09/09/2022
CALIFORNIA MOTORCYCLE RIDER ALERT!
California Passes legislation granting a Sound-Activated Camera Enforcement Technology Study by the CHP which can video/sound capture exhaust noise over 95 dbA and provide law enforcement evidence to issue citations.
SB-1079 Vehicles: sound-activated enforcement devices.
ENROLLED SEPTEMBER 01, 2022
PASSED IN SENATE AUGUST 30, 2022
PASSED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 24, 2022
The Facts:
1) Defines “sound-activated enforcement device” or “device” to mean an electronic device that utilizes automated equipment that activates when the noise levels have exceeded the legal sound limit, as specified, and is designed to SB obtain clear video of a vehicle and its license plate and requires a sound-activated enforcement device to do all of the following:
a) Record audio, precision accuracy noise levels, and high definition video in two directions.
b) Utilize an automated system that triggers when excessive vehicle noise over the limit is detected and save the data for review.
c) Automatically delete any evidence not related to a violation.
d) Permit the department to manually review evidence to ensure a violation has occurred.
e) Conform to the class 1 accuracy standards in the International Electrotechnical Commission’s (IEC) standard IEC 61672:2013, or any other accuracy standard determined to be appropriate by the CHP.
2) Requires the CHP to evaluate the efficacy of sound-activated enforcement devices by evaluating devices from at least three different companies.
3) Requires the CHP, on or before January 1, 2025, to prepare and submit its findings and recommendations from the evaluation in a report to the Legislature, which shall include all of the following information:
a) How effective the devices are at determining that a vehicle was not equipped with an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained in accordance with the requirements, as specified.
b) How often the device identified a potential violation that was not related to having an adequate muffler, and the types of sounds other than a loud muffler that triggered the device.
c) What percentage of time an officer was unable to determine the source of the sound that activated the device.
d) How often the device was required to be serviced.
e) What, if any, technology does the sound-activated enforcement system use to determine the direction or source of the sound that violated the sound limits, as specified.
f) Where the devices were located, and whether the location had any consequences to the effectiveness of the device.
g) The number of devices the department tested and from which companies were the devices that were tested.
h) Recommendations on all of the following:
i) Which, if any, device or devices would the department recommend be used for the purposes of enforcing muffler requirements, and the reasons for that determination. If the department determines that it does not recommend any of the devices tested, the report shall include the standards and parameters that shall be met by future technology.
ii) What, if any, restrictions should be placed on the use of sound-activated enforcement devices, including, but not limited to, the decibel level setting for triggering a potential violation for the purposes of enforcement.
iii)Where the devices should be optimally located in order to reduce the chances of a false violation.
iv) Descriptions and explanation of any necessary and associated training that an individual reviewing these violations would need to go through in order to operate the device, including recommendations for what is necessary for a robust human review process.
v) Any other recommendations the department believes would be necessary for authorizing the use of sound-activated enforcement devices.
i) A video demonstrating the device. Requires the video to be edited to remove any personally identifying information, including the blurring of persons recorded in the video, street addresses, and license plates.
4) Requires the CHP to delete all videos recorded on a highway by a device within five days of the video being recorded. However, requires the CHP to keep 15 videos from the devices of each company evaluated for the purposes of preparing the report and documenting the issues related to each device that helped the CHP make its recommendations. Requires the CHP to not keep any recording that picked up audio of a person speaking, if recorded on a highway.
5) Provides that information collected and maintained by the CHP using a sound-activated enforcement device that could be used to identify the identity or location of any individual shall be confidential and only be used for purposes of this bill, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal government agency or official for any other purpose, except as required by the reporting requirements in this bill, state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding.
Background
Loud cars are a common source of noise pollution. California law requires most vehicles to be equipped with mufflers to ensure a sound level of 80 decibels (db) or less to protect hearing. When someone gets a ticket for having a bad muffler or a modified muffler, they are given the option to fix the muffler in lieu of paying the entire fine (motorcycles are not eligible to receive a fix-it ticket for loud mufflers). They can prove the muffler is fixed by taking their car to a Bureau of Automotive Repair’s approved vendor to test a vehicle’s db. When a vehicle is tested for the purposes of a fix-it ticket, the vehicle is tested to see if it is at 95 db in order to past the test. The higher db for the fix-it test reflects the test conditions for the vehicle (indoors vs. outdoor setting). Generally, 95 db is comparable to the noise emitted by a food processor; a shouted conversation; or the inside of a subway car.
In recent years, the Legislature has taken several steps to address the issue of loud mufflers. AB 1824 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 38, Statutes of 2018) removed the fix-it ticket authority for having a modified or inadequate muffler. After concerns were raised about the impacts of this provision from legal services groups, the Legislature modified this restriction with the passage of SB 112 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 364, Statutes of 2019) to only restrict fix-it tickets for modified mufflers for motorcycles.
SB 1079 seeks to introduce the new technology of sound automated detection devices to detect illegal vehicle exhaust noise to California.
