Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 07/11/2023 Item #10B (Quiet Florida regarding noise pollution)
Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting July 11,2023 Item 10B to be heard at 9:30 AM: Recommendation to hear a summary report of the Florida State Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability(OPPAGA) study on exhaust system noise regulation for motor vehicles and motor-driven vehicles, and receive an update from Quiet Florida regarding reducing noise pollution from illegal vehicle modifications. (Commissioner Saunders' Request) Notes: TIME CERTAIN ITEMS: Item 10B to be heard at 9:30 AM: Update from Quiet Florida and summary report on the Florida State Legislature's OPPAGA Study on noise regulation for motor vehicles. 7/28/2023 4:58 PM 10.B 07/11/2023 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 10.B Doc ID: 25964 Item Summary: Recommendation to hear a summary report of the Florida State Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) study on exhaust system noise regulation for motor vehicles and motor -driven vehicles, and receive an update from Quiet Florida regarding reducing noise pollution from illegal vehicle modifications. (Sponsored By Commissioner Saunders) Meeting Date: 07/11/2023 Prepared by: Title: Communications, Govt. & Public Affairs Director — County Manager's Office Name: John Mullins 06/28/2023 11:20 AM Submitted by: Title: Commissioner District 3 — Board of County Commissioners Name: Burt Saunders 06/28/2023 11:20 AM Approved By: Review: Transportation Management Services Department Trinity Scott Department Transportation Management Services Department Trinity Scott Office of Management and Budget County Attorney's Office Office of Management and Budget County Manager's Office Board of County Commissioners Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Christopher Johnson Additional Reviewer Geoffrey Willig Level 4 County Manager Review Geoffrey Willig Meeting Pending Transportation Management Services Completed 06/28/2023 4:38 PM Transportation Completed 06/28/2023 5:16 PM Completed 06/29/2023 7:48 AM Completed 06/29/2023 9:50 AM Completed 07/03/2023 7:30 AM Completed 07/05/2023 8:51 AM 07/11/2023 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 52 10.B.a A Review of Exhaust System Noise _ __ ...... MEN ■■■ ■ ■ M MEN ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ .......... OPPAGA Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 10.B.a Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Tableof Contents......................................................................................................................................................................... i ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................................................................. iii Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................1 Findings.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Research Literature Finds Certain Adverse Health and Quality of Life Effects Related to Noise .......... 3 Florida Statutes and Administrative Code Establish Standards and Penalties for Vehicle Noise, IncludingExhaust System Noise......................................................................................................................................4 Statutes Establish Noise Requirements for the Operation and Sale of Vehicles; However, Some Provisions Are Not Being Implemented..................................................................................................................4 Local Ordinances Take Diverse Approaches to Regulating Vehicle Noise.....................................................7 Many Local Governments Address Vehicle Noise Through Local Ordinances.........................................7 Law Enforcement Practices Vary for Enforcing Exhaust Noise Related Violations; Citations Have Increased and Over One -Third Adjudicated Guilty...............................................................................................10 Law Enforcement Rarely Enforces Local Ordinances for Exhaust Noise Related Violations .......... 10 There Are Different Enforcement Approaches Used for Exhaust Noise Related Violations Under StateStatutes...................................................................................................................................................................11 Citations Under State Statutes for Exhaust Noise Related Violations Have Increased ......................11 Most Exhaust Noise Related Citations Under State Statutes Are Equipment Related Instead of DecibelRelated...............................................................................................................................................................12 Over One -Third of Citations Under State Statutes Result in a Guilty Adjudication; Citations Have aMedian Cost of$116..................................................................................................................................................14 Some Law Enforcement Offices Do Not Enforce Exhaust Noise Related Statutes for a Multitude of Reasons and Most Have Not Received Relevant Training.............................................................................15 Options........................................................................................................................................................................................18 Several Options Could Expand Enforcement of Existing Statutes..................................................................18 The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or Local Law Enforcement Could Conduct an Educational or Enforcement Campaign on Exhaust Noise......................................................................18 The Legislature Could Direct Entities to Provide Additional Training for Law Enforcement Officers ...............................................................................................................................................................................................19 The Legislature Could Expand the Use of Traffic Cameras to Include Noise Cameras ......................19 The Legislature Could Apply Increased Fines in s. 318.18(23), Florida Statutes, to Other Statutes forExhaust Noise Violations..................................................................................................................................... 21 Packet Pg. 54 10.B.a The Legislature Could Direct DEP to Review Federal Preemption and Recommend Updates to Florida Law to Clarify Exhaust Noise Provisions and Improve Enforcement of Exhaust Noise Violations.......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 There Are Additional Options to Create New Mechanisms for Enforcing Exhaust Noise Violations 23 Create a Plainly Audible Standard for Exhaust Noise in Statute................................................................. 23 Create a Nuisance Standard for Exhaust Noise in Statute............................................................................. 23 Establish a Probable Cause Based Decibel Testing Program....................................................................... 24 AgencyResponse..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 AppendixA................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Federal Preemption Analysis for Florida's Statutes Addressing Noise Emissions by Motor Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Background...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 PreemptionAnalysis..................................................................................................................................................... 29 AppendixB................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 LiteratureReview Summaries....................................................................................................................................... 38 AppendixC................................................................................................................................................................................. 46 Acceptable Measurement Sites and Procedures to Ensure Accurate Decibel Measurement of Vehicle Noise........................................................................................................................................................................................ 46 AppendixD................................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Citationsby County............................................................................................................................................................ 47 AppendixE................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 AgencyResponse.......................................................................................... ............................................................. 49 Packet Pg. 55 10.B.a June 2023 A Review of Exhaust System Noise EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Noise is unwanted sound, and excessively loud vehicle exhaust systems may present noise that is a nuisance to individuals and communities. Further, literature finds certain adverse health and quality of life effects related to noise. The Florida Motor Vehicle Noise Prevention and Control Act and the federal Noise Control Act were adopted in the 1970s and have created a complicated legal framework that includes several competing laws. At the state and local levels, some laws may be preempted. At the state and local levels, OPPAGA's survey of law enforcement found that practices vary for the enforcement of exhaust noise related violations. Additionally, citations issued under state law for exhaust noise related offenses have increased over recent years. Over one-third of these citations were adjudicated guilty. While citations for exhaust noise related violations have increased, law enforcement reported several reasons why it is difficult to enforce state statutes for these offenses. Report 23-04 Florida currently has state statutes that address vehicle noise, including exhaust noise; however, there are options to further address exhaust noise being used in some other states and Florida municipalities. While Florida has state statutes that allow for enforcement of exhaust noise through violations for modified equipment or violations of maximum decibel limits, there are options to expand enforcement of existing statutes. Additionally, there are options for new approaches to enforce exhaust noise violations. Packet Pg. 56 10.B.a INTRODUCTION Unwanted noise, which can include noise from vehicle exhaust systems, can be a nuisance to individuals and communities. Exhaust noise is environmental noise, which includes all unwanted sounds in communities, except sounds that originate in the workplace. Sources include noise from road, rail, and air traffic. Because most vehicles create noise, road noise is one of the most prevalent sources of environmental noise in communities. In Florida, citations for exhaust related noise increased from 857 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 to 3,018 in Fiscal Year 2021-22. Many law enforcement officers reported that the prevalence of vehicles or motorcycles with loud exhaust has increased over the past five years. Vehicle exhaust systems direct gasses away from the vehicle, creating a pressure wave that produces sound. Exhaust systems typically include a muffler, which reduces the sound produced by vehicle exhaust. Excessive vehicle exhaust noise may be caused by exhaust system defects, intentional modifications by vehicle owners or auto service businesses, or initial exhaust system design.' While certain modifications to increase the exhaust system sound may improve vehicle performance, some car enthusiasts may prefer the excessive noise from the exhaust system for its own sake. However, some people view loud exhaust systems as unpleasant or disruptive. Noise is measured by sound -level meters, and there are different scales to measure noise. Noise is measured using a sound -level meter. Sound -level meters, commonly known as decibel meters, are handheld devices that use a microphone to capture sound measured in decibels. There are different scales of decibels to measure noise. Decibels (dB) are a unit of measurement for the intensity of a sound; the A -weighted decibel (dB A) scale is a unit of measurement for the intensity and frequency of sound. Decibels use a logarithmic scale as opposed to a linear scale because a logarithmic scale better matches how sound intensity feels to human ears. This means that if a sound is 80 dB, an increase in 10 dB results in a sound that is 10 times more intense and sounds twice as loud. Common noises have decibel levels that range from a normal conversation at 60 dB to fireworks up to 150 dB. (See Exhibit 1.) 1 There are different methods to modify an exhaust system. Law enforcement and stakeholders are uncertain as to who is responsible for modifying exhaust systems. Some speculated that it is mostly individual vehicle owners who modify exhaust systems whereas others speculated that it could be both individuals and businesses. Law enforcement agencies interviewed or surveyed by OPPAGA reported enforcing s. 316.293 (Sj (al, ES., which prohibits the modification of exhaust equipment, against individuals but not against businesses. Law enforcement that reports that of this statute is difficult because it requires an officer to see the modification while it is occurring. 1 Packet Pg. 57 10.B.a Exhibit 1 Common Noises and Decibel Levels Fireworks illl Standing near sirens Car horn ltm (at 16 feet) Motorcycle City traffic (inside the 1 car) 1 1 •: Normal 1 1 • C conversation r Source: OPPAGA analysis of information from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vehicle noise has been regulated by the federal government and Florida and its political subdivisions since at least the 1970s; both federal and state laws preempt subordinate governments from adopting or enforcing certain noise emission regulations, resulting in a complicated framework for vehicle noise regulation. In 1972, Congress enacted the Noise Control Act (NCA) to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate major sources of noise in commerce. Pursuant to this direction, the EPA adopted noise emission limits and other related standards for vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds (large vehicles), motorcycles, and certain exhaust systems, which took effect between 1974 and 1980. The NCA specifies that states and state political subdivisions are preempted from adopting or enforcing laws or regulations that set standards for noise emissions that are not identical to EPA regulations. In 1974, the Florida Legislature also enacted noise emission limits and other requirements in ss. 403.415 and 316.293, Florida Statutes, for a wide variety of motor vehicle and exhaust system types, including types addressed by the EPA's regulations. Some of the requirements that remain in these two sections of law are not identical to the EPA's regulations and, thus, appear to be preempted by the NCA. Like the NCA, state laws also preempt local governments from enacting ordinances addressing matters covered by Florida's noise emission statutes. Many local governments in Florida have adopted regulations to address vehicle noise emissions. These local ordinances use a variety of approaches for enforcement, some of which may be preempted under federal or state law, or both. Appellate courts have not ruled on whether or to what extent Florida's vehicle noise emission statutes or ordinances may be preempted. Consequently, there are no definitive answers to this issue. OPPAGA analyzed ss. 403.415 and 316.293, Florida Statutes, to determine the extent to which these provisions might be preempted by federal law. (See Appendix A for more information on the federal preemption analysis.) 