9738 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8,1983 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The made available to all employees who recordkeeping requirements in the have average exposure levels of 85 dB. Occupational Safety and Health amendment have been approved by the A professional (audiologist, Administration Office of Management and Budget otolaryngologist, or physician) must be pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction responsible for the program but does not 29CFR1910 Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. have to be present when a qualified 3501, et seq. The OMB approval number technician is actually conducting the Occupational Exposure; Hearing is 1218-0048. testing. Professional responsibilities Conservation Amendment include overseeing the program and the I. Executive Summary work of the technicians, reviewing AGENCY: Occupational Safety and The following summary briefly problem audiograms and determining Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. discusses the required components of whether referral is necessary. Both ACTION: Final rule the hearing conservation program. For a professionals and trained technicians more detailed discussion and may conduct audiometric testing. In SUMMARY: This rule finalizes various explanation of the amendment, see parts addition to administering audiometric aspects of the hearing conservation II-VI of this Supplementary Information tests, the tester (or the supervising amendment to the occupational noise section. professional) is also responsible for exposure standard. In January 1981, Monitoring ensuring that the tests are conducted in OSHA promulgated a hearing an appropriate test environment and conservation amendment (46 FR 4078) The hearing conservation amendment that the audiometer works properly, for requiring hearing conservation programs requires employers to monitor noise reviewing audiograms for standard for all employees whose noise exposure levels in a manner that will threshold shifts (STS), and for accurately identify employees who are exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour identifying problem audiograms exposed at or above an 85-decibel (dB) time-weighted average (TWA) of 85 requiring further by a 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA). decibels (dB). The amendment was professional. subsequently stayed for reconsideration The exposure measurement must a. Audiograms. There are two types of and clarification. In, August 1981, major include all noise within an 80 dB to 130 audiograms required in the hearing portions of the amendment went into dB range. The requirement is conservation program: Baseline and effect; the administrative stay was performance oriented and allows annual audiograms. The baseline continued on other portions of the employers to choose the monitoring audiogram is the reference audiogram amendment and additional comments method that best suits each individual against which future audiograms are were solicited on these stayed portions situation. compared. Baseline audiograms must be (46 FR 42622). Under this revised amendment, provided within six months of an By its action today, OSHA is (1) employees are entitled to observe employee’s first exposure at or above a revoking many of the stayed provisions monitoring procedures and, in addition, TWA of 85 dB. Where employers are of the hearing conservation amendment, they must be notified of the results of using mobile test vans to obtain (2) lifting the administrative stay as to exposure monitoring. However, the audiograms, baseline audiograms must other portions of the amendments, and method used to notify employees is left be completed within one year after an (3) making certain changes and to the discretion of the employers. employee’s first exposure to workplace corrections of a technical nature. The Employers must remonitor workers’ noise at or above a TWA of 85 dB. hearing conservation amendment to the exposures whenever changes in Additionally, where mobile vans are OSHA noise standard, which is exposures are sufficient to require new used and employers are allowed to reprinted in its entirety at the end of this hearing protectors or cause employees delay baseline testing for up to a year, notice, establishes a comprehensive who were previously not included in the after 6 months those employees exposed hearing conservation program, including program because they were not exposed exposure monitoring, audiometric to an 8-hour TWA of 85 dB, to be at or above 85 dB must be issued and testing, and for employees with included in the program. fitted with hearing protectors to be worn significant workplace noise exposures. Instruments used for monitoring until the baseline audiogram is obtained. employee exposures must be calibrated Baseline audiograms taken before the EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is to ensure that the measurements are effective date of the amendment are effective April 7,1983. Baseline accurate. Since calibration procedures acceptable as baselines in the program audiograms must be completed by are unique to specific instruments, if the professional determines March 1,1984. See Supplementary employers should follow the that the audiogram is valid. The annual Information for details on effective audiogram must be conducted within dates. manufacturer’s instructions to determine when and how extensively to calibrate. one year of the baseline. It is important FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: to test hearing on an annual basis in James Foster, Director, Office of Audiometric Testing order to identify changes in hearing Information and Consumer Affairs, Audiometric testing not only monitors acuity so that protective follow-up Occupational Safety and Health employee hearing acuity over time, but measures can be initiated before hearing Administration, Room N-3637, U.S. also provides an opportunity for loss progresses. