Fairfax County officials are cautiously optimistic about the prospects for state legislation that would let certain localities use monitoring equipment to fine owners of excessively noisy vehicles.
House Bill 55, patroned for a second year by Del. Rip Sullivan (D-6), passed the House of Delegates yesterday (Tuesday) on a 64-34 vote after a third reading.
“We’re very excited that it’s moved as far as it has,” said Kristine Prentice, an analyst at the Fairfax County Department of Transportation, told the Board of Supervisors’ Legislative Committee last Friday (Feb. 13), prior to the vote.
Once the measure passed the House, the hope is it will “sail through in the Senate” and onto the desk of Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D), Prentice said.
Last year, Sullivan’s bill made it to the desk of then-Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), only to be vetoed on the grounds that localities already have “sufficient” authority to enforce vehicle noise restrictions and that allowing monitoring devices only in some areas would create “inconsistent enforcement and confusion.”
The action disappointed county supervisors, who had supported the measure as it surmounted hurdles while under consideration by the General Assembly.
Sullivan told a House innovations subcommittee on Feb. 5 that he was “puzzled” by the veto and Youngkin’s concerns about the pilot program causing confusion for drivers, given that altering a vehicle’s muffler to allow more noise is already illegal in Virginia.
“[The bill] had momentum, and I was getting lots and lots of positive reactions from constituents, candidly, all around the state,” Sullivan said, adding that Youngkin’s explanation was “essentially saying someone violating the law wouldn’t know where they were going to get caught and where they weren’t going to get caught, sort of putting the violators above the citizens.”
Like the 2025 bill, Sullivan’s 2026 measure would allow localities in certain parts of the commonwealth to use noise monitoring sensors for a two-year trial period, sunsetting in July 2028. Owners of vehicles found to be exceeding 95 decibels could be fined up to $100.
Initially, the bill would have allowed pilot programs in jurisdictions within Planning District 8 (Northern Virginia) and 16 (the I-95 corridor down to Richmond).
As it moved through the House of Delegates, the measure was amended to add in Planning District 9, which incorporates the southwestern outer suburbs of Northern Virginia, and District 15, the Richmond metro area.
During the Feb. 5 innovations subcommittee hearing on the bill, Sullivan said those districts had been added as possible pilot locations at the request of their delegates, who heard similar complaints from their constituents.
“Where I come from and where several other delegates come from, these after-market mufflers are enormously disruptive and, in fact, even dangerous, because some of them can sound like gunfire. People have been known to call the police because they’re afraid there are guns firing outside their homes,” Sullivan said, describing the noise abatement systems as sensors that would be placed by the side of the road.
During the pilot, participating localities would be required to publish information on their websites about how often they’re deploying the sensors, he noted. The measure also includes protections allowing people to contest a ticket.
The bill was also amended to include commercial vehicles in addition to personal ones. That change was the result of an agreement to incorporate a bill from Del. John Chilton McAuliff (D-30), who had proposed regulating the use of compression release engine brakes, or “Jake brakes,” on trucks in response to noise complaints.
Dale Bennett with the Virginia Trucking Association expressed support for Sullivan’s bill as an alternative to banning engine compression brakes, which he described as safety devices that help diesel-powered vehicles stop quicker.
“Banning a safety device is not the answer. So, let’s get at the problem, and that’s the noise, and Del. Sullivan’s bill does that,” Bennett said. “It provides a pilot so we can figure out if this approach is the way to enforce that noise against those who have illegally modified their exhaust system.”
A representative from the Virginia Farm Bureau testified that the organization was working with Sullivan and McAuliff to potentially exempt agriculture and forestry haulers from the legislation.
Dranesville District Supervisor Jimmy Bierman also testified at the subcommittee hearing, relaying Fairfax County’s support for Sullivan’s bill.
“It will help our police enforce what is the law currently,” Bierman said. “When I talk to police officers, they say it’s really hard to know exactly what the decibel level of a car going by you is. This gives them a potential tool, and the county of Fairfax has been very supportive of this bill.”
Del. Jackie Hope Glass (D-93), who chairs the House Transportation Committee’s innovations subcommittee, thanked Bierman for his “enthusiasm.”
If HB 55 is adopted, violations issued during the pilot would not be criminal offenses and would not be reported to insurance agencies. The bill contains the same data privacy and storage requirements that are embedded in current law for speed-monitoring cameras.
Localities that implement the pilot program would be required to annually report data about the number of citations issued and the total amount of penalties collected.