2 Packet Pg. 58 10.B.a FINDINGS Research Literature Finds Certain Adverse Health and Quality of Life Effects Related to Noise OPPAGA reviewed numerous articles that assessed the adverse effects on health and quality of life due to environmental -related noise exposure in adults and children. (See Appendix B for additional information on these studies.) Many studies found adverse effects of environmental noise on adults' cardiovascular health, sleep, stress, and annoyance. While less research is available regarding children, there are some findings of adverse effects of environmental -related noise pertaining to children and pregnancy outcomes. Multiple studies reported various adverse effects of excessive environmental noise on physical and emotional wellbeing. Excessive noise exposure can adversely affect certain health problems in adults. Multiple studies reported that chronic exposure to environmental noise affects the cardiovascular system and can contribute to related health problems, including pre -hypertension or hypertension and heart disease. For example, one study found that with every 5 dB A increase in noise exposure, the risk of hypertension increased by 3.4%. The literature also points to a relationship between cardiovascular health and sleep. Although people become accustomed to noisy environments, a process called subjective habituation, the cardiovascular system does not adapt. Instead, in response to noise, the cardiovascular system experiences activations of the sympathetic nervous system, which alters stages of deep sleep to lighter stages of sleep. Sleep disturbance is considered the most severe non -auditory effect of noise exposure. Studies have shown an association between noise exposure and cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and habitual short sleep of less than six hours per night.2 A strong association between night traffic noise annoyance and sleep disorder also exists. Sleep issues such as falling asleep, waking up, and sleep quality, become more common as noise levels increase. Annoyance is another commonly found symptom of noise. Reported annoyance due to both traffic and aircraft noise is the most common effect discussed in the literature. Annoyance includes feelings of fear, anger, and belief that a person is avoidably harmed. Evidence supports that self -reported annoyance in men and women is statistically significant, as both reported high or extreme noise annoyance. In the literature, an association between traffic -related noise annoyance and the danger of hypertension was observed by researchers. Activities were also affected by high noise levels. Noise levels can disturb a person's ability to relax, listen to the TV or radio, or communicate with others, which can disrupt their quality of life. People with access to quiet places in their homes reported fewer issues with disturbances in their activities than those without access. While less research is available regarding children, literature supports the negative associations between noise exposure and children and pregnancy outcomes. For children, environmental noise may affect behavior and academic performance. Various studies have found negative associations between environmental noise and lower reading comprehension, concentration deficits, and hyperactivity in children. Researchers have found a decline in reading comprehension in children exposed to high aircraft exposure levels, but the decrease was not considered statistically 2 Habitual sleep is the amount of sleep usually obtained in a night or main sleep period. 3 Packet Pg. 59 10.B.a significant. Behavioral problems such as conduct problems, hyperactivity, and peer -relationship problems were also observed in children exposed to road traffic noise. Additionally, children were found to experience annoyance and some sleep problems. Exposure - response relationships were demonstrated between aircraft noise and extreme annoyance in children at school. This means the louder the noise, the more annoyed children become. For example, the percentage of children annoyed by environmental noise increased to 12.1% at 60 dB compared to 5.1% at 50 dB. Findings on noise -related sleep issues in children were mixed. A cross -sectional study of 12- year-old children observed poor sleep quality and tiredness; however, statistically significant findings for difficulty falling asleep were not made. A few studies found an association between environmental noise and pregnancy outcomes. Results from the studies suggest a negative effect of road traffic noise in term birth weight, term low birth weight, and small size for gestational age. However, there were no effects of road traffic noise on premature birth. For combined exposures, such as road traffic noise and air pollution, strong associations for mild and early -onset pre-eclampsia were observed by researchers. Additionally, while it is unknown what sound levels are safe for pregnancy, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends that pregnant women avoid sounds that are louder than 115 dB A.3 Florida Statutes and Administrative Code Establish Standards and Penalties for Vehicle Noise, Including Exhaust System Noise Noise emissions by motor vehicles are addressed in the Florida Statutes and rules adopted in the Florida Administrative Code. Statutes address exhaust system noise by setting standards for the sale of new vehicles and also by setting standards for operating vehicles on roadways. Florida Administrative Code further defines some of these statutory standards. However, some statutory requirements are not currently implemented by DEP. Further, some requirements appear to be preempted by the federal Noise Control Act for certain vehicles. (See Appendix A for more information on the federal preemption analysis.) Statutes Establish Noise Requirements for the Operation and Sale of Vehicles; However, Some Provisions Are Not Being Implemented State law prohibits the operation of excessively loud vehicles through several statutes pertaining to noise. Exhaust noise related violations are non-moving traffic violations under Ch. 316, Florida Statutes, the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law. Among other provisions, this chapter provides for enforcement of exhaust noise related violations using two general approaches. The first approach is enforcement of modified, removed, or defective noise preventing equipment. The second approach is enforcement of decibel levels. The allowable decibel level is based on 50 feet from the center lane of travel and sets a maximum noise limit based on the vehicle type, vehicle year, and speed 3 There is limited evidence on the effect of sound on pregnancy. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health states that high levels of noise can possibly affect pregnancy in two ways. First, high levels of noise can lead to stress, which could harm the baby. Second, very loud noises can travel through the woman's body and possibly damage the baby's hearing. 4 Packet Pg. 60 10.B.a limit. Offenses are non -criminal traffic infractions, which are punishable by warnings, citations, and fines or fees. (See Exhibit 2.) Exhibit 2 Law Enforcement Can Use Several Statutes Under Ch. 316, Florida Statutes, to Enforce Exhaust Noise Related Violations Section 316.272, F.S. requires vehicles to be equipped with an exhaust system that prevents excessive noise and prohibits the use of muffler cutouts, bypasses, or similar devices on a vehicle on a highway. Section 316.293(5), F.S. prohibits vehicle modifications that result in a louder vehicle noise than the noise made by the vehicle as originally manufactured and prohibits the operation of vehicles so modified. Section 316.455(6), F.S. requires that motorcycles comply with s. 316.272, F.S. requirements for mufflers and prevention of noise. Non -criminal traffic infraction punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in Ch. 318, F.S. Section 316.293(2), F.S. establishes decibel limits for categories of vehicles in different speed limit zones from 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel. Vehicle Type Date 35 mph or Over 35 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- less mph Before January 1,1979 82 dB A 86 dB A a. Motorcycles other than motor -driven cycles ------------------------------------------ On or After January 1, 1979 ----------------------------- 78 dB A 82 dB A -------- b. For any motor vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating or Gross Combination Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds or more On or After January 1, 1975 86 dB A 90 dB A (certain large vehicles such as a dump truck)' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c Motor -driven cycles and any other motor vehicle not included in Before January 1,1979 76 dB A 82 dB A paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) On or After January 1,1979 72 dB A 79 dB A Non -criminal traffic infraction punishable as a nonmoving violation as provided in Ch. 318, F.S. 1 Gross combination weight rating means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination vehicle. Gross vehicle weight rating means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. Additionally, OPPAGA analysis is limited to equipment statutes that specifically mention noise. This excludes statutes, including ss. 316.2935 and 316.610, F.S., which could be used for exhaust equipment violations that may not increase noise levels. Source: The Florida Statutes. Some statutes specifically cover exhaust systems, while others generally cover vehicle noise. For example, ss. 316.272 and 316.455, Florida Statutes, apply specifically to noise from exhaust systems, while another section of statute could apply to other types of vehicle noise. Section 316.293 (5), Florida Statutes, includes modifications to exhaust noise equipment, but also includes modifications to other noise -abatement equipment. Further, s. 316.293(2), Florida Statutes, provides decibel limits for operating noise levels in general. While these statutes include other noise from vehicles, law enforcement surveyed by OPPAGA reported using this statute to enforce exhaust noise related 5 Packet Pg. 61 10.B.a violations.4.5 As a result, OPPAGA included these statutes in the analysis and refers to the statutes as "exhaust noise related" throughout the report. State law also establishes vehicle noise requirements related to the sale of vehicles and equipment; however, some provisions are not currently implemented. Section 403.415, Florida Statutes, contains several provisions that regulate the sale of certain vehicles and equipment. It sets noise limits for motorcycles and large vehicles. Specifically, large vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1977, have a noise limit of 83 dB A.6 Additionally, motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1975, have a noise limit of 83 dB A. The decibel limits for motorcycles differ by one d BA between ss. 316.292 and 403.415, Florida Statutes, resulting in a situation where certain motorcycles could be legal to sell and illegal to operate because the operating noise limits are lower than the limit for new motorcycles (e.g. a motorcycle that is at the new vehicle limit of 83 dB A would be legal to sell but illegal to operate in Florida). State law also requires DEP to assist with law enforcement training and to provide a sound -level meter loan program for law enforcement.? DEP staff reported that only one law enforcement agency has requested training over the past 10 years. Upon request from law enforcement, DEP will provide training on topics including the procedure for setting up a sound -level meter and the type of evidence required for citations to withstand legal scrutiny. DEP staff also reported that the department has two sound -level meters available to lend to law enforcement. To date, no law enforcement agency has requested to borrow a sound -level meter. There are other statutory requirements that DEP has not fully implemented. Measurement procedures. Statutes require DEP, in consultation with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), to establish measurement procedures for determining the compliance of operating vehicles with statutorily established decibel limits." To address these requirements, DEP promulgated two rules related to measuring sites, ambient sound, calibration techniques, and microphone orientation. These rules account for factors that affect sound -level measurements to ensure an accurate representation of the sound. (See Appendix C for more information on DEP rules).9 Statute also states that DEP may include adjustment factors for noise measurements other than 50 feet from the center lane of travel. This would allow law enforcement more flexibility in measuring vehicle noise because it would provide different decibel limits for different distances from the center lane of travel. However, the current DEP rule that specifies noise measurement procedures does not contain adjustment factors.10 4 OPPAGA surveyed 338 sheriffs offices and police departments and received responses from 135 organizations; however, not all respondents answered all questions. To address this, the report notes the number of respondents to each section of the survey. The majority of respondents were law enforcement command staff including sheriffs, police chiefs, deputies, lieutenants, captains, and sergeants. Other respondents included administrative personnel. Both large and small counties and city jurisdictions responded to the survey. 5 OPPAGA interviewed 14 law enforcement agencies including sheriff s offices, police departments, and the Florida Highway Patrol, and all reported that exhaust noise or music noise are the main sources of problematic vehicle noise. One reported that noise from engine backfiring is problematic and another reported that tire noise is problematic. 6 Large vehicles are defined as vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more, a school bus, or any multipurpose passenger vehicle under s. 403.415, F.S. 7 Section 403.415f91. F.S. 8 Sections 316.293f31 and 403.415(9), F.S. 9 Rules 62-18.060 and 62-18.070, F.A.C. 10 DEP previously had a rule with adjustment factors, but repealed the related adjustment factors table in the rule in 2012. However, DEP staff reported that the department has provided recommended adjustment factors directly to law enforcement. 6 Packet Pg. 62 10.B.a • New vehicle test procedures. Statute requires DEP to establish test procedures for determining compliance for new vehicle noise limits." These procedures would specify measurement conditions and procedures for noise testing, such as testing sites and decibel meter requirements. DEP staff reported that the department had rules for this requirement, but the rules were repealed in 2012 because DEP determined that new vehicle noise limits are preempted by federal noise regulations. While the federal government does have regulations for new vehicle noise limits for certain large vehicles and motorcycles, state requirements for new vehicle noise limits and certifications may still apply to other types of vehicles (e.g. school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles). • Vehicle certifications. Statutes require DEP to receive noise compliance certification from vehicle and noise abatement device manufacturers, distributors, importers, or designated agents.12 DEP staff reported that the department does not receive these certifications because the federal government preempts the statutes requiring the certifications. While the federal government does have regulations for new vehicle noise limits for certain large vehicles and motorcycles, state requirements for new vehicle noise limits and certifications may still apply to other types of vehicles (e.g., school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles). • Decibel levels. Statutes direct DEP, in consultation, with DHSMV, to adopt a regulation establishing maximum decibel levels for motor vehicle exhaust systems.13 DEP staff reported that this requirement was superseded by the decibel limits established in ss. 316.293 and 403.415, Florida Statutes. These statutes provide decibel limits for general vehicle noise as opposed to decibel limits for exhaust systems. Local Ordinances Take Diverse Approaches to Regulating Vehicle Noise Many Local Governments Address Vehicle Noise Through Local Ordinances Many local governments have ordinances that prohibit excessive noise. These ordinances sometimes include a section stating that excessive noise harms public health, safety, and quality of life. Some local ordinances specify certain causes of excessive noise that are covered under the ordinance, and many local ordinances include a prohibition on excessive noise from motor vehicles. These ordinances range from excluding vehicle noise to explicitly prohibiting excessive noise from motor vehicles. The associated standards and penalties widely vary among counties and cities that explicitly regulate vehicle noise or with noise ordinances that do not exempt vehicle noise. Florida counties regulate vehicle noise in a variety of ways. OPPAGA reviewed the ordinances of all 67 Florida counties. Nineteen counties did not have any noise ordinances. Of the 48 counties with a noise ordinance, 18 explicitly excluded exhaust noise from the noise ordinance, 7 did not mention vehicle noise that does or could include exhaust noise, and 6 had contradictory ordinances that 11 Section 403.415(51, ES., requires DEP, in consultation with DHSMV, to establish test procedures for determining compliance with s. 403.415, F.S. The procedures must substantially conform with applicable standards and recommended practices established by the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., or its successor bodies, and the American National Standards Institute, Inc., or its successor bodies, for the measurement of motor vehicle sound levels. "Sections 403.415(6)(7l. and (8 F.S. "Sections 316.272(1) and 403.061(11 ), F.S., direct DEP, in consultation with DHSMV, to adopt a regulation establishing a maximum decibel level for exhaust systems for motor vehicles. 