Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
motor vehicles, circulation devices, refuse compacting vehicles, commercial music,
etc. but it also asked the New York City Department of Environmental Protection
to study airport noise, essentially controlled by the federal government, and tran-
sit noise, under the purview of the state government. Federal or state control of
a particular source of noise does not prevent a city from studying the effects of
that noise source on its citizens. Data from such local studies can in turn influ-
ence federal or state noise control legislation. In July 2007, New York City updated
its lengthy 1972 noise code to better cope with the multitude of noises to which
its residents are now exposed daily. However, it is not just New York City that
is responding to the demand by citizens for less noise. Across the United States,
ordinances have been passed by states, counties, and cities in an attempt to con-
trol environmental noise. Some of these ordinances make it illegal for sounds to be
audible at certain distances; some link dB restrictions to certain times of the day
or night; and some require the use sound meters to ascertain whether disturbing
sounds exceed specific decibel limits. Using a different approach, California and
Illinois, among others, employ the clearly audible standard in determining illegality
of amplified sounds emanating from motor vehicles. For additional information, see
the following websites: www.noiseoff.org, www.nonoise.org.
The United States federal government passed the Noise Control Act in 1972
to protect its citizens from noise and ONAC was charged with enforcing this act.
ONAC had undertaken efforts to educate citizens to the dangers of noise with its
many publications and encouraged states to develop anti-noise programs. ONAC
was about to launch efforts to urge manufacturers to quiet their products when for-
mer President Ronald Reagan defunded the office [60]. The act that established
ONAC has not been rescinded but without funding, ONAC cannot function and
efforts to refund ONAC have not been successful. Essentially, the federal govern-
ment is “
legally responsible for developing and coordinating a national noise
policy, reviewing the noise-related policies and regulations of federal agencies, and
establishing noise-emission standards and labeling for products distributed in com-
merce” [61]. However, the federal government has opted to ignore its own policy
regarding noise and it has been left to cities and states to limit environmental noise.
However, passing legislation, as the American cities and towns have done, is not
enough; laws must be enforced.
Thirty years ago, the United States federal government acknowledged that noise
could be controlled at its source, which is the most desirable way to eliminate
environmental noise. The EPA then claimed that it would “
...
soon be requiring
noise labels on consumer products that will enable you to compare the loudness of
appliances before you buy them” [62]. Russell Train, the then EPA administrator,
stated: “The aircraft manufacturers can and should make aircraft substantially qui-
eter than they are today” [63]. In the 1970s the United States government believed
that technology could be developed to mitigate unwanted sounds at the source.
Airplanes, motor vehicles, trains, and appliances could be made quieter but with-
out the pressure and/or encouragement of ONAC, manufacturers proceeded at their
own, slower pace. It seems clear that legislation and government involvement are
essential elements in driving technology.
...
