The recommendation republished here (from 1 CFR 305.92-6) concerns reestablishing the EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control.|
The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), an independent agency and advisory committee created in 1968, studied U.S. administrative processes with an eye to recommending improvements to Congress and agencies. From 1968 to 1995 the ACUS issued approximately 200 recommendations, most of which have been at least partially implemented.
Congressional funding for ACUS was terminated in 1995. ACUS's recommendations were published periodically in the Code of Federal Regulations (1 CFR Part 305) prior to 1995.
Section 305.92-6 Implementation of the Noise Control Act (Recommendation No. 92-6).
In 1981, Congress agreed to the Administration's proposal to cease funding for the Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC) in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Congress, however, did not repeal the Noise Control Act [FN 1] when it eliminated ONAC's funding.
Before the elimination of ONAC, EPA engaged in a wide variety of activities to abate noise pollution under authority of the Noise Control Act and, after 1978, the Quiet Communities Act. [FN 2] These included identifying sources of noise for regulation, promulgating noise emission standards, coordinating federal noise research and noise abatement, working with industry and international, state and local regulators to develop consensus standards, disseminating information and educational materials, and sponsoring research concerning the effects of noise and the methods by which it can be abated. The Quiet Communities Act authorized EPA to provide grants to state and local governments for noise abatement.
The Conference recognizes that the decision to end funding was substantive rather than procedural, but, in part, the impact has been procedural. [FN 3] No procedure has been available for a decade to reexamine the existing preemptive standards to take into account developments in science and technology that may bear on implementation of the legislative intent. Elimination of funding for the agency's noise control program has had the additional procedural effect of leaving several proposed but unissued standards pending for a decade without final action by EPA.
1. In considering its authority and responsibility under the Noise Control Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should analyze the preemptive impact of its existing and pending noise standards for the purpose of eliminating, where possible, any unintended impacts. EPA should then advise the appropriate congressional committees respecting the preemptive effects of EPA's possibly outmoded regulations under the Noise Control Act, [FN 5] or any other implications of the cessation of funding respecting the agency's responsibilities under the Act.
(b) Whether there is a need to update EPA's past methodology for measuring and assessing the effects of noise;
(c) The appropriate allocation of responsibility among federal agencies, and between the federal government and the states and localities, in accomplishing any goals determined by Congress respecting regulation of noise, educating the public on the dangers posed by noise, and sponsoring research into noise effects and abatement techniques;
(d) Whether there is a need for additional coordination of the noise abatement activities of federal agencies and the states and localities; (e) The adequacy of current coordination between the United States and foreign government agencies concerning noise abatement standards and regulations impacting U.S. international trade; [FN 6]
[FN 6] See Conference Recommendation 91-1, "Federal Agency Cooperation with Foreign Government Regulators," 1 CFR 305.91-1
(f) Any appropriate federal government participation in the activities of private-sector standard-setting organizations concerning noise; [FN 7] and
[FN 7] See Conference Recommendation 78-4, "Federal Agency Interaction with Private Standard-Setting Organizations in Health and Safety Regulations." 1 CFR 305.78-4.
(g) The relative advantages and disadvantages of utilizing public education, market incentives, emission standards, or other approaches for any abatement of noise that Congress may wish to pursue.
[57 FR 30110, July 8,
1992; 57 FR 44791, Sept. 29, 1992]
Authority: 5 U.S.C.
SOURCE: 38 FR 19782, July
23, 1973; 57 FR 61760, 61768, Dec. 29, 1992, unless