Enforcement challenges and technical fixes dominate testimony on vehicle-noise bill S.66

The Senate Transportation Committee heard detailed testimony on S.66, a proposal to address loud and modified vehicle exhaust systems. A State Police officer and an industry representative told the committee that enforcement will be difficult without clear testing protocols, equipment and regulatory detail.

A State Police officer testified that troopers lack decibel meters and that roadside decibel readings are unreliable because of ambient noise and passing traffic. "We don't have the means for any decibel meters at all. So there's no way to gauge the decibel that an exhaust system would put out," he said, adding that accurate roadside readings can be skewed by surrounding traffic and would extend stops. He estimated decibel meters for enforcement would cost in the roughly $75–$150 range and warned that testing at a motor-vehicle stop could take tens of minutes if officers had to relocate a stop to obtain a reliable sample. (State Police witness)

Low-income vehicle owners and older cars

The trooper told the committee that vehicles with deteriorated factory mufflers can sound like modified systems and that low-income households are more likely to delay repairs. "If this particular family that has a car that's 15 years old or so and has a hole in their exhaust, ... what are they gonna choose to do? They're gonna choose to make sure they have a roof over their head and a boot on the table rather than fix that hole in their muffler," the witness said, arguing that enforcement could disproportionately affect lower-income drivers.

Industry and technical testimony

Wayne Weichel of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation said aftermarket modifications are usually the worst offenders and described how cutouts and straight pipes are visibly distinct on inspection. He urged careful adoption of any decibel limit and recommended a structured regulatory approach with technical testing protocols and, where appropriate, automated sound-camera pilots in high-complaint areas. "If you do something like this, make sure that there's thoughtful...what number with what testing protocol," he said. Weichel pointed to Montgomery County, Maryland, which has piloted sound cameras, as a potential model.

Controlled testing vs. roadside enforcement

Both the trooper and industry witnesses suggested that inspection-station testing — in a controlled environment — would produce more reliable readings than roadside stops. The trooper suggested asking inspection stations to verify exhaust systems in a controlled setting because stations could reduce ambient-noise interference and ensure replicable testing; he also recommended training and clearer statutory definitions for exhaust modifications.

Other legal and practical notes

Witnesses referenced existing federal standards that apply to commercial vehicles operating in interstate commerce, noting those vehicles already must meet certain exhaust and muffler requirements (49 CFR and FMVSS references were cited). Industry testimony warned that an overly broad statutory decibel threshold could unintentionally capture vehicles not intended as targets (loaded vehicles, heavy acceleration, or high-performance cars can be loud in some conditions). California and New York were cited as examples of states that have adopted different approaches; California's thresholds were noted to permit higher decibel levels in some contexts.

Ending

Committee members asked law enforcement for data on the number of noise complaints and asked staff to consider targeted proposals (visual inspection thresholds, inspection‑station testing, pilot sound-camera deployments) and to bring back more detailed options for enforcement that limit unintended impacts on low-income drivers and routine vehicle operation.