7 Packet Pg. 63 10.B.a specifically prohibited excessive vehicle noise and also exempted noise from motor vehicles. The remaining 17 counties had prohibitions on vehicle noise that include exhaust noise. (See Exhibit 3.) Exhibit 3 Noise Ordinances in Counties Vary Prohibits noise that explicitly includes motor vehicles and does or could include exhaust noise Explicitly excludes motorvehicle noise Does not mention vehicle noise that could include exhaust noise Explicitly prohibits excessive vehicle noise and exempts noise from motorvehicles (contradictory) No noise ordinance M Source: OPPAGA analysis of Florida county ordinances. ■ 17 m 19 The 17 counties with ordinances that regulate vehicle noise that include exhaust noise used a variety of standards. Additionally,12 of these counties used more than one standard to regulate vehicle noise. These standards included the following. • Nuisance standard, such as prohibiting disruptive or unreasonably loud noise (12 counties) • Equipment standard, such as requiring that a vehicle be equipped with a working muffler (9 counties) • Decibel standard, such as prohibiting vehicle noise louder than a specified decibel level (9 counties) • Plainly audible standard, such as prohibiting sound from any vehicle which is plainly audible at a certain distance (5 counties) Florida municipalities also have a wide a range of ordinances related to vehicle noise. OPPAGA reviewed the ordinances of 42 Florida cities.14 Of these cities, eight did not have an ordinance related to noise. Of the 34 cities with a noise ordinance, 18 had regulations about vehicle noise that include exhaust noise. Seven cities explicitly excluded exhaust noise from the noise ordinance, and 6 did not mention of vehicle noise that includes exhaust noise. Three cities had contradictory ordinances that specifically prohibited excessive vehicle noise and also exempted noise from motor vehicles from the noise ordinance. (See Exhibit 4.) 14 OPPAGA selected a sample of 10% (42) of Florida cities and found relevant ordinances for 36. These cities were in 26 counties throughout the state and represented a range of small and large cities. 8 Packet Pg. 64 10.B.a Exhibit 4 Noise Ordinances in Municipalities Vary Prohibits noise that explicitly includes motor vehicles and does or 18 could include exhaust noise Explicitly excludes motorvehicle noise Does not mention vehicle noise that could include exhaust noise Explicitly prohibits excessive vehicle noise and exempts noise from 3 motor vehicles (contradictory) No noise ordinance Source: OPPAGA analysis of a sample of 10% (42) of Florida cities. Cities that prohibited excessive vehicle noise that includes exhaust noise did so using a variety of standards and some used multiple standards. Five cities used more than one type of standard. For example, two cities had ordinances that established both a nuisance standard and an equipment standard. These standards included the following. • Equipment standard, such as requiring that a vehicle be equipped with a working muffler (13 cities) • Nuisance standard, such as prohibiting disruptive or unreasonably loud noise (4 cities) • Decibel standard, such as prohibiting vehicle noise louder than a specified decibel level (4 cities) • Plainly audible standard, prohibiting sound from any vehicle which is plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet or more (1 city) • Per se standard, classifying the use of motorcycles after 9:00 p.m. as a violation of the city's noise ordinance (1 city) Counties and cities have penalties for violating vehicle noise ordinances. Some ordinances provide that violations related to excessive vehicle noise may be punished by a fine. For example, law enforcement officers surveyed reported fine amounts from $50 for a first offense to $500 for a second or subsequent offense. Some local governments also include imprisonment or vehicle impoundment as potential penalties for excessive vehicle noise. Local governments sometimes reserve more severe penalties for repeated violations. However, statutes may preempt local ordinances related to vehicle operating noise and new vehicle noise limits. Ch. 316, Florida Statutes, includes two general preemptions on local ordinances. • Section 316.002, Florida Statutes, provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any local authority to pass or to attempt to enforce any ordinance in conflict with the provisions of this chapter." Section 316.007, Florida Statutes, provides that "[t]he provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on a matter covered by this chapter unless expressly authorized." 7 Packet Pg. 65 10.B.a Thus, excessive motor vehicle noise appears to be a matter preempted to the state. The general preemptions in Ch. 316, Florida Statutes, cover sections that address noise from the operation of motor vehicles, such as ss. 316.272, 316.293, and 316.455, Florida Statutes. More specifically, s. 316.0076, Florida Statutes, provides that the "[r]egulation of the use of cameras for enforcing the provisions of this chapter is expressly preempted to the state." Section 316.008, Florida Statutes, does recognize broad powers of local authorities to regulate traffic. However, the Supreme Court of Florida has held that, other than where explicitly noted, these powers do not encompass imposing punishment outside the framework of Chs. 316 and 318, Florida Statutes, for conduct prohibited by Ch. 316, Florida Statutes, and subject to punishment under Ch. 318, Florida Statutes.15 Further, s. 403.415, Florida Statutes, may preempt local ordinances related to new vehicle noise limits. Section 403.415(10), Florida Statutes, provides that "no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on a matter covered by this section unless expressly authorized."16 Law Enforcement Practices Vary for Enforcing Exhaust Noise Related Violations; Citations Have Increased and Over One - Third Adjudicated Guilty Local ordinances for exhaust noise related violations are rarely enforced; however, enforcement of state statutes for exhaust noise related violations have increased in recent years. The enforcement practices for state statutes vary among entities. The most common disposition for these offenses is an adjudication of guilt; the median citation amount is $116. While enforcement has increased in recent years, there are several enforcement challenges. Law Enforcement Rarely Enforces Local Ordinances for Exhaust Noise Related Violations OPPAGA's survey of local law enforcement found that very few respondents (2 offices) reported that they had enforced local ordinances regulating excessive exhaust noise. For a first offense, respondents would issue a verbal warning, written warning, or citations. For a second or subsequent offense, respondents would issue a written warning or citation. One respondent reported issuing fewer than 20 citations in the past year and one reported issuing only one citation in the past year. Survey respondents reported a variety of reasons for not enforcing local vehicle noise ordinances. Some pointed to the lack of significant penalties for violating the ordinance. Several respondents reported preferring to use state statute rather than local ordinance to address excessive noise from vehicles. Some identified practical barriers, such as requiring decibel meters or difficulty inspecting modified exhaust equipment in the field. 11 Masone v. City of Aventura, 147 So. 3d 492, 497 (Fla. 2014). 16 "(10) ENACTMENT OF LOCAL ORDINANCES LIMITED. —The provisions of this section shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on a matter covered by this section unless expressly authorized. However, this subsection shall not prevent any local authority from enacting an ordinance when such enactment is necessary to vest jurisdiction of violation of this section in the local court." 10 Packet Pg. 66 10.B.a There Are Different Enforcement Approaches Used for Exhaust Noise Related Violations Under State Statutes Law enforcement practices for enforcing exhaust noise related statutes vary. OPPAGA's survey of sheriffs offices and police departments found that law enforcement are most commonly made aware of violations by hearing loud exhaust while on patrol (92%), followed by citizen complaints (72%), and other (4%), which can include targeted enforcement operations.17,18 After identifying a vehicle with loud exhaust, law enforcement has discretion on how to handle the offense. OPPAGA's survey found that most respondents reported providing a written warning for an exhaust noise related violation; for second or subsequent offenses, most write a citation. Some respondents also issue a compliance ticket, which is also known as a fix -it ticket citation and allows the driver to fix the exhaust equipment and have the citation dismissed. (See Exhibit 5.) Exhibit 5 Law Enforcement Practices for Enforcing Exhaust Noise Related Violations Vary' 70% 69% 4 9% 46% 36% 31% 28% 21% 13% 15% First Second or First Second or First Second or First Second or First Second or Subsequent Subsequent Subsequent Subsequent Subsequent Verbal Warning With No Written Warning Citation Citation with Fines or Fees Compliance Ticket Documentation 1 A total of 67 respondents answered the survey questions on enforcement approaches. Source: OPPAGA analysis of law enforcement responses to exhaust noise survey. Citations Under State Statutes for Exhaust Noise Related Violations Have Increased While law enforcement uses a variety of enforcement approaches, including verbal and written warnings, available statewide traffic data is limited to citations.19 Overall, non-moving traffic violation citations have declined, with the total number of citations decreasing from 730,323 citations in 2017 to 562,789 citations in 2021.20 However, over a similar period, exhaust noise related citations increased from 857 in Fiscal Year 2017-18 to 3,018 in Fiscal Year 2021-22. (See Exhibit 6.) This 11 OPPAGA surveyed 338 sheriff's offices and police departments and received responses from 135 organizations; however, not all respondents answered all questions. To address this, the report notes the number of respondents to each section of the survey. The majority of respondents were law enforcement command staff including sheriffs, police chiefs, lieutenants, captains and sergeants; other respondents included administrative personnel. Both large and small counties and city jurisdictions are represented in the survey. 18 The survey question on methods of finding out about loud exhaust is limited to respondents who enforce exhaust noise related violations. This question had a total of 76 respondents. 19 Statewide traffic data is the Uniform Traffic Citation database housed in DHSMV. 20 Other types of non-moving traffic citations include violations such as failure to display tag or driver license, no proof of insurance, seat belt violations, and texting and driving. 11 Packet Pg. 67 10.B.a increase may be due to a rise in citizen complaints regarding loud exhaust noise. Most (67%) survey respondents also reported that the prevalence of vehicles or motorcycles with loud exhaust has increased over the past five years, and 22% reported that it stayed about the same.21 (See Appendix D for a list of citations by county.) Exhibit 6 Exhaust Noise Related Traffic Citations Under State Statutes Increased From Fiscal Year 2017-18 Through Fiscal Year 2021-221 3,018 Fiscal Year 2017-18 Fiscal Year 2018-19 Fiscal Year 2019-20 Fiscal Year 2020-21 Fiscal Year 2021-22 1 Citation data does not capture verbal or written warnings and are most likely an undercount of the full scope of enforcement activity for exhaust noise related offenses. Source: OPPAGA analysis of DHSMV Uniform Traffic Citation data. Most Exhaust Noise Related Citations Under State Statutes Are Equipment Related Instead of Decibel Related From Fiscal Year 2017-18 through Fiscal Year 2021-22, 89% of exhaust noise related offenses were associated with improper or modified equipment. Over the same period, only 105 offenses (1%) were recorded under the decibel statute. 22 While the overall number of citations issued for decibel statute violations is low, enforcement increased from 7 citations in Fiscal Year 2017-18 to 36 citations in Fiscal Year 2021-22. Citations do not account for warnings from law enforcement to drivers or citations written under local ordinances. (See Exhibit 7.) zl The survey question on prevalence of exhaust noise over the past five years is limited to respondents who enforce exhaust noise related violations. This question had a total of 75 respondents. Only one respondents reported that the prevalence of exhaust noise decreased and 7 (9%) were unsure if the prevalence of exhaust noise has changed over the past five years. zz Additionally, 10% of offenses could relate to exhaust systems, but it is not possible to determine if these offenses are under equipment or decibel statutes due to missing statutory citations in the data. 12 Packet Pg. 68 10.B.a Exhibit 7 The Majority of Exhaust Noise Related Citations Were Equipment Related from Fiscal Year 2017-18 Through Fiscal Year 2021-221 Offenses by Fiscal Year Offense Type Offense Statute and Description Total 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 Section 316.455(6), F.S. requires that motorcycles comply with Section 316.272 F.S. requirements for mufflers and prevention of noise. 8 24 16 13 6 67 Section 316.272, F.S. requires vehicles to be equipped with an exhaust system that prevents excessive noise and prohibits the use of muffler cutouts, bypasses, or similar devices on a vehicle on a highway. 147 500 470 890 874 2,881 Section 316.293(5), F.S. prohibits vehicle modifications that result in a louder vehicle noise than the noise made by the vehicle as originally manufactured and prohibits the operation of vehicles so modified. Vehicle modifications include exhaust systems and other noise -abatement devices. 368 899 762 1,677 1,886 5,592 Section 316.293(2), F.S. establishes decibel limits for operating vehicle noise for different categories of vehicles in different speed limit zones. 7 16 16 30 36 105 NACould Relate to Exhaust Systems, Undetermined 327 95 143 201 216 982 Total Per Calendar Year 857 1,534 1,407 2,811 3,018 9,627 1 Citations do not account for warnings from law enforcement to drivers or for citations written under local ordinances. Additionally, 982 citations may relate to exhaust noise related citations, but it is undetermined. Of these, 582 citations are missing a subsection for s. 316.293. F.S., and 400 citations are missing a statutory citation. Additionally, OPPAGA analysis is limited to equipment statutes that specifically mention noise. This excludes statutes, including ss. 316.2935 and 316.610, F.S., which could be used for exhaust equipment violations which may not increase noise levels. Source: OPPAGA analysis of DHSMV Uniform Traffic Citation data. In OPPAGA's survey, 60% (78 of 130) of law enforcement respondents reported enforcing exhaust noise related violations. Of those enforcing such violations, 96% used one of the equipment statutes. Law enforcement reported using the equipment statutes for several reasons. Eighty-eight percent of respondents reported that equipment -related statutes are easier to enforce than the decibel statute. Other reasons include that it is obvious to see modifications so enforcement can happen without having an officer staged on a sidewalk with a decibel meter. (See Exhibit 8.) 13 Packet Pg. 69 10.B.a Exhibit 8 The Majority of Law Enforcement Reported That Equipment Statutes Are Easier to Enforce Than the Decibel Statute' Equipment related statutes are easier to enforce than the decibel measurement statute Does not require training on the use of decibel meters for exhaust noise 75% violations Does not require the purchase of decibel meters 70% Provides probable cause to stop a driver 55% Other ■ 6% 88% 1 Responses were limited to law enforcement agencies that reported enforcing exhaust noise related equipment statutes and a total of 67 respondents answered the survey question on benefits of the equipment statutes. Responses in the Other category included that the equipment standard is easier to articulate, does not require having an officer staged on a sidewalk with a decibel meter. Source: OPPAGA analysis of a survey on exhaust noise. In OPPAGA's survey, only two law enforcement respondents reported enforcing the decibel statute for exhaust noise related violations. These respondents reported that the benefits of using the decibel statute are that a decibel meter is easy to use and provides an objective measurement of noise, which is clear evidence to use in court. Additionally, one respondent stated decibel readings do not require an officer to examine the vehicle for modified exhaust equipment. These offices reported enforcing the decibel statute at special events or specific problematic locations. For example, using one approach, the traffic unit sets up a tripod with a decibel meter at the problematic location, then the officer controlling the decibel meter communicates with another officer who pulls the vehicle over when a violator drives past the location. Over One -Third of Citations Under State Statutes Result in a Guilty Adjudication; Citations Have a Median Cost of $116 For offenses committed in Fiscal Year 2017-18 through Fiscal Year 2021-22, 39% (3,507) of citations were adjudicated guilty. (See Exhibit 9.) Over the same period, 26% (2,336) of citations were dismissed. Additionally, 25% (2,224) of citations are documented as a paid fine or civil penalty but do not have additional disposition information in the traffic or clerk data.23 About 9% (775) of cases resulted in adjudication withheld.24 23 OPPAGA analyzed a dataset of combined data from DHSMV Uniform Traffic Citation data and Clerk and Comptroller Comprehensive Case Information System data. 24 When adjudication is withheld in nonmoving traffic cases, the driver does not receive a conviction for the traffic offense and may be required to pay costs. 