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution employers to educate employees about b. Audiogram evaluation. Annual Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210, their hearing and the need to protect it audiograms must be routinely compared Telephone (202) 523-8148. The audiometric testing program to baseline audiograms to determine Copies of any portion of the record, includes baseline audiograms, annual whether the audiogram is accurate and including the5 Regulatory Analysis, may audiograms, training and follow-up to determine whether the employee has be obtained by contacting: Docket procedures. The audiometric testing lost hearing ability (that is, if a standard Officer, Docket No. OSH-11, Room S - program should indicate whether threshold shift (STS) has occurred). An 6212, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 is being prevented by the effective program depends on a uniform Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, employer’s hearing conservation and protective definition of STS. STS is D.C. 20210, Telephone (202) 523-7894. program. Audiometric testing must be defined in the amendment as an average Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9739 shift in either ear of 10 dB or more at average noise levels of 85 dB or above Recordkeeping 2000,3000 and 4000 Hz. An averaging until they receive their baseline Noise exposure measurement records method of determining STS was chosen audiograms. Hearing protector use is must be kept for two years. Records of because it diminishes the number of also mandatory for employees who have audiometric test results must be persons falsely identified as having STS incurred standard threshold shifts, since maintained for the duration of who are later shown not to have had a these workers have demonstrated that of the affected employee. significant change in hearing ability. they are particularly susceptible to Audiometric test records must include If an STS is identified, employees noise. the name and classification of the must be fitted or refitted with adequate Employees should decide, with the employee, the date, the examiner’s hearing protectors, shown how to use help of a person who is trained in fitting name, the date of acoustic or exhaustive them, and required to wear them. In hearing protectors, which size and type calibration, measurements of the addition, employees must be notified protector is most suitable for their background sound pressure levels in within 21 days from the time the working environment. The protector audiometric test rooms, and the determination is made that their selected should be comfortable to wear employee’s most recent noise exposure audiometric test results showed an STS. and offer sufficient attenuation to Some employees with an STS may need measurement. prevent hearing loss. Employees must be to be referred for further testing if the II. Introduction professional determines that their test shown how to use and care for their results are questionable or if they have protectors and must be supervised on Noise, or unwanted sound, is one of an ear problem of a medical nature the job to ensure that they continue to the most pervasive occupational health caused or aggravated by wearing wear them correctly. problems. It is a by-product of many hearing protectors. If the suspected Hearing protectors must provide industrial processes. Sound consists of ^. medical problem is not thought to be adequate attenuation for each pressure changes in a medium (usually related to wearing protectors, employees employee’s work environment. The air), caused by vibration or turbulence. must merely be informed that they employer must re-evaluate the These pressure changes produce waves should see a physician. If subsequent suitability of the employee’s present emanating away from the turbulent or audiometric tests show that the STS protector whenever there is a change in vibrating source. identified on a previous audiogram is working conditions that may cause the Sound pressure level is a logarithmic not persistent, employees whose hearing protector being used to be measure of the magnitude or intensity of exposures are less than a TWA of 90-dB inadequate. If workplace noise levels the pressure change: it is perceived as may discontinue the wearing of hearing increase, employees must be given more loudness. Sound pressure level is protectors. effective protectors. The protector must expressed in decibels, abbreviated dB. A subsequent audiogram" may be reduce employee exposures to at least Because of the logarithmic scale used to substituted for the original baseline 90 dB, or to 85 dB when an STS has measure sound pressure or noise, a audiogram if the professional occurred. small increase in decibels represents a supervising the program determines that large increase in sound energy (sound the employee has experienced a Training pressure is directly related to persistent STS. The substituted Employee training is important vibrational energy). Technically, each audiogram becomes known as the because when workers understand the increase of 3 dB represents a doubling of revised baseline audiogram. This reasons for the hearing conservation sound energy; an increase of 10 dB substitution will ensure that the same program’s requirements and the need to represents a tenfold increase, and a 20 shift is not repeatedly identified. The protect their hearing, they will be better dB increase represents a 100-fold professional may also decide to revise motivated to participate actively in the increase in sound energy.1 the baseline audiogram after an program and to cooperate by wearing The frequency of a sound is the improvement in hearing has occurred, their protectors and taking audiometric number of times that a complete cycle of which will ensure that the baseline tests. Employees exposed to TWA’s of compressions and rarefactions occurs in reflects actual thresholds to the extent 85 dB and above must be trained at least a second. The descriptor, which used to possible. Where a baseline audiogram is annually in the effects of noise; the be “cycles per second,” is now hertz, revised, the employer must, of course, purpose, advantages, disadvantages and abbreviated Hz. Frequency is perceived also retain the original audiogram. In attenuation of various types of hearing as pitch. Most everyday sounds contain order to obtain valid audiograms, protectors; the selection, fitting and care a mixture of frequencies generated by a audiometers must be used, maintained, of protectors; and the purpose and variety of sources. A sound’s frequency and calibrated according to procedures of audiometric testing. composition is referred to as the specifications given in Appendices C spectrum. For a more complete and E of the standard. Training does not have to be accomplished in one session. The discussion of the physical properties of Hearing Protectors program may be structured in any sound and similar background information, see 46 FR 4079-4081 Hearing protectors must be available format, and different parts my be to all workers exposed at or above the conducted by different individuals as (January 16,1981). action