Tell Vermont Lawmakers to Remove the Motorcycle Exhaust Language from S.326

 Proposed and Passed by the Senate (not the Governor).  Now in the House.  Section 29 of S.326 (Misc DMV Bill) will create confusion at motorcycle inspection stations, increase inspection time, and raise costs for riders.

  Most importantly, Vermont DMV doesn't even support Section 29.

WHO DO I EMAIL?

1. What the bill does

SECTION 29 of S.326 (Miscellaneous DMV Bill) would require that a motorcycle manufactured after December 31, 1985 be both labeled in compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 205.158 and equipped with a muffler meeting 40 C.F.R. § 205.169. If it does not, it would fail Vermont State Inspection. 

2. Why this is a problem

The Vermont State Inspection Manual is already extremely clear. This new language adds another layer that is unnecessary and does not directly target the issue the sponsor of the bill is after.

3. It goes after a stamp, not noise

Section 29 of the S.326 focuses on whether a state inspector can locate a federal label or mark, rather than whether the bike is actually too loud. 

It is important to point out, a quiet bike could fail because a stamp is hard to find, while a loud bike could still get through if the label is there.

4. It will create confusion for inspection stations

The federal rules referenced in the bill distinguish between labels on the motorcycle itself and marks on exhaust systems or components. That means this is not just a simple check. It creates a more complicated inspection process and adds uncertainty for technicians trying to determine what applies. Technicians will likely need to remove shields on exhaust to find the mark.  Heat, road grime, rust, will likely create a scenario where the label will be difficult to find.  

5. It will increase inspection time and cost

If a technician has to spend additional time locating a faded marking, removing shields, or cowls, deciding whether it is legible, and determining what kind of exhaust system is installed, that takes more time. More time in the inspection bay means more labor cost, and that cost will ultimately be passed on to the motorcycle rider.

6. Vermont already has the tools

Vermont already requires motorcycles to be in good mechanical condition and properly equipped, and the bill itself also directs DMV to revise the inspection manual to focus on genuine safety issues and provide clear, consistent guidance.  The answer is better enforcement of the standards already on the books, not a new rule that adds confusion and expense.

7. What should happen instead

Lawmakers should focus on:

• enforcing existing rules

• educating and testing inspection station.

8. Call to action

Please contact a Representative on the House Transportation Committee House today.  They are good hardworking people and listening close to feedback on this proposed law.  

Ask them to remove Sec. 29 of S.326 because it will create confusion, increase the time and cost of motorcycle inspections, and fail to address the real source of excessive noise.

9. Simple message riders can send to the House Committee or Your Elected Representative

Dear Representative:

My name is ____________. I am a Vermont resident.

Respectfully, I urge you to remove Sec. 29 of S.326.

Vermont already has existing law addressing motorcycle exhaust compliance, and inspection standards are already in place. Adding another layer through Sec. 29 is likely to create confusion for inspection stations, increase the time required for inspections, and raise costs for Vermont riders, without meaningfully improving enforcement or resolving the concerns behind the proposal.  As you know, even DMV does not support this provision and that should carry weight.

Please remove Sec. 29 from S.326.

Sincerely,

____________   

10. Who to email

Who's my local representative? https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/