U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 65— NOISE CONTROL

42 U.S.C. § 4901

Congressional findings and statement of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Congress finds—(1) that inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the Nation’s population, particularly in urban areas;(2) that the major sources of noise include transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery, appliances, and other products in commerce; and(3) that, while primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments, Federal action is essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce control of which require national uniformity of treatment.(b) The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. To that end, it is the purpose of this chapter to establish a means for effective coordination of Federal research and activities in noise control, to authorize the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce, and to provide information to the public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products.(Pub. L. 92–574, § 2, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1234.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–609, § 1, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3079, provided: “That this Act [amending sections 4905, 4910, 4913, 4918, 6901, 6903, 6907, 6913, 6922, 6923, 6925, to 6928, 6947, 6961, 6962, 6964, 6972, 6973, 6977, and 6981 to 6984 of this title and section 1431 of former Title 49, Transportation, and enacting provision set out as a note under section 1431 of former Title 49] may be cited as the ‘Quiet Communities Act of 1978’.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 92–574, § 1, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1234, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter, amending section 1431 of former Title 49, Transportation, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1431 of former Title 49] may be cited as the ‘Noise Control Act of 1972’.”

Executive DocumentsFederal Compliance With Pollution Control Standards

For provisions relating to the responsibility of the head of each Executive agency for compliance with applicable pollution control standards, see Ex. Ord. No. 12088, Oct. 13, 1978, 43 F.R. 47707, set out as a note under section 4321 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982). · cites it 2× “IV); the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U. S. C. § 4901 et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.”
Willard Rushing & Patricia Rushing v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 185 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Michael Seide-mann was an industrial audiologist, expected to testify on sound measurements, taken both in the past and possibly in the future, of noise levels at the switchyard, to establish that the sound emissions originating in the yard complied with federal regulations…”
California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987). · cites it 2× “42 U. S. C. § 4901 (a)(3) (Noise Control Act provision stating that the "primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments").”
New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n v. Town of Plaistow, 67 F.3d 326 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “On October 25,1993, the district court granted the town’s motion to dismiss, for failure to state a claim, the appellants’ claim that the injunction was preempted by the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq. New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass’n v.”
Barcelo v. Brown, 478 F. Supp. 646 (D.P.R. 1979). · cites it 3× “); the Noise Control Act of 1972 ( 42 U.S.C. §§ 4901 et seq.) and the general Nuisance Law of Puerto Rico (33 L.”
Torres Maysonet v. Drillex, S.E., 229 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.P.R. 2002). · cites it 2× “, the Noise Control Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq., as well as Puerto Rico Law No.”
Worthington Compressors, Inc. v. Costle, 662 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “42 U.S.C. § 4901 (b) (1976). . Id § 4905(c)(1).”
Atlas Copco, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 642 F.2d 458 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 3× “1234 (1972), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4901 et seq. (1976). . 40 C.”
Puerto Rico Ex Rel. Sec'y of Just. v. Rumsfeld, 180 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 5× “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ naval exercises violate the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq., and Puerto Rico’s local environmental noise control law, namely the Noise Prohibition Act of 2001.”
S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of the State of Oregon, & Its Members, 9 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 1993). “, the Noise Control Act (“NCA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4901 , et seq., and the Federal Railroad Safety Act (“FRSA”), 45 U.”
Air Pollution Variance Bd. of Colo. v. W. Alfalfa Corp., 416 U.S. 861 (1974). “1234 , 42 U. S. C. § 4901 et.seq. (1970 ed., Supp.”
Nashvillians Against I-440 v. Lewis, 524 F. Supp. 962 (M.D. Tenn. 1981). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs suggest that defendants have run afoul of the Noise Control Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq. Initially, the court’s reaction is that the Act appears to set forth no specific standard applicable to this case at all.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.