BarkingDogs.net

Go to the index for this article

Go back to section six of this article

Section Seven of a seven-part article:
The Dormant Noise Control Act and options to abate noise pollution

IV. CONCLUSION

The NCA is by any measure a public policy failure. In the NCA'S first decade, EPA had made a reasonable start in implementing the Act, but it was a long way from finishing its noise agenda at the time ONAC was disbanded. Some emissions standards were promulgated, but fewer than the significant noise sources identified by EPA as requiring regulation. Almost no progress was made concerning labeling or purchase by the federal government of low noise products. ONAC made significant strides concerning scientific and technical research, coordination, support of local and state noise abatement, and noise education, but funding was eliminated just as the initial fruits of these labors became apparent. The second decade of the Act has been marked by almost no federal noise abatement activity, and with a marked decline in state and local activity. EPA is barely able to enforce its regulations, and fiscal limitations prevent it from updating them although several are out of date or inadequate to protect the public.

Despite this desolate picture, there has been little public outcry primarily because noise pollution lacks the type of strong, organized public constituency that fights other types of pollution, and because EPA has acquiesced in its lack of funding. In the meantime, noise pollution apparently remains at levels equal or above the last estimate in 1981, when it was significant.

The 10 year hiatus in implementing the NCA gives EPA the time and distance necessary to identify and avoid the mistakes ONAC made. Unlike previously, EPA should consider emissions standards as a last resort to be used only if market-related approaches and state and local regulation are likely to fail. This approach requires EPA to support nonregulatory activities which minimize the need for federal regulation, such as an infrastructure for local abatement and liaison with private standard-setting organizations.

The NCA'S goal of a quieter country does not deserve the irresponsible treatment that Congress and the EPA gave it. EPA can redeem itself by showing how a modest program employing thoughtful public policy can improve the health and welfare of its citizens. Such a step would not only reduce noise pollution, but it would speak loudly of EPA's dedication to environmental protection.

End of a seven-part article: The Dormant Noise Control Act and options to abate noise pollution

Go to the index for this article

This page about the Noise Control Act is part of Section Five:
which is a subset of the Politics of Noise, and the Activist sections of barkingdogs.net