14 Packet Pg. 70 10.B.a Exhibit 9 Most Citations are Adjudicated Guilty or Dismissed' Adjudicated Guilty or Delinquent in Juvenile Court 3,507 Dismissed 2,336 Paid Fine or Civil Penalty with Unknown Disposition 2,224 Adjudication Withheld - 775 Other ' 61 'Dispositions exclude 724 pending dispositions. Additionally, Paid Fine or Civil Penalty with Unknown Disposition is defined as a case that is documented as a paid fine or civil penalty, but does not have additional disposition information in the data. The other category includes 31 acquitted citations, 14 nolle prossed cases, and 16 others were transferred, dropped, or had no action. Source: OPPAGA analysis of DHSMV Uniform Traffic Citation data and Clerk and Comptroller Comprehensive Case Information System Fiscal Year 2017-18 through Fiscal Year 2021-22 data. Violators paid a median citation cost of $116. As part of nonmoving traffic citations, drivers may be required to pay fines and fees. Florida statutes establish a base cost of $108 in fines and fees for nonmoving traffic violations.25 While fine and fee amounts vary by county and municipality, the median cost for exhaust noise related citations was $116.26 Section 318.18(23), Florida Statutes, establishes an additional fine specifically for modified exhaust systems or other noise abatement equipment.27 This additional fine does not apply to the other exhaust noise statutes. In addition to other penalties imposed, law enforcement may impose a fine of $200 for a first offense and a fine of $500 for a second or subsequent offense. There is some evidence in the data of this additional fine being used. OPPAGA identified approximately 159 citations with the $200 additional fine and approximately 13 citations with the $500 additional fjne.28 In OPPAGA's survey, 50% of respondents reported that their organization is aware of the increased fine yet the organization has not imposed the increased fine amount, 5% reported awareness of the fine increase and have imposed it, and 46% reported not being aware of the increased fine amount.29 Some Law Enforcement Offices Do Not Enforce Exhaust Noise Related Statutes for a Multitude of Reasons and Most Have Not Received Relevant Training Forty percent (52 of 130) of respondents reported that their organization does not enforce decibel or equipment state statutes for exhaust noise related violations. Respondents provided several reasons why the decibel statute is not easily enforceable. For instance, 56% reported that it is impractical to prepare a decibel meter to target a moving vehicle to measure noise levels. Sixteen respondents 21 Section 318.18, F.S. 26 Cost data can include an aggregated cost for multiple different offenses within one citation. Thus, OPPAGA excluded some cost information that was outside the possible parameters for fines or fees for exhaust noise offenses. OPPAGA limited the cost analysis to costs within the range of $108 to $200 for citations that were adjudicated guilty (or adjudicated delinquent in a juvenile court), nolle prosequi, or are listed as paid a fine or civil penalty with an unclear adjudication decisions. Broward and Calhoun counties are also excluded due to no reported fine data to the Florida Clerks of Court Comprehensive Case Information System. Using this approach, OPPAGA identified 3,573 citations with a total cost between $108 and $200. 21 Section 316.293(51. F.S., prohibits vehicle modifications that result in a louder vehicle noise than the noise made by the vehicle as originally manufactured and prohibits the operation of vehicles so modified. 28 Section 316.293(5)(a), F.S., includes a fine enhancement of $200 for a first offense and $500 for a second offense. OPPAGA identified 159 citations for s. 316.293(5), F.S. with a total cost in the $300 to $400 range and the median is $314. Additionally, OPPAGA identified 13 citations for s. 316.293(5). F.S., with a total cost in the $600 to $700 range and the median is $616. 29Survey questions on fines and fees were limited to respondents who enforce exhaust noise related violations. These questions had 65 respondents. 15 Packet Pg. 71 10.B.a reported other factors that contribute to the inability to enforce the statute, including 8 respondents who said their agency does not have sufficient decibel meters. Further, 36% indicated that ambient noise and distance from a vehicle are some of the many factors that officers must account for when enforcing the decibel statute. (See Exhibit 10). Exhibit 10 There Are Several Reasons Why the Decibel Statute Is Difficult to Enforce' If a deputy or officer is on patrol and hears loud exhaust equipment, it is ■ typically unrealistic to prepare the decibel meter quickly enough to target a moving vehicle There are too many factors that a deputy or officer is required to account ■ for (such as ambient noise, distance to the vehicle, etc.) Other A driver will not rev up their engine as loudly if they know the exhaust noise is being measured 16% 36% 32% - i 56% 1 Out of 52 organizations that do not enforce exhaust noise related violations, 50 respondents answered the survey question on why they do not enforce the decibel statute. Additionally, the other category includes that the organization does not have decibel meters, does not have training, or has limited time for traffic enforcement due to other types of crimes. Source: OPPAGA analysis of a survey on exhaust noise. Most agencies attribute law enforcement officers' inability to enforce equipment -related statutes to a lack of specialized knowledge regarding exhaust modifications. For instance, 52% of respondents reported that law enforcement officers did not have the knowledge to determine if a motor vehicle or motorcycle had exhaust equipment that was louder than originally manufactured. OPPAGA also found that law enforcement officers experienced difficulty providing evidence of violations in court. For example, 46% of respondents indicated that it is difficult to prove to the court that a motor vehicle or motorcycle has exhaust equipment that is modified, removed, or in disrepair. (See Exhibit 11.) 16 Packet Pg. 72 10.B.a Exhibit 11 Equipment Statutes Also Pose Challenges for Enforcing Exhaust Noise Related Violations' Deputies or officers do not have the knowledge to determine if exhaust equipment is modified, removed, or in disrepair Deputies or officers do not have the knowledge to determine if a vehicle or motorcycle has exhaust equipmentthat is louderthan originally manufactured It is difficult to prove to a court that a vehicle or motorcycle has exhaust equipment that is modified, removed, or in disrepair 46% Some vehicles or motorcycles have loud exhaust equipment as 44% originally manufactured, with no modifications It is difficult to prove to a court that a vehicle or motorcycle has exhaust 44% equipment that is louderthan originally manufactured It is unsafe for a deputy or officer to conduct a roadside inspection to 22% determine if exhaust equipment is modified, removed, or in disrepair 52% 68% 1 Out of 52 organizations that do not enforce exhaust noise related violations, 50 respondents answered the survey question on why they do not enforce equipment statutes. Source: OPPAGA analysis of a survey on exhaust noise. Most law enforcement organizations have not received relevant training to enforce exhaust noise related violations. Law enforcement officers receive training on general traffic enforcement at the law enforcement academy and through field officer training in their employing organization. However, of the 116 survey respondents who answered training related questions, 79% (92) reported that deputies or officers have not received any training for exhaust noise related violations. Sixteen percent (19) reported that a deputy or officer has received training on how to use decibel meters to measure noise from vehicles or motorcycles. Examples of training included that the topic is covered in the employing local law enforcement organization's Sound Meter Training Class, using lasers to measure distance required in the decibel statute, and vendor specific training materials. Only 5% (six) reported that a deputy or officer has received training on how to identify modified, removed, or defective exhaust equipment. Examples included in-house training from senior traffic unit deputies or officers and how to recognize aftermarket parts versus stock parts. 17 Packet Pg. 73 10.B.a OPTIONS Florida currently has state statutes that address vehicle noise, including exhaust noise.30 While many other states have similar laws to Florida, there are options to further address exhaust noise being used in some other states and Florida municipalities; this includes expanding enforcement of existing statutes and clarifying existing statutes. In addition, there are options for new approaches to enforce exhaust noise related violations on roadways that could be used for any motor vehicle or motorcycle except for certain large vehicles engaged in interstate commerce. Several Options Could Expand Enforcement of Existing Statutes The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles or Local Law Enforcement Could Conduct an Educational or Enforcement Campaign on Exhaust Noise Educational or enforcement campaigns are typically implemented by a state or local entity and used to educate the public on a specific issue. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has completed many educational and enforcement campaigns to educate motorists about various driving laws and safety aspects. For example, DHSMV completed a two -month educational Safe Holiday Travel Campaign in 2021 that reminds drivers to exercise extra caution while driving during the holiday season. The Safe Holiday Travel Campaign received 1.3 million impressions.31 The DHSMV also completed a Move Over campaign in January 2022 to notify drivers that Florida law requires them to move over for stopped law enforcement, construction vehicles, and other entities. This campaign received 1.2 million impressions. These campaigns can be funded through both state and federal dollars. Local law enforcement also conducts various campaigns to focus on specific enforcement areas. For example, the Florida Sheriffs Association conducted Operation Loose Wire in 2021, which focused on decreasing cases of loose or neglected livestock. Seventeen counties participated and focused on both education and enforcement. For education, the task force distributed 225 messages to citizens and hosted 88 citizen events on the topic. The enforcement aspect resulted in 1,142 complaints received, 415 loose animals located, 180 arrests, and 48 cases referred to the state attorney. DHSMV or local law enforcement could conduct similar campaigns to focus on education and enforcement of exhaust system noise violations. This approach could include the dissemination of information on the consequences of exhaust system noise violations, such as the increased fine under section s. 318.18(23), Florida Statutes.32 A campaign could also focus enforcement on areas of the state that have a high number of citizen complaints or violations related to exhaust system noise. According to law enforcement survey respondents, advantages of the task force approach include that it combines resources to address a specific problem, allows for focus on areas where loud exhaust is a 30 The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is responsible for addressing traffic noise on state roads, which includes noise abatement activities. Noise abatement activities include a variety of roadway modifications that could affect exhaust noise, ranging from design modifications for traffic calming to larger construction projects involving noise barriers. 31 An impression is a count of how many times a campaign is shown. 31 In addition to other penalties imposed, s. 318.18(23), F.S., includes a fine of $200 for a first offense and $500 for a second or subsequent offense of s. 316.293(5), ES, which prohibits modifications that would make a vehicle louder than originally manufactured. 18 Packet Pg. 74 10.B.a problem, allows for specific training on loud exhaust for law enforcement, and increases public education and awareness. Disadvantages include the amount of staff required to conduct a task force, especially for smaller agencies or agencies that struggle with staffing levels; it is not a priority or takes time and resources away from more serious offenses; and concern about public perception from citizens who would rather see a task force dedicated to more serious offenses. The Legislature Could Direct Entities to Provide Additional Training for Law Enforcement Officers According to OPPAGA's survey, most responding law enforcement offices have not received relevant training to enforce exhaust noise related violations. Out of the 116 survey respondents who answered the training related questions, 79% (92) reported that deputies or officers have not received any training for exhaust noise related violations. Those who did receive training typically received it from their individual law enforcement organization; examples included a sound meter training class and training provided by senior traffic unit deputies or officers on how to recognize aftermarket parts versus stock parts. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission is responsible for creating entry-level training for Florida criminal justice officers. The commission provides training related to general noise complaints and calls but does not cover specific types of noise complaints. The commission provides training based on a statewide analysis of need, and any training provided has to be relevant to the entire state. Also, DEP is statutorily required in s. 403.415(9), Florida Statutes, to assist in the training of law enforcement officers regarding operating vehicle noise measurements. However, this is limited to the decibel statute. To date, only one law enforcement office has requested training from DEP under this statute. The Legislature could direct local law enforcement entities, the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, and DEP, to develop a training program or materials on enforcing exhaust noise statutes. Suggested training topics from OPPAGA's survey and interviews included how to use a decibel meter, how to determine if exhaust equipment has been modified or is an aftermarket part, information on factory specifications of exhaust equipment, and how to provide related testimony in court. The advantage of this approach is that it could increase enforcement of current statutes for exhaust noise. However, the disadvantages include the cost of developing training. Additionally, law enforcement reports that the current statutes are difficult to enforce; thus, training may have a limited effect. The Legislature Could Expand the Use of Traffic Cameras to Include Noise Cameras Automated noise cameras are currently being used in some locations across the country. A camera is installed near a roadway and programmed to a certain noise level to trigger an activation, then the cameras take a short video to capture the vehicle, license plate number, and decibel levels. Some localities in other states, including New York City and Knoxville, Tennessee, started automated noise activated camera pilot programs in response to a high number of citizen complaints about exhaust noise. However, the cities use the cameras in different ways. For example, the New York City Department of Environmental Protection uses noise cameras to issue fines through the Environmental Control Board as opposed to a court.33 Knoxville's Policy Department only uses noise cameras to collect ss The Environmental Control Board is within the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings and holds hearings on cases that involve summonses from 13 different city enforcement agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection. 19 Packet Pg. 75 10.B.a data because the city lacks the statutory authority to issue citations from noise cameras. (See Exhibit 12.) One Florida locality, the City of Miami Beach, passed a resolution in July 2022 to establish a noise camera pilot program.34 The pilot program ran from December 2022 through April 2023. The city installed three noise cameras in different locations to test how the cameras work under different scenarios. During the pilot, there were 2,688 total activations and 197 activations over 100 dB.35 The city plans to begin a second pilot program with three new cameras. The new cameras have additional features, including an array of microphones that triangulate sound and can mark the vehicle that is the source. The city is using these pilot programs to test how the cameras work and to gather information about where and when noise events occur.36 Exhibit 12 Examples of the Use of Automated Noise Cameras Installation Date: July 2021 Use: Issuing Fines The city's Department of Environmental Protection completed a three-month pilot program to test the cameras. During the pilot, the city issued a notice to appear as opposed to issuing fines. As of February 2023, the city had one camera that is moved around to different locations to issue fines after a staff person reviews the video and data. The department issues fines through the Environmental Control Board as opposed to a court. The city is in the process of purchasing more noise cameras. Findings: A noise event is triggered at 86 decibels and the camera captures about 250 to 300 noise events per month. Source: OPPAGA interviews. Installation Date: February 2022 Installation Date: December 2022 Use: Data Collection Use: Data Collection The city's Policy Department has one camera that is moved around to different locations to gather data on noise for law enforcement. The goal is to gather information about where and when noise events occur to better target noise enforcement activities. The city commission and Miami Beach Police Department have three cameras being used in a temporary pilot program. The pilot program is being used to test how the cameras work and to gather information about where and when noise events occur to respond to a high volume of citizen complaints. Findings: A noise event is triggered at 86 decibels and over an approximately two Findings: From December 2022 through month period from February to April April 2023, the three cameras had 2,688 2022, the noise camera captured 486 total activations and 197 activations that excessive noise events. Most of the noise were over 100 dB. For purposes of the events occurred between 7 p.m. and 3 a.m. pilot program, the minimum decibel level As of July 2022, there were a total of 1,300 for an activation was set to 64 dB. noise events recorded and the average noise event is approximately 90 dB A. Florida law expressly preempts the use of cameras for enforcing violations of the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law.37 However, the Legislature can create an exception, and statutes currently allow local governments the option of using red light cameras, which some jurisdictions use to issue notices 34 Resolution Number 2022-32208. 