Legislative Analysis
Phone: (517) 373-8080
MOTOR VEHICLE NOISE REGULATION
http://www.house.mi.gov/hfa
House Bill 5696 (H-2) as adopted Analysis available at
Sponsor: Rep. Natalie Price http://www.legislature.mi.gov
Committee: Transportation, Mobility and Infrastructure
Complete to 7-24-24
SUMMARY:
House Bill 5696 would amend the Michigan Vehicle Code to increase fines for certain
violations involving vehicle exhaust systems and noise production. A fine reduction or waiver
would apply in certain cases for those who bring their vehicle into compliance before the ticket
court date.
Cutouts, bypasses, amplifiers, or similar devices
The code currently prohibits operating a vehicle on a highway or street if the vehicle’s exhaust
system is equipped with a cutout, bypass, amplifier, or similar device. A person violating the
prohibition is responsible for a civil infraction and subject to a civil fine of up to $100.
Under the bill, a person violating the prohibition would be responsible for a civil infraction and
would have to be ordered to pay a civil fine as follows:
• For a first violation, a civil fine of $500. However, if, before the appearance date on
the citation, the person submits sufficient proof to the court that the motor vehicle is
no longer in violation, the court could not assess a fine or costs.
• For a second violation, a civil fine of $1,000. However, if, before the appearance date
on the citation, the person submits sufficient proof to the court that the motor vehicle
is no longer in violation, the fine would be reduced to $500.
• For a third or subsequent violation, a civil fine of $1,000.
For purposes of keeping count of violations, the bill would require the clerk of the court to
forward an abstract of the court record to the secretary of state upon an individual’s conviction
or a finding or admission of responsibility for violating the above prohibition.
Exhaust system generally
The code now requires that a motor vehicle, while being operated on a highway or street, must
be equipped with an exhaust system in good working order to prevent excessive or unusual
noise and must be equipped to prevent noise in excess of the limits established in the code. A
person who violates this provision is responsible for a civil infraction.
The bill would delete the phrase italicized above. A person who violates the provision would
still be responsible for a civil infraction, but if, before the appearance date on the citation, the
person submits sufficient proof to the court that the motor vehicle is no longer in violation,
then the court could not assess a fine or costs.
House Fiscal Agency Page 1 of 3
 Dealer/mechanic violations
Currently under the code, a person violating the following provisions is either responsible for
a civil infraction and subject to a civil fine of up to $100 or guilty of a misdemeanor punishable
by a fine of $100: 1
• A dealer selling or offering for sale a new motor vehicle that produces a maximum
noise exceeding specified decibel limits.
• A person selling, installing, or replacing a muffler or exhaust part that causes the motor
vehicle to exceed the noise limits established by the code or a rule issued under it.’
• A dealer selling a used motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the code.
Under the bill, a person violating the above would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a
fine of $500 for a first violation or $1,000 for a subsequent one. (Under both current law and
the bill, a violation by a licensed dealer of the second or third items bulleted above is also prima
facie evidence of a fraudulent act under section 249 of the code.)
Other provisions
A person who operates a motor vehicle on a highway or street if any of the following apply is
currently responsible for a civil infraction and subject to a civil fine of up to $100:
• The vehicle produces total noise exceeding specified decibel limits.
• The vehicle has a defect in the exhaust system that affects sound reduction.
• The vehicle is not equipped with a muffler or other noise dissipating device.
Under the bill, a person who violates the above would still be responsible for a civil infraction,
but if, before the appearance date on the citation, the person submits sufficient proof to the
court that the motor vehicle is no longer in violation, then the court could not assess a fine or
costs.
The bill also would remove a provision that now prohibits a person from modifying, repairing,
replacing, or removing a part of an exhaust system causing the motor vehicle to produce noise
in excess of the levels established by the code, or from operating such a vehicle on a street or
highway.
Finally, the bill would specifically provide that no points are to be entered on a driver’s record
for a violation of section 707c (which contains all of the prohibitions and requirements
described above, except that under “Exhaust system generally.”)
The bill would take effect 90 days after enactment.
MCL 257.252d et seq.
FISCAL IMPACT:
House Bill 5696 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the state and on local units of
government. The number of individuals who would be held responsible for civil infractions
1
2020 PA 382 added language providing that a person who violates section 702c of the code is responsible for a civil
infraction and must be ordered to pay a civil fine of up to $100. However, specific penalties for violating section 702c
were already contained in section 702d, which 2020 PA 382 did not amend. The bill would eliminate this potential
conflict in current law by removing the 2020 civil infraction language.
House Fiscal Agency HB 5696 (H-2) as adopted by the House Page 2 of 3
 under the bill is not known. Under section 909(1) of the Michigan Vehicle Code, civil fine
revenue would be applied to the support of public and county law libraries. In addition, under
section 907(13) of the Michigan Vehicle Code, for any civil fines ordered to be paid, the judge
or district court magistrate is required to order the defendant to pay a justice system assessment
of $40 for each civil infraction determination, except for parking violations. Revenue deposited
into the state’s Justice System Fund supports various justice-related endeavors in the judicial
branch, the Departments of State Police, Corrections, Health and Human Services, and
Treasury, and the Legislative Retirement System. There is not a practical way to determine the
number of violations that will occur under provisions of the bill, so there is not a way to
estimate the amount of additional revenue that would be collected. The fiscal impact on local
court systems would depend on how provisions of the bill affected court caseloads and related
administrative costs. It is difficult to project the actual fiscal impact to courts due to variables
such as law enforcement practices, prosecutorial practices, judicial discretion, case types, and
complexity of cases.
POSITIONS:
Representatives of the following entities testified in support of the bill (5-21-24):
• Birmingham Police Department
• City of Pleasant Ridge
• City of Royal Oak
• Royal Oak Police Department
The following entities indicated support for the bill (5-21-24):
• Bloomfield Township Police Department
• City of Berkley
• City of Bloomfield
• City of Birmingham
• City of Ferndale
• City of Huntington Woods
• City of Southfield
• League of Michigan Bicyclists
• Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan
The Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police indicated support for the bill. (6-4-24)
Legislative Analyst: E. Best
Fiscal Analyst: Robin Risko
■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their
deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Fiscal Agency HB 5696 (H-2) as adopted by the House Page 3 of 3


Statutes affected:
Substitute (H-2): 257.252
House Introduced Bill: 257.252