; he recommended roadside testing and noted that noise-camera technology is improving but may lead to legal challenges for small communities. Pediatric neurologist Peter Bingham said the public-health literature supports physiological effects from chronic noise exposure, arguing "there is ample evidence to show that there are physiological adverse effects on our heart, our circulatory system" and on children's attention and reading skills.

Legislative counsel Damian Leonard walked the committee through the draft language, clarifying that the motorcycle labeling referenced is the existing federal EPA labeling for exhaust equipment, that sound measurements would be adjustable to a 50-foot-equivalent standard, and that the bill would allow municipalities to adopt local ordinances prohibiting compression braking within their borders. He also noted drafting points for committee consideration, including whether civil penalties should be capped and whether the training requirement should reference the Criminal Justice Council or other entities for officer training. Committee members asked for clarification about enforcement jurisdiction, the practical availability of testing equipment, and how inspection-station rules would affect mechanics and owners who currently have vehicles inspected at their own stations.

The hearing did not include a committee vote on S.66. Committee members scheduled further discussion and additional public testimony in the next hearing; legislative counsel noted the bill draft and DMV "excessive vehicle noise" report will be on the agenda for the following week.