31 For purposes of the pilot program, the minimum decibel level for an activation was set to 64 dB. 36 In December 2022, the City of Miami Beach passed a second resolution (Resolution Number 2022-32441) that urged the Legislature to amend state statutes to allow municipalities to issue traffic citations from noise cameras. 37 Section 316.0076, F.S. 20 Packet Pg. 76 10.B.a of violation to drivers for failing to stop at red lights.38,39 Red light cameras use sensors installed to work in conjunction with a camera to automatically record photos or videos when a vehicle fails to stop at a red light. Local jurisdictions review these red light camera images and issue notices of violations. 40 If a driver does not pay the $158 violation fine within 60 days, the local jurisdiction will issue a uniform traffic citation.41 Section 316.0083, Florida Statutes, provides parameters for processes regarding required notifications, issuance of citations to registered owners of motor vehicles, and review of evidence by the vehicle owner. Statute also requires local governments to implement a public awareness campaign prior to using red light cameras. In addition, the law requires each governmental entity that utilizes a red light camera to submit an annual report to the DHSMV detailing the detectors' results and enforcement procedures. During Fiscal Year 2021-22, 42 local jurisdictions in Florida had a red light camera program. As of June 30, 2022, the state had 487 red light cameras. Similar to red light cameras, the Legislature could establish regulations to allow local governments the option to use noise cameras. According to law enforcement survey respondents, advantages of noise cameras include that they are automated and are a tool to assist officers with increased enforcement, the information and video from the camera provide evidence for use in court, and measurement from a camera using a decibel standard provides an impartial and equitable measurement standard. Disadvantages include the cost to purchase and maintain the camera; potential concerns about calibration and certification, both in operation and in court; concerns about identifying the driver versus the vehicle owner, both in operation and in court; the amount of personnel time to review videos; and concerns about public perception regarding government infringement and privacy and dislike of red light cameras in some jurisdictions. The Legislature Could Apply Increased Fines in s. 318.18(23), Florida Statutes, to Other Statutes for Exhaust Noise Violations Some states, including New York and Florida, recently increased penalties for some types of exhaust system modifications. New York requires that motor vehicles operating on highways, including motorcycles, to be equipped with an adequate muffler or exhaust system at all times.41,43 New York also prohibits any persons from selling, offering for sale, or installing equipment that amplifies or increases the noise emitted by the exhaust system. Similarly, no person shall sell, offer for sale, or install straight pipes on a motorcycle. In 2021, New York passed legislation that discourages drivers from installing illegal vehicle equipment by allowing law enforcement officers to issue violators up to $1,000 in fines.44 Similarly, the 2021 Florida Legislature increased penalties for some exhaust noise violations. Chapter 2021-188, Laws of Florida, amended statute to create an additional fine for modifying the exhaust "The Mark Wandall Traffic Safety Program is under section s. 316.0083, F.S. 39 Section 316.0776, F.S., allows for the use of red light cameras on state roads when permitted by FDOT and under placement and installation specifications developed by the FDOT. Traffic infraction detectors are allowed on streets and highways under the jurisdiction of counties or municipalities in accordance with placement and installation specifications developed by FDOT. The statute further requires that the DHSMV, county, or municipality notify the public that a red light camera may be in use at that intersection. 40 A violator may either pay the notice or contest a notice. Contested notices are reviewed by law enforcement and are either upheld or dismissed. 41Additional charges, up to $500, may be applied to the $158 notice of violation fine. 42 Vehicles and Traffic, Title 3, Article 9, Section 375, Laws of New York 43 The exhaust system requirements in New York are similar to Florida's s. 316.272, F.S., which establishes requirements for vehicles exhaust systems and requires that vehicles be equipped with an exhaust system that prevents excessive noise. The law also prohibits the use of muffler cutouts, bypasses, or similar devices on highways. 44 The installation prohibition in New York is similar to Florida's s. 316.293 f51 fal. F.S., which does not allow any person to modify an exhaust system in a manner that makes it louder than originally manufactured. 21 Packet Pg. 77 10.B.a system of a motor vehicle so that the noise emitted is above that of the vehicle as originally manufactured; the fine is up to $200 for a first offense and $500 for a second or subsequent offense.45,46 This increased fine is in addition to the base combined fines and fees of $108, which could result in a total cost of at least $308 for a first offense and at least $608 for a second offense. Prior to the recent legislation, violation of the law resulted in a non -criminal traffic infraction, which had a total cost of at least $108. There is evidence of law enforcement using the increased fine. OPPAGA's survey found that 5% of organizations reported issuing citations with the increased fine amount.47 Additionally, OPPAGA's analysis of fines found several instances of amounts around $308 and $608 for violations of s. 316.293(5), Florida Statutes. However, other law enforcement organizations reported not issuing citations for the increased fine amount or being unaware of the increased fine. The Legislature could consider applying the increased fine to additional exhaust noise related statutes including violations of the decibel statute or for other equipment statutes for vehicles that are not equipped with an exhaust system that prevents excessive noise or do not have required equipment.48 Information on the increased fine could also be included as a topic in an educational campaign to inform all law enforcement and the public of the increased fine. In general, the advantages to increasing penalties for violations is that it could deter vehicle owners from illegally modifying their muffler or exhaust system or encourage owners to fix their vehicle to ensure the muffler and exhaust system is in good and proper working order. A potential disadvantage is that law enforcement officers may not enforce the increased fine due to not wanting to financially burden the vehicle owner. The Legislature Could Direct DEP to Review Federal Preemption and Recommend Updates to Florida Law to Clarify Exhaust Noise Provisions and Improve Enforcement of Exhaust Noise Violations Some of the various provisions in Chs. 316 and 403, Florida Statutes, for vehicle noise are being implemented and some are not implemented. Of the provisions that are not implemented, some of the requirements for certain large vehicles and motorcycles appear to be preempted by the federal government; however, the requirements for other types of vehicles do not appear to be preempted. To address this issue, the Legislature could direct the Department of Environmental Protection to review federal laws and regulations and recommend statutory revisions to Florida's noise emission provisions, including changes to rule -making authority, to regulate these vehicles. • If the Legislature wishes to retain authority over the noise emissions of newly manufactured vehicle and equipment types that do not appear to be preempted by the federal government, the Legislature could direct DEP to review federal laws and regulations and recommend statutory revisions to Ch. 403, Florida Statutes. • If the Legislature wishes to improve the enforcement of noise emission regulations for vehicles currently operating on roadways under Ch. 316, Florida Statutes, the Legislature could require DEP to reestablish a rule for distance adjustment factors when measuring decibels levels of 41 Section 316.293(5). F.S. 46 Chapter 2021-188. Laws of Florida. 41 The survey question on fines and fees were limited to respondents who enforce exhaust noise related violations. These questions had 65 respondents. 48 The increased fine could be applied to ss. 316.293(2).316.272, and 316.455, F.S. 22 Packet Pg. 78 10.B.a vehicle noise.49 The Legislature could also direct DEP to review the state statutes and the relevant federal laws and regulations, recommend any changes to state statute and DEP's rule - making authority, and initiate rulemaking to address rule requirements in state statute that are not promulgated.50 There Are Additional Options to Create New Mechanisms for Enforcing Exhaust Noise Violations The Legislature could also consider creating new approaches to enforce exhaust noise related violations which could be used for any motor vehicle or motorcycle except for certain large vehicles engaged in interstate commerce. (See Exhibit 13.) Exhibit 13 The Legislature Could Implement New Approaches to Enforce Exhaust Noise Related Violations Option Description V IF W Policy Considerations The Legislature could consider creating statutory language that Advantages: Easy to enforce by providing a allows law enforcement to enforce loud exhaust using the plainly set distance for law enforcement to use, audible standard. This could include a new provision under Ch. 316, provides probable cause to stop a vehicle, F.S., that specifies the distance, definitions, and enforcement and does not require equipment, although guidelines similar to the plainly audible standard for music and other body cameras or vehicle cameras can assist noise under s. 316.3045, F.S. with footage and evidence. The plainly audible standard has been used for vehicle noise by local Disadvantages: Subjective measure that is governments in many places, including Florida.' At the local level, based on determination of a law some Florida cities and counties use the plainly audible standard for enforcement officer. In addition, some Create a exhaust noise violations. Generally, these local ordinances allow for a vehicles have a loud factory exhaust that can Plainly Audible violation if exhaust noise is plainly audible from a certain distance, be heard from many feet away without any such as 50 to 100 feet. modifications, which is a problem because Standard for the driver did not modify the vehicle to make Exhaust Noise At the state level, Florida uses a plainly audible standard under s. the exhaust louder. in Statute 316.3045, F.S., for music and other noises, such as from a video player or electronic sound making device, from vehicles?,3 This allows for a non-moving and non -criminal traffic violation if music or other noise is plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more from the motor vehicle or louder than necessary for the convenient hearing by persons inside the vehicle in areas adjoining private residences, churches, schools, or hospitals. DHSMV adopted rules to define plainly audible and establish that the primary means of detection of excessive noise is based on the officer's ordinary auditory senses 4 Further, the officer must have direct line of sight and hearing to the vehicle producing the sound to justifiably identify the offending vehicle and the distance involved. Create a Nuisance The Legislature could consider creating statutory language that Advantages: Easy to enforce as it does not allows law enforcement to enforce loud exhaust violations using the require special equipment. It also allows an Standard for nuisance standard. This could include a new provision under Ch. 316, officer to use the perception of a citizen, as Exhaust Noise F.S., that would specify definitions of a nuisance noise and guidelines opposed to the officer's opinion, to in Statute for enforcement. determine if a noise is unreasonably loud. 49 While Florida statutes establish vehicle noise standards at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel, s. 316.293(2). F.S., also allows DEP to establish measurement procedures that include adjustment factors to be applied to the noise limit for measurement distances of other than 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel. DEP currently does not have rule establishing these adjustment factors, therefore the decibel measurements may be required to be taken from 50 feet from the center lane of travel as described in statute. DEP previously had a rule that allowed for a decibel adjustment factor from 26 feet to 118 feet from the center lane of travel, but this rule was repealed in 2012. so Sections 316.272(1) and 403.061(11). F.S., direct DEP, in consultation with DHSMV, to adopt a regulation establishing a maximum decibel level for exhaust systems for motor vehicles. DEP staff reported that these general requirements to establish maximum decibel limits were superseded by the decibel limits in state statute. 23 O a Q O Q IL IL O m rn 0 Z rn M z K W d O rn LO N Packet Pg. 79 10.B.a Some localities in Florida use a nuisance standard to address noise Disadvantages: Can be ambiguous and violations.5 OPPAGA identified 12 of 67 counties and 4 of 42 cities subjective, with a concern about difficulty reviewed as having a nuisance standard that could be applied to proving in court because the perception of exhaust noise. A nuisance standard allows for a violation if there is a unreasonably loud is different between noise disruptive or unreasonably loud. For example, one ordinance different people. Lastly, it may require a describes the nuisance standard as, it shall be unlawful for any person complainant and statements from the to willfully make any loud and raucous noise, which is defined as any complainant because citizens are the entity sound which, because of its volume level, duration, and character, that is disturbed by the noise, as opposed to annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, health, peace or the law enforcement officer. safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensibilities. The Legislature could consider implementing a probable cause based decibel testing pilot program, which would require drivers to pay to have their exhaust system noise tested if law enforcement suspects it exceeds decibel limits. For example, the Legislature could require DHSMV to implement a pilot program with private sector inspection facilities in select localities 6 The Legislature could define the inspection services to be offered by the private sector, require DHSMV to establish certification and training requirements and an application process for participants, and direct the department to evaluate effectiveness of the program. This option would also require the Legislature to direct DEP to adopt rules for stationary measurement of exhaust noise, as the current statute and rule is for roadside measurement of moving vehicles. California has a probable cause based decibel testing program.? Under this system, a law enforcement officer would pull over a driver based Establish a on probable cause that the vehicle is louder than the decibel limit Probable based on hearing the noise. Then the law enforcement officer writes a ticket, and provides the driver with a notice to visit the decibel Cause Based testing site where the vehicle noise is measured and the vehicle either Decibel Testing passes or fails the noise test. Individuals are charged $108 for an Program inspection. The California Bureau of Automotive Repair uses a noise testing site network called the Foundation for California Community Colleges, which has about 40 locations around the state. Most of the testing sites are at community colleges; however, some are at private facilities, but no auto shops are in the network. During testing, a tester, called a referee, uses a decibel meter to measure sound in a controlled environment using Society of Automotive Engineers standards. Advantages: Allows exhaust system noise to be measured in an objective setting where it is easier to account for factors that affect noise measurements, such as ambient noise, as opposed to roadside decibel measurements. It also does not require law enforcement to conduct the noise measurement. It would also only apply to those who have been stopped by law enforcement for suspected modification of their vehicle's exhaust systems. The Specialty Equipment Market Association Action Network, which is a nationwide partnership organization made up of vehicle clubs, enthusiasts, and members of the specialty auto industry, supports a similar program in model legislation. Disadvantages: Inspections may be a cost burden to vehicle owners. Further, drivers could possibly remove the louder exhaust system and reinstall a legal exhaust for the test, then reinstall the modified exhaust system after the test. Moreover, some vehicles have a button that automatically changes the exhaust system settings to close the valve that allows exhaust to escape through the muffler to decrease noise levels for the test and then open the valve after the inspection. In addition, Florida does not have an existing testing network or infrastructure available for this type of approach and it would be a resource burden on the state to implement and maintain. However, in OPPAGA's interview with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair, bureau officials reported that the equipment requirement is not extensive, as it mostly requires decibel meters and space for the testing. 