H.R. 6927 would amend the Noise Control Act of 1972 to create a formal mechanism for reviewing and potentially revising the noise criteria. It adds a new subsection that requires a timely initial review not later than two years after enactment and a minimum cadence of not less than once every ten years thereafter.
If the Administrator determines revision is necessary, the bill requires that revision or supplementation be carried out under the new provisions. The drafting includes a renumbering step that may affect cross-references within the statute.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new review-and-revision mechanism into Section 5, requiring the Administrator to periodically assess the noise criteria and update them if needed, starting with a two-year post-enactment review and continuing at least every ten years.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies implementing the Noise Control Act, state and local regulators relying on the criteria, and entities regulated under noise standards that may face future updates to the applicable criteria.
Why It Matters
It creates an explicit, regular update cadence for noise criteria, helping ensure standards reflect current science and policy priorities and reducing uncertainty from stale benchmarks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act would add a new mechanism to the Noise Control Act of 1972 to keep noise criteria current. A new subsection establishes a duty for the Administrator to review the published or revised criteria not later than two years after enactment and to conduct further reviews at least once every ten years.
If the Administrator finds that revisions or supplements are necessary, those changes must be implemented according to the new provisions. In the drafting, subsection (d) is inserted after subsection (c) and then redesignated, affecting how the sections are numbered in the Code.
The goal is to formalize an ongoing oversight process so noise rules remain scientifically up to date while embedding a predictable update cadence within the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 5(d) to require regular review and potential revision of noise criteria.
Initial review deadline is not later than two years after enactment.
Subsequent reviews must occur at least every ten years.
If revisions are needed, the Administrator must implement them under the new subsection.
The amendments include a numbering change (d) being redesignated, which may affect cross-references.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Remove 'criteria or' language
The bill amends subsection (c) by striking the phrase 'criteria or' from the text. The change appears to adjust the triggering language for revisions but does not by itself specify new substantive criteria. Practically, this is a drafting-level adjustment that could influence how revision triggers are interpreted in enforcement and updating the criteria.
New review, revision, and supplementation requirement
The formal new subsection (d) requires the Administrator to review the criteria published or revised under Section 5 not later than two years after enactment and at least every ten years thereafter. If the review determines a revision or supplementation is necessary, the Administrator must implement that revision or supplementation according to the new subsection.
Renumbering of the inserted subsection
The bill redesignates the inserted subsection (d) as subsection (e). This is a housekeeping step to preserve numbering continuity after the insertion and may have implications for cross-references within the statute.
Cross-reference and drafting coherence
The package includes a cross-reference where the Administrator is required to carry out revisions in accordance with subsection (d). This creates a potential circularity if read in isolation, as subsection (d) is the newly added provision. The practical impact will depend on final drafting and harmonization with related subsections.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Public health and environmental health advocates benefit from a formalized cadence that keeps noise criteria aligned with current science and health research.
- Federal and state regulators gain clearer, predictable timelines for updating standards, aiding planning and enforcement.
- Industries and facilities governed by noise criteria benefit from transparency about when and how standards may change, improving compliance planning.
- Communities in high-noise environments gain a mechanism to see timely updates reflected in policy.
- Noise research organizations and standard-setting bodies gain a defined process that can guide future studies and benchmark setting.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies and staff must allocate time and resources to conduct regular reviews and potential rule revisions.
- Businesses and facilities may incur costs to adjust to revised noise criteria or invest in noise-control measures.
- State and local agencies may need to align local regulations and permits with updated federal noise criteria.
- Regulators may experience administrative burden from periodic updates and possible concurrent revisions across jurisdictions.
- Public health agencies may incur costs associated with implementing more current health-based criteria in enforcement and guidance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing regulatory stability with scientific currency: a fixed cadence helps predict when changes may occur, but frequent updates can impose ongoing compliance costs and administrative burden, while infrequent updates risk outdated criteria that lag advances in technology and health science.
The bill constructs an explicit update cadence for noise criteria, but it also raises questions about funding, coordination, and enforcement. While the two-year initial review and the ten-year cadence aim to keep standards current, the bill does not specify funding for the review process, nor does it specify how updates would be coordinated with state and local regulations.
The drafting also creates a potential circular reference by instructing revisions to be carried out in accordance with subsection (d), which itself defines that same revision process. This could require further drafting to ensure a clean, operable pathway from review to revision.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.