How does the technology work? The sound automated detection devices described in this bill are known as noise cameras. These cameras are relatively new, as they were developed in 2020 and have only been in use since early 2021. Each camera is priced at around $25,000. These devices are cameras equipped with a microphone and an embedded sound meter. The camera allows the user to set a defined noise limit. When that pre-defined noise limit is exceeded, the camera begins to record the noise event. The noise level, the audio at the time of the event, and the video of the event are all recorded simultaneously. Functionally, these cameras perform similarly to red light cameras. However, according to the manufacturer of these cameras, ticketing is not automatic; it requires manual review. The system permits a reviewer to identify the offending vehicle and generate a report with a picture of the vehicle, the date, time, db level, and a vehicle's license plate. The report can then be used to issue a ticket. The noise cameras do not have the technology to differentiate between sounds. The system is not automatic and, as noted, requires manual review to determine whether the noise event that triggered the camera was a violating vehicle or another source of noise such as a siren, horn, gunshot, brew bike, or a myriad of other possibilities. Similarly, if a vehicle is in a group of other vehicles, perhaps at an intersection, there may be an issue recognizing which vehicle violated the sound limit, even with a manual review. The cameras are currently being used in New York City; Knoxville, Tennessee; the Royal Borough of Kensington; and Chelsea in London. Philadelphia is considering using the cameras. Conversely, in Toronto, city councilors decided not to pursue the use of noise cameras because, among other issues, the “automated technology was not able to discern between sources of noise and could not identify individual offending vehicles to the degree that would meet the evidentiary test required for court purposes.” This means that a manual review would be required.
Comments
1) Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “This bill will have CHP evaluate the use of automated noise cameras to detect illegal vehicle exhaust noise. Noise pollution in cities is getting demonstrably worse. Law enforcement officers are currently the only mechanism in which illegal exhaust noise can be ticketed and enforcement action taken. Nevertheless, the problem is that these violations can occur anywhere, at any time, in multiple places at once, and typically while moving at high speeds, making the reality of consistent enforcement much more difficult. When CHP completes its evaluation, California can look to implement these systems.”
2) Assembly amendments turn pilot into a CHP evaluation of the new technology. SB 1079, as approved by the Senate, would have authorized six unnamed cities to conduct a pilot program to evaluate the use of sound-activated enforcement devices to capture vehicle noise levels that exceed the legal sound limit; and required information collected and maintained by a city using a sound-activated enforcement device to be confidential. Stakeholders and Assembly policy committees raised a number of concerns about the pilot program, including about the fact that it would have authorized issuance of citations (and fines), even though the technology used as the basis for issuance of citations is untested and unproven, at least on a large scale.
Based upon those concerns, this bill was recently recast as one to require the CHP to conduct a study evaluating the efficacy of sound-activated enforcement devices that are designed to measure vehicle noise levels and report back to the Legislature about its findings. This bill also makes information collected for the study and maintained by the CHP largely confidential.
3) CPRA. The recent amendments to SB 1079 contain a specific exemption to the CPRA. As detailed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis of this bill, the CPRA was enacted in 1968 (Chapter 1473, Statutes of 1968), and similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act, the CPRA requires that the documents and "writings" of a public agency be open and available for public inspection, unless they are exempt from disclosure. The CPRA is premised on the principle that ‘access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” It defines a “public record” to mean “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”
This bill seeks to enact a specific exemption to the CPRA, by providing that all “information collected and maintained by the department using a soundactivated enforcement device, that could be used to identify the identity or location of any individual” and allowing it to “only be used for purposes of this section.” In addition, this bill prohibits the information from being “disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal government agency or official for any other purpose, except as required by the reporting requirements in this section, state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding.”
4) Removal of opposition. The amendments taken in the Assembly addressed the privacy and transparency concerns of stakeholders. ACLU California and others have officially removed opposition.
According to CHP, testing sound-activated devices, as required by this bill, may require a specialized unit comprised of one sergeant, three officers, and two audio/video specialists. CHP estimates the personnel cost of such a unit to be approximately $1,584.37 for every hour of testing. CHP calculates the annual personnel cost of a unit focused on the sound-activated enforcement device study to be approximately $3 million.
In addition to personnel costs, CHP notes it might incur other significant administrative, material and ongoing equipment maintenance and calibration costs for the devices themselves, as well as costs for travel.
CHP reports difficulty estimating costs for this bill and developed its cost estimate from its experience with testing work CHP conducted for DMV license plate testing efforts that were conducted by the CHP’s Commercial Vehicle Section.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/24/22)
Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association
City of San Diego
City of Santa Monica
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/24/22)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the City of Santa Monica, “Noise pollution is an unwanted or disturbing sound that causes adverse reactions for humans and other living creatures. Loud noises in the street can disrupt walking or cycling, but also can cause hearing loss and pose dangers to physical and cognitive health. Exposure to loud sounds has been shown to raise levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, adrenaline, and noradrenaline. Chronically high levels of these hormones can impact heart disease, hypertension, stroke, immune responses, and cognitive functioning.
“The study called for in SB 1079 will provide the Legislature with key findings that we hope will demonstrate the efficacy of these devices and will then encourage the Legislature to adopt a pilot program as was originally called for in this bill so that cities such as Santa Monica may use this enforcement tool that will help crack down on these noisily modified vehicles and motorcycles that adversely impact our resident’s quality of life.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 8/24/22 AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Mia Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Choi, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Megan Dahle, Daly, Davies, Flora, Mike Fong, Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Lee, Levine, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, McKinnor, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nguyen, O'Donnell, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Seyarto, Smith, Stone, Ting, Valladares, Villapudua, Voepel, Waldron, Ward, Akilah Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Rendon NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Gray, Holden, Irwin Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121 8/24/22 19:23:17 **** END ***