1 A review by the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse of the 491 largest communities in the United States found that 61% of municipalities have a plainly audible standard. 2 A person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway may not operate or amplify the sound produced by a radio, tape player, compact disc player, portable music or video player, cellular telephone, tablet computer, laptop computer, stereo, television, musical instrument, or other mechanical or electronic soundmaking device or instrument, which sound emanates from the motor vehicle, so that the sound is plainly audible at a distance of 25 feet or more; or louder than necessary for the convenient hearing by persons inside the vehicle in specified areas. 3 In 2022, the Legislature amended the existing vehicle music statute, which the Florida Supreme Court invalidated in 2012. The Legislature amended statute to make excessive noise statute constitutional and update the language to improve enforcement Specifically, the bill removed the noise exemption for vehicles used for business or political purposes, which addressed the court's constitutional issue. Further, the bill allowed local authorities to impose more stringent regulations on sound produced by a radio or other mechanical or electronic soundmaking device that emanates from a motor vehicle. 24 t 0 CL d Q Q a IL O d N �O Z w M z K uJ d 0 m rn LO N Packet Pg. 80 10.B.a 4 Rule 15B-13.002. F.A.C., defines plainly audible as any sound produced by a radio, tape player, compact disc player, portable music or video player, cellular telephone, tablet computer, laptop computer, stereo, television, musical instrument, or other mechanical or electronic soundmaking device or instrument, which sound emanates from a motor vehicle, including sound produced by a portable soundmaking device, that can be heard outside the vehicle by a person using his or her normal hearing faculties. 5 Communities in other states also use the nuisance standard. A review by the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse of the 491 largest communities in the United States found that 85% of municipalities have a nuisance standard. 6 Section 319.141 F.S., directs DHSMV's operation of the Private Rebuilt Vehicle Inspection Program. DHSMV has memorandums of understanding with private sector participants to conduct inspection services for rebuilt vehicles. This includes an examination of the rebuilt vehicle including a determination if airbags were deployed and replaced, receipts for all major vehicle parts, and review of vehicle titles. The statute requires this program to operate in Bay, Broward, Duval, Escambia, Hillsborough, Leon, Manatee, Marion, Miami -Dade, Orange, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties. Florida used to require vehicle inspections, but the Legislature eliminated funding for the program in 1981. In 1988, the Legislature created a motor vehicle emissions inspection program focused on six urban counties (Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Miami -Dade, Palm Beach, and Pinellas); however Florida terminated the program in 2000. Source: OPPAGA analysis. AGENCYRESPONSE In accordance with the provisions of s. 11.51(2), Florida Statutes, OPPAGA submitted a draft of this report to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles and Department of Environmental Protection for review and response. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' written response is reproduced in Appendix E. 25 Packet Pg. 81 10.B.a APPENDIX A Federal Preemption Analysis for Florida's Statutes Addressing Noise Emissions by Motor Vehicles Background Federal Noise Control Act In 1972, Congress enacted the Noise Control Act (NCA) to protect communities from noise that is harmful to the nation's health and welfare.51 While recognizing that the primary responsibility for noise control rests with state and local governments, Congress found that federal action is essential to uniformly address major noise sources in commerce (e.g., transportation vehicles, equipment, and machinery) on a national basis.52 To this end, the NCA preempts states and state political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing laws or regulations that set a limit on or a standard for noise emissions that is not identical to the EPA's noise emission regulations under the act.51 The NCA requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the act. The EPA's responsibilities include identifying major sources of noise, adopting noise emission regulations, and enforcing the act, violations of which are subject to fines and criminal penalties.54,55,56 As directed by the act, the EPA adopted regulations between 1974 and 1980 to establish noise emission limits and other standards in the following two categories relevant to this report: New Vehicular Products: The regulations in 40 C.F.R. part 20S set limits for the noise emissions of the following "new products": medium and heavy trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in excess of 10,000 pounds; motorcycles; and motorcycle exhaust systems.57,58 To enforce the limits, the regulations require manufacturers, among other things, to design, build, and equip those new products in a manner that will not exceed those limits and to provide certain warranties that the product complies with the new 5142 U.S.C. §§ 4901-4918. 52 42 U.S.C. § 4901(a). 53 42 U.S.C. §§ 4905 e and 4917(c). 54 42 U.S.C. § 4904(b). 55 42 U.S.C. §§ 4905(a)(1) and 4917(a) (1) (respectively requiring the EPA to adopt noise emission regulations for certain types of products identified as a major source of noise in categories such as transportation equipment and motors and engines, and for motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce). 56 42 U.S.C. §§ 1909 and 4910. The NCA also authorizes any person to commence a civil action against a person for a violation of the act and against the EPA for failing to perform any required act or duty under the act. 42 U.S.C. § 4911(a). 57 "'[N]ew product' means (A) a product the equitable or legal title of which has never been transferred to an ultimate purchaser, or (B) a product which is imported or offered for importation into the United States and which is manufactured after the effective date of a regulation under section 4905 or 4907 of this title which would have been applicable to such product had it been manufactured in the United States." 42 U.S.C. § 4902(5). 58 40 C.F.R. §§ 202.11 205.50 a 205.52 a 205.150(a). 205.152(a). 205.164(a), and 205.166(a). Packet Pg. 82 10.B.a standards.59 A manufacturer is prohibited from distributing in commerce any new product that is not in conformity with an applicable EPA regulation.60,61 Operating Motor Vehicles: The regulations in 40 C.F.R. part 202 set limits for the total operating sound produced by the motor vehicles of motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce with a GVWR or gross combination weight rating (GCWR) in excess of 10,000 pounds.62 The regulations also specify exhaust system and tire requirements.63 In 1982, the EPA stopped funding for the office that implemented the NCA "as part of a shift in federal noise control policy to transfer the primary responsibility of regulating noise to state and local governments."64 Despite federal funding no longer being available to enforce the NCA, Congress has not repealed the act, so the EPA's regulations under the NCA remain in effect today as do the act's preemption provisions.65 Florida Motor Vehicle Noise Prevention and Control Act of 1974 Two years after the NCA, the Florida Legislature enacted the "Florida Motor Vehicle Noise Prevention and Control Act of 1974."66 The sections of law created by the act address the same two categories addressed by the EPA's regulations under the NCA. ■ New Vehicular Products: Section 403.415(4), Florida Statutes, establishes sound level limits for new motor vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds, school buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles (e.g., sport utility vehicles), and motorcycles. To enforce these limits, the law o requires manufacturers of such motor vehicles and others to file a written certificate with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) stating that the makes and models of the vehicles listed therein comply with the limits as tested pursuant to procedures adopted by DEP in consultation with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV); 67 o requires DEP to notify the DHSMV of all makes and models of motor vehicles for which valid certificates have been filed;68 o prohibits persons from selling, offering for sale, or leasing a new motor vehicle that produces a maximum sound level exceeding the limits;69 59 42 U.S.C. § 4905(d)(1), 60 ^'[D]istribute in commerce' means sell in, offer for sale in, or introduce or deliver for introduction into, commerce." 42 U.S.C. § 4902(8). "The term 'commerce' means trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation -- (A) between a place in a State and any place outside thereof, or (B) which affects trade, traffic, commerce, or transportation described in subparagraph (A)." 42 U.S.C. § 4902 (7]. 6142 U.S.C. § 490%1](1]. 62 42 U.S.C. § 4917 and 40 C.F.R. §§ 202.12, 202.20, and 202.21. 63 40 C.F.R. § 202.22 and 202.23. 64 EPA History: Noise and the Noise Control Act, Environmental Protection Agency (last visited April 30, 2023), httl2s: //www.el2a.gov/histo/history/epa-history-noise-and-noise-control-act. bs Nottlre v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 486 F. Supp. 3d 1146, 1148 (N.D. Ohio 2020) (stating "Incongruously, the EPA regulations implementing the NCA continue to have an ongoing preemptive effect that prevents state and local governments from adopting adequate noise emission standards. Moreover, without funding, the EPA can neither effectively enforce the current regulations, nor amend or rescind them."). 66 Chapter 74-110, Laws of Florida. 61 Section 403.415(5) and (61, ES. 69 Section 403.415f7), F.S. 69 Section 403.415f4), F.S. 27 Packet Pg. 83 10.B.a o prohibits the sale or offer for sale of replacement exhaust mufflers, intake mufflers, or other noise abatement devices that, when installed, will cause a motor vehicle to exceed the sound level as originally manufactured and determined by the test procedures for sound level limits;70 o requires manufacturers and others to file a written certificate with DEP stating that the noise abatement devices comply with the section for the devices' intended application; 71 and o requires DEP to advise the DHSMV on the technical aspects of motor vehicle noise enforcement regulations, assist in the training of enforcement officers, and administer a sound -level meter loan program for local enforcement agencies.72 To ensure the law applies uniformly throughout the state, subsection (10) preempts local authorities from enacting or enforcing any ordinance on a matter covered by the section unless expressly authorized. ■ Operating Motor Vehicles: Section 316.293, Florida Statutes, establishes sound level limits for the total noise of vehicles in the following categories: motorcycles, other than motor -driven cycles; motor vehicles with a GVWR or GCWR of 10,000 pounds or more; and motor -driven cycles and any other motor vehicle not included in the two previous categories.73,74 To enforce these limits, the law o prohibits the operation of motor vehicles in a manner that generates sound levels in excess of the sound limits; 75 o requires DEP, in consultation with the DHSMV, to adopt measurement procedures to determine compliance with the sound level limits;76 o prohibits the modification of an exhaust system or other noise abatement device of a motor vehicle operated on the highways of this state in such a manner that the noise emitted by the motor vehicle is above that emitted by the vehicle as originally manufactured; 77 o prohibits operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of the state with an exhaust system or noise -abatement device unlawfully modified;78 and o provides that a violation of the section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a nonmoving violation under Ch. 318, Florida Statutes.79 Preemption Analysis for ss. 403.415 and 316.293, Florida Statutes 70 Section 403.415(8), FS. 71 Id. 72 Section 403.415(9), FS. 73 Section 316.293(2), FS. 74 Certain emergency vehicles, motor vehicles engaged in certain competitive sport events or in a manufacturer's engineering, design, or equipment test, and construction or agricultural equipment are exempted from the section of law. Section 316.293(6), F.S. 71 Section 316.293(2), FS, 76 Section 316.293(3), FS, 77 Section 316.293(5)(a), F.S. 78 Section 316.293(5)(b)F.S. 79 Section 316.293(7), F.S. The penalty for a nonmoving violation is $30. Section 318.18 2 , FS. Additionally, a violation of the noise abatement device prohibitions in s. 316.293(5), F.S., is subject to an additional fine of $200 for a first offense and $500 for a second or subsequent offense. Section 318.18(23), FS. • Packet Pg. 84 10.B.a Florida's laws regulating motor vehicle noise emissions apply to a wide variety of motor vehicle and exhaust system types, which by definition include motor vehicle and exhaust system types that are subject to the EPA's noise emission regulations. The Florida limits for motor vehicle noise emissions are not identical to the EPA's regulations; thus, it is necessary to determine the extent to which the provisions may be preempted by the NCA. The following discussion provides an overview of the NCA's preemption provisions and sets forth a preemption analysis for ss. 403.415 and 316.293, Florida Statutes. Appellate courts have not considered whether or to what extent Florida's motor vehicle noise emission laws are preempted by the NCA; thus, this issue is a question of law that is undecided by the courts and this analysis is strictly theoretical.80 Preemption Analysis Section 403.415, Florida Statutes - New Vehicular Products For new vehicular products subject to the EPA's noise emission regulations, the NCA prohibits states and state political subdivisions from adopting or enforcing any law or regulation setting a limit on noise emissions from such product, or component thereof, which is not identical to the EPA's regulation. The act also recognizes that the state and state political subdivisions may "establish and enforce controls on environmental noise (or one or more sources thereof) through the licensing, regulation, or restriction of the use, operation, or movement of any product or combination of products.""' Also relevant to the federal preemption provisions is language in the Florida Statutes. When this language was first enacted in 1975 and 1976, the EPA was in the process of adopting regulations for the noise emissions of new vehicular products. Recognizing the EPA's actions, the Legislature provided in ■ s. 403.415(2)(b), Florida Statutes, that "It is also the intent of the Legislature to recognize the proposed United States Environmental Protection Act Noise Commission Standards Regulations for medium and heavy-duty trucks as being the most comprehensive available and in the best interest of Florida's citizenry and, further, that such regulation shall preempt all state standards not identical to such regulation."82 ■ s. 403.4153, Florida Statutes, that "On and after the date of promulgation of noise emission standards by the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency for a class of new motor vehicles as described in s. 403.415 (4) (a) or (b), the state sound level limits in effect at that time for that class of vehicles shall be maintained until the federal standards become effective."83 To analyze the provisions of s. 403.415, Florida Statutes, as to federal preemption, Exhibit A-1 lists the maximum sound levels that may be generated by new vehicular products under the 80 Likely due to the defunding of the EPA office that implemented the NCA in 1982, very few appellate cases exist in other jurisdictions that address federal preemption by the NCA as it relates to new vehicular products and operating motor vehicles. The few cases located during OPPAGA's review were not relevant to the preemption analysis in this appendix. 