DMV outlines concerns, proposes stakeholder report and manual fixes as Senate weighs S.211 two-year inspection plan

In a presentation to the Senate Transportation committee, Matt Russo, deputy commissioner for the Department of Motor Vehicles, said the agency "remains not opposed to a 2 year inspection, but we are apprehensive" about S.211, the bill proposing vehicle inspections every two years.

Russo told committee members the change would have operational effects beyond inspection frequency: the DMV would need new sticker adhesives and vendors, contract updates with inspection centers, adjustments to the AVIP inspection system and coordination with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on emissions testing. He singled out the state's transition toward a mileage-based user fee (MBUF) as a major revenue-timing concern, saying a biennial model could disrupt assumptions in systems built around annual inspections.

Why it matters: shifting from annual to biennial inspections affects consumer costs and compliance signals, station operations, state revenue flows tied to inspection timing and the technical process for emissions testing. Russo said the DMV would prefer a cautious, planned approach rather than an abrupt change.

Details from DMV presentation

- Timeline proposal: Russo proposed convening stakeholders and producing a report to the committee by January 2027, with a possible implementation rollout the following year (the DMV suggested 2028 as an illustrative target). That report would map technical, vendor and revenue changes needed for any shift.

- Revenue and trends: The DMV presented historical data showing inspections have declined since 2019 and described a "9.7 decrease" in inspection-related revenue in the period discussed (as presented by the DMV). Committee members asked the agency to supply registration and inspection counts to clarify how many vehicles may be missing annual inspections.

- Inspection manual ambiguity: The DMV highlighted ambiguous language in the inspection manual that can lead to inconsistent fail decisions (an example given was brake rotor condition), and proposed narrowing the manual's safety-vs.-non-safety categories. Russo said the DMV could implement some clarifying changes immediately rather than waiting through a full rulemaking timeline that could take eight months or longer.

- Consumer impacts and station pricing: Survey responses the DMV summarized (collected via social media and documented in the DMV report) listed common repair issues reported by Vermonters: brake rotors, electrical, tires, steering/suspension and emissions. The DMV said reported station fees ranged widely (about $61 to $280 per inspection in survey responses) and that the state does not currently collect official data on station charges.

What the committee asked for and next steps

Committee members pressed for precise data and a draft of proposed manual changes and/or legislative language. They discussed three implementation pathways: (1) statutory language, (2) expedited or regular rulemaking, or (3) granting the DMV limited authority to implement manual changes now while formal rulemaking proceeds. Members asked legislative staff (referred to in the discussion as Damien) to prepare a new draft of S.211 that reflects proposed changes and timing. The committee tentatively discussed scheduling a public hearing once a draft is available and suggested aiming for a public-hearing window in late February (a member named Feb. 26 as a possible date).

Representative exchanges

- Speaker 1 asked, "So does that mean there's another 100,000 cars out there driving illegally?" highlighting concern that fewer inspections could mean more uninspected vehicles on the road; the committee noted the DMV did not have registration-to-inspection cross-tabs on hand and agreed to obtain the data.

- On immediate fixes, Matt Russo said the DMV would "change a lot of it to a warning so that the consumer is aware of what the issue is rather than failing and putting it back on the road," describing one option to reduce punitive outcomes while clarifying safety priorities.

Limitations and open questions

Speakers acknowledged gaps in the available data: the DMV's survey was distributed via social media (the agency confirmed counts are in its report), the state does not officially track station inspection charges, and some legislative references (a House bill discussed by a speaker) were cited in conversation but not read verbatim into the record. Committee members asked the DMV to provide the underlying registration and inspection counts and to supply draft language in the coming week or two so the committee can set a public hearing date.

What happens next: The DMV committed to deliver draft language and the proposed manual changes to legislative staff; the committee asked for a stakeholder report by January 2027 and will decide whether to include any changes in the miscellaneous DMV bill and when to hold a public hearing once a draft is available.