8142 U.S.C. § 4905 e . 82 Chapter 75-59 s. 1, Laws of Florida 83 Chapter 76-289, s. 2, Laws of Florida 29 Packet Pg. 85 10.B.a EPA's regulations and the maximum sound levels for the corresponding new vehicular products under s. 403.415 (a) and (b), Florida Statutes. The exhibit also states whether enforcement of the state law as to certain types of motor vehicles appears to be preempted by the NCA. During its review, OPPAGA asked DEP officials to identify whether any of the provisions of s. 403.415, Florida Statutes, are subject to federal preemption. The officials responded that the entire section of law is preempted; however, under OPPAGA's analysis, the section appears to remain in force for certain types of new vehicular products. In sum, Exhibit A-1 shows that the provisions of s. 403.415, Florida Statutes, ■ appear to be preempted as to motor vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds and appear at least partially preempted as to motorcycles; and ■ appear to not be preempted as to school buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles. 30 Packet Pg. 86 (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :IU8W'4aellV Ln t4 czi-I 3 0 o m cu C7 -CZ a� ti � � w LO cz cn is L y y O N M d Cz y O U y czL'� 3 � N C1. U_ Q O �o > c 0 c1 o 0 > o W W (U .O O k N M O � 0 0 � E c O � c O O I bA � C O N N � � O n M w W O O r-I N m .a N co I O N 'C O O O C1. 0 z G: � cu U 3 y � N y U �O K O U d p O ,E O a) O d tC R� 30 .c4 M. ^: 14N E ycu o w U fti' 7•' y d O U y y N y CU `° O a.r�� czC U N 7 G�i a>i U N V cz G yC O O � Q E cz M I- 00 6) a r aD Y U m a (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :;U8W'43ellV cq O 0 , cn c Ln w +�-' 0 O Q• S.V., ,4 a� p " E o M t y O O y o y S.. �O � +' N O w O y O 0 o Ec o n. O A. o 3 to o o 45 VI C4 Ln £. Y CZ --q y U U y d LL CL O ti V) y 'C V) 'C tC �•rj Y Y W6 LO 0 N O cz iC O CZ .5 . d >K Q' > .� -Ln � w s cC Q) N cu O y ti iV. � 'C M. M 'C o, N ❑ w O Y Y L 0 C O O m cu U v S. C cu ❑ o ,o O Y y Q, N c G o � O aca w w O C � O ¢ Z O CL s@. ❑ o 4 O o o Y N ti cz Q) O U N N N N M G O Ln O O Ln p Y f N N M Y co Ci, co) d Ca cC O Gl a 10 c o c CD Q) v N _V w C O Ln d N •O � O > N O (06 bA `E O n o C ON n o 0 N O rn CO) v w 3 L O c o a o c N U V c > L 0 bD O E O j CL N d Lr fC O O V ,a CL Q) O @ > if.. D y y O 0 .0 o o v ._� d y o 7 N - a, sm�0 i > R > O > ^QI L y 0CU � cu N V rn O d � N fn 'S" k cu w V y O V Q) QJ U •V• V] bA U tYA > O bD LC+ o >, O N ova_ E �'' In EN (3 •O G. m 0)E U �. O N O 0 0 cpi cm d' cu cu£. > IX IX S.. M ❑ cc d' O 4 y 0 N f4 i t YO 'y .O 0 a 0 O U U ��O++ O O F. d' y M L' ��-7++ V •� U❑ L N G N M 00 00 6) a r Y u R a (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :IU8W'4aellV > y0 u O Y •a, ❑ ' c Ln ❑ v.� o w V R o L C Ln U O X to r1 Y Q R O d m R o •3 Zvi R O d ^O V O aL+ Lr) cu G E Ln Q= u z i o N E O G N N o R bA 's"• U ... N R y LO co Ln iV.. Ln +�'..' d O WL�+ Ln Lam. E a,N a+ N O R O N W N o G p ca co V � O CDG O •GJ L. d' N > N R y s+ E bD a to O 7 O O d c a-,M toCtn N 'p R > "v E qw, x o a ❑ o Co d > p C.,d� u > +' 4: ca R .0 •O p _N N O N O `7" u y O O E O YO O R 2 \ O o E a L. O c E R O O 00 L v O 00 G E R O R p V 0 ca GJ X >> E'er' N vrd C V C U ca E V v c o> V a�+Lj O � ❑ u E V su.� O O Vcu R CL� R O O O v Lam' _ ,O H _ .'� 'C lu v Sv E c L o0 R N O y R R �, R R R R R R ,� �+Ln co Ln R Ln 'O 'O O E ~ L+ ca R G O Ln M Gj O d! .O to V lf] M O R V O N G' �..J N In M N Ln M i--1 d' M O w) a+ col cb) cN0] (•n O ca La E m cC o o cC > 3 cC cC a cuNa3i°i°coocL??0CL:CL;k o so. R y0 O rn 000 y M M a) 00 6) a r aD Y u R a (podab VOVddO asION }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :;U8W'43ellV 0 0 M O O O 0 � O v cn O N V) •z = O � '4 +' n cu r. N N ;-� O U O O o y _p cu O N C� V) O O O U> M B U O W a)co NO N O W it W N •U �" 4- p CW N p O O ti S vi h '� O p N W V) ti Ste" V) 0 O O y N O 4-� 4 J -p O O O O N a-+ O bA U -O -0 b4 w 4 M 4-1 m k O a). M N bA W O 4� V) O ti -0 O O �Cz E p �. O �" �" , O ti O z m = �. O N� O O y O N � W •N O 0 N v� w UU �, cz O 4� ate-' O y U cz ° ct ti O U O O h 4'3 W 0 O ..N. p O 4 � y U V) O O - 00 O 4.) Q) u O cr.., O W � � Ocz ) U 4 N � �_ w O E O m > 4-' bA O O O O H W O � m GL O v� 4O+ " O vi W O a*, v 4O+ � -o O 9 N O N O O a) N O O V) w� p Q O U O V S-" y O W O O O 0 O ,M O cz p p O N w O O ¢+ cz O O � w C) 4 ¢ Q" O CZ O ff'" N [n p ti U 4� � N O O O O O F F L" O O O O, O O O O c-1 W O U C7 O C7 •3 h O U U O 0 -J � O ,O c•� O � O O � O " U -J CA M4" O cu N cz N � U (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :IU8W'4aellV 1-, o O +� c B '-4S U 3 M +' CU °= 0 a a y cC O i O O O c. '1 O w u In, N 0 � .O y o C: ¢ 0 Ca y M Ca Wp Op 0 > O O u] co a, Oo G G r O Ul) Ln s� M M w _ _ co 00 r. O O E ■ N Q L L 0q m ca y M �,c O 00 O d 00 .� 00 w a,cu 1. cu w C i•r O L17 cu U Ln U 7 7 O wO VI t O z o= t0 N Z c0 i. " I.M. cC C a" 5 p W w p W E w C � O 'y0^ N w fC � W C N O y w CO bn cn�� 0 uo• � E . cc 00 00 Ln Lr) C 30 M M O w a+l � cq O a+ cq cq w C O C f: O 'O b10 0 V) V) Q' cu O k CO G a> ■ Ln cn q m O (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ podaN V0VddO :;U8W'43ellV C, O � O O tC ^. CU c w i. d N to 'n O y O O k cz ° O E . W Pq 'O 'C 0o N n co uO u) m m VI A d CZ ti L L cu V) V) a) 'O ti Ncz O cz L d CC U O L tC d d U N 00 PO 'O 'O 11, 00 cy n O ❑ ❑ •3 Ln uO l."I tC w t0 N N CZ 2 d O d t00 d G N �O b�A Ln Ln U a� O k OC G a� ■ A A 'O 'O N T n n u9 uO M M VI A N m N 15. Ln V) 0 cz o cl, 41 0 U CC O y0 ti y fC O V z O CZ U C C ySO �a.�°a N O O O bD ° O r-� IS 4 4- O 60i O. vOi 0 O o O O uILI N O y fU/1O .0 cz CC O O N aCR cu w C Q O cca y y O a'�.+ � •7 Fw Oo cu M q m O (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :IU8W'4aellV 6 Ln U y 3 L cu fC y d "IZ o � CZ U M > � N cn cu y N cC C15 1. O A m.W Or. L t '@ 1C., cu " o@ v v 5 N cv � Y L M to Y �' OU t/ V1 .. N cm CG G f1. p >> N •y bn a1 do tco w c Y 3 o ° O w 'p +V+ ca C N 3. O' N O N N •�' CI.z�. cz N y A >' c0� +�.+ O O p a0+ ❑ O to cd N s. h c4 W V U N N s.. Gl 7s cn rn �. y E bn C V Gl N 'y O d' r O o 5 o Y bn N y Y G O vj G1 ON A .Y• G cA') 5 v o f E W o o 5 a) y Y V O A CD E `� ° -5 O V p do 7 ❑ y �' iD Y cob G N N O V 7 vl N 0-0 cz C � N N A Y X G L" N w NO .N y t3 N 3 M p ° O' O c c C aCZ ° d° .� oo c ° 3 o V) A •t. 'O cC > U S, - C O 'y ° y o Y N � � 0 0 v� E +L+ O p N d p colCL F A .p c0 N M 'p V i. i.. CVO y•I,. O y o 0 ° S: N w 3 O m M p d N o C^ O z S ° U N v ai cm ca c Li o c Cl.a° v y ca c 3 o vcz Y� v an m �0o�Vu o Yd' G N O O CL d V y +' a a; °_. a� ❑ a N > 3 G v @ .@ V d y0. H p O N > d N O Li. t�tl C V (n a0+ O 4. ^ 'O 'N ^' N G O y V d Y +� w U yc0, E ca OV V N -p 3 v 'O ❑ s. y 'm aV+ w cz r- "0 w V y z0., O E ° p p O GJ CC N ttl ?? N V O O O N V O Z Y I- v L O M N W N N M �_ !.7 C O O@ N Y A o �, N N y 'p > E o 0 ,O Gl Gi N E N N O O cC ❑ A N E O ti y -0um N O L E O O t4 .L' O N O' LC N E Cc, C7 > ° ^sV. V N U O •o +L+ N > E p Y cz ccu 3 O V ❑ >> p O U E❑ N >> O E M N .L' >' O O O y; G�J .� Cl X �• ",° y C N U U W Y ,�. O v, y Ay O U O O O C G O v ''� y Q' p N V �. 71 v E O O N t E o O y E E d Q. E ��•. N N .� .� E v U N N > v p (co", N 'C N E �"' �" M M E N M O 6� N p E y N 0 T d O E V N 0 0 ^Gl '� N N N V y:, N O ^_ o V w A w v N N N +-' O N N N a) = > y cz "O .� .d ❑ V U O �O �O .--i .--i y rq� O O c�C v O O c,p) > O CG cp) cp) '� > Co r--� CG CG > • ❑ M tC O' _ti O E-M .Y. s. >+�. M N M O' G p G +°+ y W O N O❑ V v W W O❑ c-I V V p O •O .° O p cC w o 'C W .° O c0 O X O ^ Y O ifi .p. p 4. C 7 N O N O O c. O y 0° N N y 0 wO W d' In cu E 'c a E m R M a .. N M m 0 (podab VOVddO asION;sneNx3 poippoW : V969Z) ti0-£Z:pod9M VOVddO :;uauayaeUV V) S. w 1 U �1 ° O U 4- O w O U w U m Q ° p c4-JC a) t4- O + . a) rn U O N a) cC cn R U S. N � N S. In 4,J a) N 4J bA O C o ai `� aCi -C ti u ct O W) cd: O o 0 CA O O w= °' axi E a�i O ,� C a w o" .0 a, CZ o >1• o o ca O C' ca 4'-." VI °Q.. Cz a) x J N can' Cz E O 'C +-+ .0 c� rn C aoi x o +�+ Ct CSC ��-+ ��-+ Q U cu U M ° N O a) N cz pa 4-1 w by O O Q b!o 4 rt ^a > 'C � W v a) bA r O U O_6 O ct r� N .� > a � w DC p O v a) rn O a) U >C CA O �; cC r"i O rA O N O rz H "'i O +� O 4J .0 N bA S: U U a) p O N ,s : > o C ai O O w 4O rn ° O c�a�_ 4 ° c� a) it ¢Co O "O a) .� O U O a)aj a) G� y cC O V) U N rn y Vl � N w it cu U InN a) 4-1U O ^C U H vi U a) S• Cll V ° vim) O '� 'p O '. C OU C ai O SU. °' a) O a� ¢ ° cz ca c U ;a E O CU N O J r. Ct O W w rCn rn o U T. o Z 3 cn a o �. ° = bn Q ... bq a� ¢ ° ram) � a0i .� CDWx o Z � m� N coa o y ° = � o O ° iv `�" (D �]. U 4-10 ai �. �. o ° W y U O bA w �." cC N �: O U W C 4-1 li �j v) U 4J Q J a a)ct .- W° a U ° w H a. = w W (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiApow : V969Z) V0-CZ podaN V0Vdd0 :;U8Wl43ellV ° 'o 'o 0 Ca r c 0 o o O 3 In c 0 C � O O >cz N 0 a ° O N ca U U O N to >� O � 0 0 w O O c c U CO Q Ca Wcz U O C > r �� woOmw bD bi y O 0 0 0 w 0 C, Cl t O 0 O E p 0 y C C." "0 O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 w CZ C a+ rC1. 00, O. .-. c0 L7 ,� U ,LUi 7. 0 �O tC bUD U O U O U o 0 O O 0 u 0 O 0 0 0 O O Or. a O cu O O 3•�°fib L. N f0 U 0 0 0 o U • U ' M 0.0 ' o �"- Z i O M No c0C c�C O O 4N cC ,-: L� V) V) � � N °o 3 oD `n 2 U r1 H .O O 0 o d °30� 0 .14 O :. y ,N 0 0 o 0 U 0 0 ca S�".. U C.' .4. O. N 0 0ca _. 0 O 0 0 p w O In y t° o O w p Ucq U E ct 6) O 0 0 pD O ° G e 0 VI 0 CA O O O oa y U •� 0 y M 5. � 0 y N "a o O ° > E .O N ,O O Ca Ems» ° A s. u 0 N U Q \ O W.. N CI O N y O O p N •� ca > y y ¢ y ca s. 0 ai is 0 a 0 'O "O O 'O c. .� O N�'6Ui 4' L: w 0 vim] a c > c ca O is 'fir O ca O L. �••� U •N ca 0 CC cC � cC cC s. o � o c QL)l a ° y 41 ocz3 ct IW N cC bD M d ° 0 0 bD c O M. ti cz d w > ° C bp y ti C N i0. y 0 y U •0 0 0 0 cz d 'C > 0 � d ti ti CZ U ^y to tCC U cz m may,. y p d n 0 O tC m w cz o i + t11 w i+ ° j y U .c:c O .5 tUC OU O O N ca K 0 U 'CO O C ti C-O Ow O y G) ti w z�. .0 cC W W0 u u ti 0 0 f'•O U y cz-C N U CISU c.0 w NO V) c°. 0 0" O czd OU d , O a 0 ° a Ln Ln all uj x Ca CO y o n v� pp y p'pw +" ca u U W fn 0 Cc O� O V) V) C7 C7 W c0 0" C > N �0 c O 0 O O 0 y °o :° w N O y O d U t, a > ti y O 0 a) 0 c > y y o y U V) u. 0 u a-'C m w O O y V 0 y O 0 O > > cz N y 00 bD ca y -p C V)� c N o C > • y N co > 0 Z O 0 0 � 0 U y tC yy OL. c U • O: cz w w N z z ON M rn a Y u m a (:podeN VOVddO OsioN;sne4X3 POWPow : V969Z) t0-CZ;aodeN V0VddO :;U8W43ellV ti ° O o y U 0 U m m O o M c 14 cz 'to 'O 4: C cz O O C•. O N y u Z u O O a L cu >cz o cu U C .5 lz o G U U G c u o � p w w w y a. -o o m p ° y 'O U cucz M. O G p C vi y cu M vO -O O w Ucz O 7 C OU CD u u 0 N cz LO a to a) o 5 O V, ti ti O W 4= ° U yCZ L O m fn O N -O o un y cz cu O V)M w ti ww O O 0 0 cu is u o CU o d o '4 y N O vO % y Ur. O ucu x n o O O L. iU. � N V)N cz t0 0 O N w` ��Q) C y „ > u. V cM 0 ww, v, ❑ � tC N y N w0 d L cz S N N d En O N C p u ti cz O cz F u u n cz ti O �� ^cz u CC . d y N M O O N 0 0 0 7 Lam./ cS3 U W fin y N O >~ O ti ° ca N .� O 3y0 ca o c O °CU O L lU y U>•". o fOC O N O z $� � O CCD O 7 cz cz N y (U U fC O �v O C O cu N CU ❑ '�' V) o° O � O cC CL cz 0 cu r ° � , ct 't C2>-5 uw.� a O O cC c O t,, w V O m LO. d L O � -O CL U s. K N O +' O N O CZ c y CO- = O N O F p s. 'o -. c., CC cz ❑ C ° U Q U al O O p Ca cc ° g W m co bD C7 'O i. lam , 7 N cz C cz W o i wU) � ct 'O tC I F° p c (,' .0 w o � V)cq a c ti ❑ �? K r- zCU cz cz u o o 0 o m O CZ ° N :3 O 00 O CY C4 E— > r-I S CU -O cz c ° •^ C y bb4 t cC O cz ,LO, LU• 'O cz o L toz 4 c (U W C! v) =( ° 1. O L) C vi bA � O N O may+ bD O c o cu U o C o U u a� to c bjQ o D ++ cca O w. 3 S. -cCU_ O V) CU c V) w c p O Ln d x ° QZ L]G � bOA iC O C tocz W O O C N � d N y N ' F E c O C1. 3 y o a 4j CU ° x Ct in O O y (n L.o. cz ^a .O a� > u CZ f° K b�D CU is d O ¢ Ov cz (L) O c d tC w C O o cu bD qz C ''0 y J, N O O C u cz O o s0. C w in r•. U "Iz r• O O d Ncz O N d O cz cz O c ; O 00.N. y U o cc ,� o y bDcz cz CZ U ° CZ � w 10. w C cz t O 14 O O O Z d fC w U cz y U O N bD v 7 Cl O y0. �0,,, � y F O tun t0 OV O 14. 1 O C G' ° -O O N N y C)w z u o y U N 'I) czw CL bO y p voi cu N E N N o o•�x T y ; , y y 0 L7 f. O K C O p w w i. 0 0 7. O y t0cz bO O � s• O � w � 7 ^O � C CC cC m QL cz M. U w N O o ° .� Q a o a c w o CU o cz w cz O CL CL .� ti w ° tC U u -O O N cu N� y0,, sue. x O^ O O p d UCCUxxxU7)U F) W � < zo Ox C) ..d" (podeU ` E)VddO asioN;sne4X3 paiApow : V969Z) V0-CZ;aodoU VE)VddO :; OWIVelIV cu _ ^� p +' u i o d ° I= � Z c m '4 x bn , is zo 7Z o °: CC b y a Ca L.N N bn C bA •.�. v. cui �O z O N 1-1 O uvi .-0-� Ca CL CZ o o aoi v U O co O u O U 0 p q O w cC N .O Ct Ca vl O bA O O O "0 U O O O U CC." O x O y O cO w i•r a) E w w p V y C• U � F." O O � C1. > -C, ca � >, O O y cuca, �' vi a) N o f N y �; U 'C a� 3 a O 9 fa g0. L. cz o ca L" O C O b0 C f4 O N w O O O vO N O O O y p O cn bb4 0 c CZ 0 C.L. N O O U O ice. Ca 'O c o o Cz O cu U .�. i". 'C i". S.O. 1•+�" a) (A 70. � 0 q O to Ca O " .O O Ca U 4• O .4= > 14 EO }' C% Coa ^C y N d C vOi COC 'C bO O C" a 2 +�+ •� C C c O N O O p a) '++ N O a) C. O .y cu L L W O bn QL 4S' y' •� �bn c: � O d. ca m w � p �, cri O Q O a co Oa � ozo0 bn E-' N CU % bO Ln • O Q30.. O Q1 CV M Q = o CL y �? 4 C.D 5 x :: COC O O WQ" > m 0 0 � o g:L.o V) O N O U L O N L ycz U U a) cts a) U O •V) �••+ a) V) L U 'C a) L y^ r O 0 w y y C N bbio �i. a) 7 O E O cz O bD o N N ❑ tC ca ua0.+ Lam" Ca bp ca = 'U y b0 O O CC U U ( U K W o 3 U L (A N u a) a) y C O a) a)CU U O On CL .. CO O vOi �"" K , E 3 `°En U w y �.. y O .V U y E "Cat3cz ° Ca U ° U Q) c �" fy/1 (A ii >rp Ca O fA 0 0� :O+ CZ 'O 7 'O ���' > O a°i C. (L) O tOaC 7 Val) i. y O C U 'an) Q) w N OL ,M O m 6" y 'O U Ca x m O U CL —C yap) � cz y t U Ca C .U. 0 O cz M N 'O U U +O+ O CC U O. —1 F •u 'O C O cz O N z w R x vi Cn CC z W z .� c"n Caw x C4 W 0. ,— y cq cq c O 3 0 (:podeN VDVddO asioN;sne4X3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ;aodeN V0VddO :;U8W4oellV N cz w w0 u bD O ❑ ca C". cn O M. U o N y ca O o c N w y .�' U cn O Q p U 3 wct •k CS. ate+ O tocn 4i O O p Ca C a+ N 4' V5 �, C U 'd w y N O N N 2 C," N t0 cC 'L C O s~ U r+ •U S. bA N y 0 0 0"ca ° U C c �, o o° w +' V)aT V U u V)O fC O O a+ N p O 4. U c0 O cd w O O Ln CD cC O 3'"' O N' U 11 t0. O U cad 'm s. •O tC " > ° ° � a z a c N a CU o Ca ado+ .� a�i o w j u OCZ m ZN i0. u• V O U O w O w }' w O p 0 U S. 3c ~_pO w°c°' yNocacu coacn ox bA _O u •° U O `n >, O 'y O a+ a+ cC p b4 O �••' �" cC y a+ y U tom. O .O •Sr O c y• C 3 M> 3 O S.O. o� O �cn 4 cC UFO CL V) 7w � '� N� c 00. 0 u O �,, SU, Cy O u cam. vpi O O O O 0 0 t. U y cC p U cn U 4' O r. U U c�ii N SO- O L U c° •U v V) m V) N cOC O O O U • • • cz O O U = O: G O Vl OLn O N U • O cC VVi N O p Fq O F bA CUCO > G k 7 cC `n p C W y M N G ItIz 4O p O cC cC w F W V W W Z 44 �2,co U bjD C w N N OG) vOi cC 6�i � y O ca U y 0 ci Sr w S. ° y; Q CC C �• 41 y �..� �•+ y U O y c�•+ w N U 0 cn y U O w C," .— O^C•O ate+ wwiC� N OCU o c '� . U N a+ '4 � 'C ate+ 0 0 SO. O 4� O O Sn y U 0 ^O £+" 4.r 0 m O cc CL 0 �." � �"� U ca c�tomw .� VVi co 9 '- U O O cC 4Ni > •cCw ocu x0„ y 0 Ow co O V3 O Op cC cOif U N O N O o •N 'Va°i u 3 m Ln •c ) a)a � ° c r ° (Ua o 0 w a> C1 m > tDzz y d �7 O o Ew°� � 5=s .=3 N y cco ai cu y O n U '� S. c "f°oa ,w� ,a3aoi'ow m •0 o a f4 c cC cn C yU o •y;, y U y U y •^ O O 'o N cC O En y O y cn C p 'O cC (u ^a) C 0 Sr C a) to Z c w O p ,0 .O w d cn cC O c. y N O a+ cC q x (U$ 0 � � o a°i o � °o � ai `° ° •O 3 0 c •0 ¢ 9 � 9, � U' O cn O Q. 9 F w C4 "o m c0 Z M U N F V)i N S. y N S. C y Co N > N > a oG a oG M ifi Lr) w O w O ° ° U • U U U W cC W cC O N s0 U U � y E y o O y a+ w F O U cn F U O p C c r rz U `J U O O O O U O y CS ..Lncn O x y y :, o N .� c. a C." cC 9, C O O Q' m Z Z 0 U cn �—. Cr CzJ 1�0 N to to N d" (podeN VE)VddO asioN;sne4X3 paiApow : V969Z) t0-CZ;aodeN VE)VddO :; OWIVelIV w ° N V) cz C cC a7 V) •o C cz iIi cz C 0 w L y C O N L. ca 'C a) O a) u c. a) O o c w p o A. O O O c�E U O O ¢, O w O a) cz p x. �- ?- ° g (u cz Y. > a) w z. y O > ti a) o w yw., a)O �� � � C 3 cn O tC �' N �+ C C `' O O +' C cC �. i. U X y O C U +•� O cC W 'C O �� s. C U cc U O 3 a0i 5� 'm I Ei C O 4 E C°' cz x Ct sU a�i y C 'c'a em u" y t000 N d y CZ >'CCU , cn — a~ � C 3 O O p C �, a o d o> K y 'C w .c O 7 0� d 5 C A. , CZ CZ 0 O E y o .— " w C u ° °° > N aUi > O i i ti $ a sU. ti W 0 C C 'cC O '+a ��. pUp Z 0cz cz U y O w cz K U r"' m +0 21°' cpi cCC O U i U ��', O C u y CZ CZ cz W t+ +� CU bA d' E U U C O E N ^. O O y U cz O O c0 d ti Z y U o +' tC y U C O ❑ C N bD ^O U U C C w ,� w cC .0 ay wo .p .0 a) C C C aO V cC O bD 'U d a) N 0. � w � o- � � d cz 11 `� +' O N ti O. O C � `�•„ i. w w U p 'O w Cyr U+ A cu �Q y C y0 — a. N O k ti cz C yn O- � w U n C u= i+ o o I z". cjE= U C=- •p a�i C aEi a°i +' F u cz 'yC .0 y c bD u = O C ^C w aUi zU. U ' °y C " ca cc m o o° cacz W ° w TA cz cz ,p pq cp" 14 w C U O to O y Q, •bA w w rn O N O y y 'C t0 U C .O i.+ 'C C c U U p = U w L. cz cn cz cz ti •N tr `+" Z C to by U f].'C cn "o U >, �..+ U O 'O O0 cC. ° C a) o i. y C W C O ca O C L. O O C W CZ N c0 cz ° czN wo O D U OU y C bA 3 NO •C c0. K E z wLn ¢° U N a°i vU c��a o 0 o a� c°aw r.� � r C i'oF cNC C cCOuu °o.cCC Lo w E W C o o w cl) ` E� ? 06 o xz C O O cz C CO w C c V� •° w y O F u N CD C A ti C) O C w o m a o 0 C o ° c � , �+cta) O O cC a� U U a� � yU, cA " "CZy y S.' U A. V y czW V 0 y 0 0 V) O dw. a)O (D -coQ tU. O> o a) w co o C �• y N O V)a� Cc C p V a' a) y V)i (D y 3 y 00 p w vU CV) o o c0 m V) CA o y O ClO -Z O O w 0 w � Q) cz CO a= y ca u C O C F cn Ln'n En w AV.+�•+ cz cc O C C bA a) S. 'In ca f•j 'O .0 p bO ; w y aU.+ycz,V) W C c0a O ca p O i Ca O 1.0 wN W U CL a� cn ¢ y d ao o=' ° z C c O s. �+ 'C �. r..' y ca xc°a ¢CZ V) M d" (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiPpow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :;U8W'43ellV cz a0.+ A. ° U O 0 3 O C O 0 o C1. w G a,w cz b y ��' ^O y 2 cC Qi 3 o N �O tC U tC o ^o O.U. "a C w CL N r l� � C O tOC N 7 sue. C O 'C�.'•' (/) z V o p 3° L. 0 0 y U at°i w 0 Z COi Chi N °wcnwrxZooa> UU 41 �z0.r F � ° ° o o � d o w p cz p CZ U CU ¢, ='00 'C D, .a O t0 C Kw, vi -O O O czu U w T. O ' Ln 'A � N •� O y w u y '4 d y N y O d 7 'J K CQ ai o y M o y 3 cz .o C p O 0 U y �bD d w w O w Ucz N ° V C C cu y 3 0 ° ao..n K � O ni w O O U ° d U y ° d Z d 7✓" V iCZ y O d w N w W O O p C y 4 cz O *" ° p y �,w C ti K 3 a0i U O N Ow°,�� +' ^C O c y cz m m � N y d U C O CC� w tom. p G yam', O tC tC p N �" N ti N- O w w co d C C N jcz cz w m �i ,� O y�i p p y ^O CZ cz C C vp 'O 'i. vpi •O U Oczy0,tC d o c 3 O s. O p e.. cz M O ZP.� ti CLUB �+ ti y U U yU. y G7 y O `ccam cz ° vpi N N p tC d D u O0 ti � O G O C O p O N o O is C C ti i0 C N O .� w O E. ca O O U p N fC O N 0� b 60J N C p� O .� > o � axi -C Q. C c o 06 3 it Q ^ cz CollS. 0 p a) l0 o czS.. 'C O cC O a� rl 'vi " "�"' y U "�" .N. z X Z y w pOp bi C C y �"' p., C bU Z o .� > ai o an CO O y ^y o o ° �✓>xPOCl (%�(% (% Z:E :E V cOa�F V W :� (podab VOVddO asioN }sneyx3 paiPpow : V969Z) t0-CZ podoN V0VddO :IU8W'4aellV U 75 In w p � a) U 'C to at ca� O �u a.. y _os"F o. to Qw� o O Boa o o >, ' 'o o � o cz ° x o ai W ° ca u �cu � o '" a Boa O d° ° u ` `a � o ° sm �; o � o 0 0 ° o % cu 4o o "C ca O U U O 4 O O a1 3 a0i m>~ O C ^° O C �° >." °o o o ° o c o N LO 0 •� m O> a a CO U� a s o c °? o N v a •3 0 .0 3 o °' o°pD aD w o o a3' m o a •5 W o o N a,o CO o o w i'VI o E� i cu UU N o o ccn a¢ o c o co 0 a, ai a) U Nco . y y i" w s O ca "� ", .� O y y I O U .' " y 5� coo-" S "a w o w^ d o a� � � °a 3 c 6 w 0 O w E C V O N❑ O > y y c U ti C C O w a�� u Ln N E" O U d C y N V) o N-1 CO 'C a) S' �� O N y y y O O 0 Ln ca CO y O CL u ri °� E N C vOi - O '� .� N Oi O y m p �n C. vOi w0',' O co LO. .� a) 0 al .� a) CL > CZ , C U bD L. 43 •p .� c:. N O , ro O O O O 'C y o y '>.. rn C❑ -C ate+ A N Ca Lca am.+ U '� i". V) > -0 f.. 10 L". i" fa X , ) 1�.+ OCZ N .�. C1. bD w c. fn CN�+ w C1. fr" O� O 0 .U. 03 pq — L. � M fa U Lam. G v A. S.' a) 5�.. >~' C". ,� y.S .L" CL cu L .�0. 44 o; o k o O r. O u ° a a a i, x C o o c c o ate, ° ::� 0 3` c a aww d i:M 3cu p o a a ak' o Cq y oo•�o N ° �°-Do m °oNo o ooa < =mmoao o¢u0"o64oU�a.3a�a-1 .oQx Y a, C a co H - ° a ar as ar s aU c CO ca $ E 'y C ° C 0 0 M Ll. ai C y N w a '� V ° � "'�co a1 Y Q. y O C 7 ^ Y 2 cu W $•. Ca may' VJ �-. CA v o 0 U U O Y O ❑ O G CZ vOi coa � 'C to U a Q o o A 7 fa y4�4 w C! cii rl V N ❑ N > O .fa -_�" o k7 H x O� 00. 00 v w x p a> O- + c cucL ° Ca O C 3 ,cS am. m ° : O cCG0. E.o O o q,c-1Do xx <a O ^C ca > 9 CC • C in. nz mV)C4 oZxr%Z2:�N Ln d" 10.B.a APPENDIX C Acceptable Measurement Sites and Procedures to Ensure Accurate Decibel Measurement of Vehicle Noise Florida statute and rules include requirements for using a decibel meter to measure vehicle noise, including for exhaust noise related offenses. (See Exhibit C-1.) Exhibit C-1 There are Several Factors for Law Enforcement to Account for When Measuring Vehicle Noise Sound levels decrease as distance from the source of sound increases. Therefore, sound level measurement procedures include distance requirements to ensure the consistency of standards and measurements. While state law establishes vehicle noise standards at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel, statute also allows the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to establish measurement procedures that include adjustment factors to be applied to the noise limit for measurement distances of other than 50 feet from the center of the lane of travel. DEP currently does not have a rule establishing these adjustment factors, therefore the decibel measurements may be required to be taken from 50 feet from the center lane of travel as described in statute. DEP previously had a rule that allowed for a decibel adjustment factor from 26 feet to 118 feet from the center lane of travel, but this rule was repealed in 2012. Source of requirement: Sections 316.293(2) and (3), Florida Statutes. Previous rule: Rule 62-18.050, Florida Administrative Code. State regulations specify acceptable highway measuring sites for vehicle sound measurement. Vehicle sound measurements may be taken from standard sites or from restricted sites. Standard measuring sites must be open and free of sound -reflecting surfaces within a 100-foot radius of the microphone and a 100-foot radius of the microphone point. Restricted measuring sites are sites that do not meet standard site requirements because of large sound -reflecting surfaces within the clear area. Restricted measuring sites may be used by applying correction factors as specified in state regulations. Source of requirement: Rule 62-18.070(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. State regulations also specify measurement procedures to ensure that ambient sound does not interfere with vehicle sound level measurement. Sound levels are cumulative, and vehicle sound level measurements may be affected by other sources of sound in the measurement area. However, if the loudest source of sound is 10 dB greater than ambient sound in the measurement area, the difference between the sound level of the loudest source of sound and the total sound level is negligible. State regulations require that vehicle sound level measurements be made only when the A -weighted ambient sound level, including wind effects and all sources other than the vehicle being measured, is at least 10 dB lower than the sound level of the vehicle. Source of requirement: Rule 62-18.060(5), Florida Administrative Code. Sound level meters are calibrated using calibration devices, which produce a specified sound pressure level. State regulations require a calibration check before and after each period of use and at intervals not exceeding two hours when a sound level meter is used for longer than two hours. Source of requirement: Rule 62-18.060(3), Florida Administrative Code. Certain sound level meters may be better suited to vehicle sound measurement depending on the type of microphone used in the sound level meter. Condenser microphones are more sensitive to sound at lower frequencies than electro-dynamic microphones, and therefore condenser microphones may be better suited to measuring vehicle sound. Smaller precision condenser microphones are also sensitive to frequencies arriving from any direction. State regulations require that the microphone be oriented in relation to the source of the sound in accordance with the instrument manufacturer's instructions. Source of requirement: Rule 62-18.060(1), Florida Administrative Code. Source: OPPAGA analysis of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. W., Packet Pg. 102 10.B.a APPENDIX D Citations by County Exhaust related citations varied by county from Fiscal Year 2017-18 through Fiscal Year 2021-22. Some counties had no exhaust related citations over the timeframe, although citations do not account for warnings from law enforcement to drivers or for any citations written under local ordinances. Exhibit D-1 provides exhaust related citations by county. The citations include any written under ss. 316.272, 316,455(6), or 316.293, Florida Statutes, by any law enforcement agency within the county or by the Florida Highway Patrol. Exhibit D-1 Exhaust Noise Citations by County From Fiscal Year 2017-18 Through Fiscal Year 2021-22 Alachua 8 0.1% 284,607 Baker 18 0.2% 28,692 Bay 68 0.7% 178,282 Brevard 22 0.2% 616,742 Broward 372 3.9% 1,955,375 Calhoun 1 0.0% 13,683 Charlotte 24 0.2% 190,570 Citrus 18 0.2% 155,615 Clay 56 0.6% 221,440 Collier 428 4.4% 382,680 Columbia 46 0.5% 69,809 Desoto 7 0.1% 34,031 Dixie 1 0.0% 16,804 Duval 238 2.5% 1,016,809 Escambia 26 0.3% 324,458 Flagler 38 0.4% 119,662 Gadsden 1 0.0% 43,813 Gilchrist 2 0.0% 18,126 Glades 2 0.0% 12,130 Gulf 4 0.0% 14,824 Hamilton 1 0.0% 13,226 Hardee 15 0.2% 25,269 Hendry 10 0.1% 40,540 Hernando 46 0.5% 196,540 Highlands 3 0.0% 102,065 Hillsborough 639 6.6% 1,490,374 Holmes 6 0.1% 19,665 Indian River 9 0.1% 161,702 Jackson 23 0.2% 47,198 Jefferson 2 0.0% 14,590 Lafayette 4 0.0% 7,937 Lake 76 0.8% 400,142 Lee 137 1.4% 782,579 Leon 10 0.1% 295,921 Levy 43 0.4% 43,577 Liberty 2 0.0% 7,464 Madison 1 0.0% 18,122 Manatee 23 0.2% 411,209 Marion 100 1.0% 381,176 Martin 12 0.1% 159,053 Miami -Dade 2,054 21.3% 2,731,939 Monroe 19 0.2% 83,411 Nassau 40 0.4% 93,012 Lyl Packet Pg. 103 10.B.a Okaloosa 36 0.4% 213,204 Okeechobee 14 0.1% 39,148 Orange 2,201 22.9% 1,457,940 Osceola 268 2.8% 406,460 Palm Beach 587 6.1% 1,502,495 Pasco 64 0.7% 575,891 Pinellas 266 2.8% 964,490 Polk 323 3.4% 748,365 Putnam 33 0.3% 73,673 Santa Rosa 21 0.2% 191,911 Sarasota 124 1.3% 441,508 Seminole 152 1.6% 477,455 St. Johns 150 1.6% 285,533 St. Lucie 169 1.8% 340,060 Sumter 12 0.1% 134,593 Suwannee 41 0.4% 43,676 Taylor 40 0.4% 20,957 Union 4 0.0% 15,799 Volusia 438 4.5% 563,358 Wakulla 12 0.1% 34,311 Walton 8 0.1% 77,941 Washington 9 0.1% 24,995 Florida 9,627 100.0% 21,898,945 Source: OPPAGA analysis of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Uniform Traffic Citation data and population estimates for reference from the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. U681 Packet Pg. 104 10.B.a APPENDIX F Agency Response Dave Kamer Exe[u[We Dim tar is 41SMV i :AH- 11 ;11—r • ai -I r aa6 MQUE VEHICLES 39p1t &polachee Nif kwpy Tallahanwe, F brlda 37393-MDO wamr.iLhsma.gou June 21, 2023 Claire K Mazur Staff Elirectvr, Criminal and Civil Justice Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Dear Ms_ Mazur_ This response is in accordance with s. 11.51(2), Florida Statutes. The department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (department) appreciates the opportunity to review the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) DRAFT report, A Review of Exhaust System Noise, and has the fallowing response: Overall, the department has no concerns with the findings presented in the report. The department believes exhaust noise violations are best addressed at the local level through a city or county ordinance with state legislation removing the barriers to enforcement or application of the law_ The department believes the process of issuing a noise violation should be based on an officer's subjective evaluation of the vehicle noise: requiring the vehicle miner ro take the vehicle to an independent in tion facility for exhaust noise testing_ Tn the department's opinion- this represents the best process for law enforcement officers by removing the technical barriers to application of the law such as mains 1a a nC and certifyi.ag decibel meters. This will also free up valuable officer time to enforce public safety issues. The department agrees that exhaust noise, as stated in the report. is more of a nuisance than a traffic safety issue_ The depattnxent belinTs more emphasis and resources should be placed on stud}mg and understanding the greater threats to traffic safety such as= 1_ Speeding and aZmessnre driving: From 2018 — 2022. crashes invohring speeding and aggressive driving resulted in 1.985 fatal crashes that claimed 2,268 lives. 2_ iWaired driving: From 2018 — 2022_ crashes involving a driver impaired by drugs andror alcohol resulted in 4,700 fatal crashes that claimed 5,258 lives. The department appreciates OPPAGA's efforts and looks forward to collaborating on continued study and evaluation of important issues facing the state of Florida. Please let us know if we can be of assistance in future efforts. Service r In legrfty r Courtesy . Praless+cnal+sm - fnn09a Wn . Eked prwfe An Equal Opportunity Employer 49 Packet Pg. 105 10.B.a This page is intentionally left blank so 2 rn uO N Iq O CO) N r- O 0. N Q a a a 0 CD E u a Q Packet Pg. 106 J !IiINI 1■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■ ■ INIONE, OPPAGA provides performance and accountability information about Florida government in several ways. • Reports deliver program evaluation and policy analysis to assist the Legislature in overseeing government operations, developing policy choices, and making Florida government more efficient and effective. • Government Program Summaries (GPS), an online encyclopedia, provides descriptive, evaluative, and performance information on more than 200 Florida state government programs. • PolicyNotes, an electronic newsletter, delivers brief announcements of research reports, conferences, and other resources of interest for Florida's policy research and program evaluation community. • Visit OPPAGA's website. OPPAGA supports the Florida Legislature by providing data, evaluative research, and objective analyses that assist legislative budget and policy deliberations. This project was conducted in accordance with applicable evaluation standards. Copies of this report in print or alternate accessible format may be obtained by telephone (850/488-0021), by FAX (850/487-3804), in person, or by mail (OPPAGA Report Production, Claude Pepper Building, Room 312, 111 W. Madison St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-1475). Project supervised by Claire K. Mazur (850/717-0575) Project conducted by Marina Byrd (850/717-0545), Joseph Crupi, Kathy Joseph, and Tina White PK Jameson, Coordinator Packet Pg. 107 (:podeN VE)VddO asioN }sneyx3 peippoW : ti969Z) 6 saal}}nW poilipoW :}uewgoe}}d F� W V 7 0 00 0 d am Y V R (L (:podeN VE)VddO asioN }sneyx3 peippoW : ti969Z) 6 saal}}nW poilipoW :}uewyoe}}d � o � o o � a m m IL 0 A W O Z W Z a. O F— U) (:podeN VE)VddO asION }sneyx3 peippoW : ti969Z) 6 saal}}nW poilipoW :}uewyoe}}d � o 00 o � a m m a r ii 0 ti M Erl •C: L 0 .� 70 O L �--+ O •X U > O ca O 0 E N OU C- u O .O ca > co '0 ca � � U •N O U °�°'� a)E0 0 c-0EE 0��� C:N _ -+ 0 U •- O a 0 •- O Q a 0 '� N � U W E +; N U >j N O 4 N U � " �O ��11�1���11'� � U L FO) O N O Lys L > .O 0 04-0 -a O � — co O — O � � 0 — O � m �L o � 2 N CO N co L. NOL 4�U •U4� ca CO Uca ��� �0 p> 0 O M U — -C O cv O•— +� 0 U� O— 0 N O � Mtn CM �tn0 -Cm OO 6n.0 O 0 �_ > 00 m 0 '� to � -C am W -Q �•� N(n M� -0a) 0 4mi � � � ca � (1) L � ( � � � E 0 E 0 > 0 CA co % c 0 E o -0 0) $ -a m 0 g 0 > L c c c 0 E w u CL 0 5 M � . > ujo- >E L(U 00 0000 0 0 � � ` �� � • � 0 V 0 2 co Q � C a e ` c ra E E 5 < 0 +5 0 .E Ln _ u �_ � ; % a-E 0 $ b '� & L Q E .E O 000 00 L M Uo+r �° O Q� �•>Q��a) o.�� +� N N ��� _-.NM N ° +r � > N r Ea�cv°'> E> O a--+ -C ,_ � r �--+ Co O u (� 4 O N y E N�c Q °����� cOvo< w0 C� E L. U >, > E co —0-00� ) v):; cn ON W y _U > >> 75 U L O c L. � !EL O H O •� N O O N 4-0 �L-0cn L-L--C D-+r m to ._ +r >> E �c .� Q O� '3 E O m Lo 0- C OO CO zEo+r°N2EME -%%0 O +-j A A N a) ( odeN ¥e¥dd0OS RN need ]p mpoW:V,9 6 Z �eegnWpempoW: ewqoe n¥ a a ro a w z . l ° u = 2 LU i / LL m y L u \ / ƒ U O LL / j 0 U § j \ \ q \ Q CL / } Q u o C q / k -J §I.-im / � z 0 / } \ \ � / 2 / 5 / § IZ q } j $ CL ƒ / V) / § LO a � k a N � Co U co E U W O >)L U Q CO L. N 0 m vN00tnOnN m CO LO O a N O N E E 0 p U �+r-COM U-C Q U N +a ._ LO O Nz 0 0 a U U to c� U +r O y CO C�O�}' U L 00� cntnN�0 N L C 0 CO 0 CO Q E 0 O O 0 (Da v m-, 2, � +r to ca c co E m _ co 4-0 m .E y UC�•c O C O T p � O O o�� O O coCON L � E QC co U — O N N (n �0 .� z >I O : � � U .L O a) -C 00 V;J � V N N -0E �_ T O E O L N .O C6 C:UJ CO Ln = O J -C �L v v O � O � +r .0 .`� C) N U C E co � c O_+��OO 4-0 �--+ O C L U a) E L N C O 0'O D to N_ E O O �Oa u -0 M — CO C U QV) � U N O N -CN +.. N to U Vj O > E O 0 L L U L N ~ O Q N O L.O O N Ld L �� V L O J 42 2 - N � L o C: (� —Ot E L-Coo O L L �--+ U 00 cn :3 ° c� L O�� N-C � O O'— N E : o o w N O�t L�� .L U p O 0) CIO — 4- >).0 OO�tn V) N c) JE+°z oc+,a° ca 0 0 > ca -0 oc LO :3 � L. a) > O •� }, -0 O, .1.1 O _ L � ! y E 0--oU��m� ��00� ��O O .0 O L. O N N•> > > ° :3 MM 0 0 O aN-+ > 70 L N cm N — � CO Q : +� O m OU Ln O QM E QE O E N y- CLo —� Om oU-0 U V;� •c C U N ,0 0 U_ N O nO ca U U N.0 0 U (:L) C ,N L (1) U L- N +- C > U— N 0+-1.— Q-a U coN:>+rNNNc:a>.� }' +r -0 Co U Q O L N U U >) L OLO},N—000UCN - ,N (n ca O Co ) L U (d U-0 N U E N 4� +- 4� >0 ca>C�O>a)-o -0 L .- L -0 a..r � 70- Q) 0c�a�ca0—So00•—a� NULUV) caMCV) C>N N U U _N 0 U > E- co O > O La 2 ,. )L � N� 2 « / ■ � J :&o LAI ■2 Lij \ » dq ZL F' L\ § ��� � o . . d F-q \ +§ �&) K�\ § !; \\Z A) �(§ H;ULU ■cl,, ■ �Le ■LU © CEJ ■2�� k I (;aodeN VOVddO asloN;sneyx3 palI!po!N : V969Z) 1 sialllnIN palj!po!N :;u9wLjoe;;d row O L W u m 6 c d } u C � a E E 0 Q) LA + Q) o O_ Q O O C 0 O y O s oo � o i L �+ m O f0 N � N C r M O d O .s oc y o n E v r o_ cuo ° t n u m E u uu u u y a o c_ d E c o — o c a o 0 c E O al m U Q M a) 0 Q Q c 2 Lo U C aE U c' U E 3> o U N {1 r0+ U c N a c „ E CL o o m c o m a o z Z>> o u a v a a d x U G s N v 0 O 41 .0 a 0 0 -0-0 o y 0 N a m m a