level. This requirement will long as the required topics are covered. Exposure to high levels of noise ensure that employees have access to For example, audiometric procedures causes hearing loss and may cause other protectors before they experience a loss could be discussed immediately prior to harmful health effects as well. The in hearing. Where baseline audiograms audiometric testing. The training extent of damage depends primarily on are delayed because it is inconvenient requirements are such that employees the intensity of the noise and the for mobile test vans to visit the must be reminded on a yearly basis that workplace more than once a year, noise is hazardous to hearing and that 1 For purposes of 29 CFR 1910.95 as well as the hearing conservation amendment, however, a protectors must be worn by employees they can prevent damage by wearing a doubling rate of approximately 5 dB is used. That is. for any period excedding 6 months from hearing protector, where appropriate, a 5 dB increase in level is permitted each time the the time they are first exposed to 8-hour and participating in audiometric testing. exposure duration is decreased by half. 9740 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

duration of the exposure. Noise-induced frequency must be before it can be The hearing conservation amendment hearing loss can be temporary or perceived, and thereby provides a augmented the existing standard (29 permanent. Temporary hearing loss, also graphic representation of the status of CFR 1910.95 (a) and (b)) and specified called temporary threshold shift,3 results the individual’s hearing. With periodic numerous specific requirements that had from short-term exposures to noise, with audiometric testing it is possible to trace to be included in each employer’s normal hearing returning after a period and document hearing loss, and by so hearing conservation program. The of rest. doing to prevent further loss from amendment added detailed provisions Generally, prolonged exposure to high occurring. dealing with monitoring employee noise noise levels over a period of time causes Evidence in the record demonstrates exposures, annual audiometric testing permanent damage. Therefore a person for employees exposed at or above a who regularly sustains a temporary loss that many workplaces are not safe from the hazards posed by noise. Present TWA of 85 dB, retesting under certain or shift in hearing threshold from circumstances, the selection of adequate exposure to noise will eventually suffer noise exposures pose significant risk of harm to workers and this risk can be hearing protectors, employee premanent hearing loss or noise induced and training, warning signs, and the permanent threshold shift (NIPTS). This reduced by instituting hearing conservation programs for all workers maintenance of records pertaining to NIPTS is particularly insidious because exposure monitoring and audiometric it occurs very gradually over time. In exposed at or above 85 dB, as an 8-hour time-weighted average. testing (see paragraphs (c)-(s) of 29 CFR fact, for a long time the worker may not 1910.95, 46 FR 4161). The hearing conservation program notice any change in hearing acuity until After the hearing conservation the hearing loss begins to interfere with prescribed in the amendment to the amendment was promulgated, the everyday communication. By then, it is occupational noise exposure standard, Agency received a number of requests too late to do anything about the hearing which is the subject of this document, is to reconsider the amendment pursuant loss that has already been suffered. designed to protect workers with to the recently adopted Executive Order Noise induced permanent threshold significant occupational noise exposures 12291 (see 46 FR 13193, February 17, shift is not reversible and cannot be from suffering material hearing 1981) and petitions to administratively treated medically. Once a permanent impairment even if they are subject to stay the amendment. In addition, threshold shift has occurred, only the such noise exposures over their entire numerous requests for clarifications and further progression of hearing loss can working lifetimes. The hearing interpretations of various provisions of be prevented. Noise induced hearing conservation amendment requires the hearing conservation amendment loss causes difficulty in interpreting employers to identify workers exposed sounds and in perceiving the intensity or were received by the Agency. A number to significant levels of workplace noise, of parties sought judicial relief under loudness of sounds. Even if the sounds to include workers so identified in an are amplified, as with a hearing aid, section 6(f) of the Act,* requesting the audiometric testing program, and to court to set aside the hearing they remain indistinct. train exposed employees in the proper Noise induced hearing loss typically conservation amendment, alleging that use and selection of hearing protectors. starts with hearing threshold shifts in various provisions were not supported The provisions contained in the the higher frequencies. The loss usually by substantial evidence in the record amendment are reasonably necessary appears first and is most severe at 4000 considered as a whole.5 As a result of and 6000 Hz. If damaging noise exposure and appropriate to provide noise the controversy and confusion generated continues, the loss spreads to the lower exposed workers with safe and healthful by some of the provisions of the hearing frequencies. People with noise induced employment (see 46 FR 4105-4107, conservation amendment, as well as the high frequency hearing loss frequently January 16,1981, for a general legal challenges to the amendment, it have difficulty hearing consonant discussion of this issue). was necessary to defer the effective date of the amendment several times in sounds. Because of the crucial role the ID. Background ability to distinguish consonant sounds order to consider the merits of the has in the ability to understand speech, In January 1981, OSHA promulgated various petitions (see 46 FR 21365, April people with noise induced high (46 FR 4078) a hearing conservation 10,1981; 46 FR 28845, May 29,1981; and frequency hearing loss characteristically amendment to its occupational noise 46 FR 39137, July 31,1981.® have trouble understanding speech. For exposure standard (29 CFR 1910.95 (a) OSHA carefully reviewed and a more complete discussion of the health and (b)).3 This amendment required that analyzed the comments, petitions, and affects of noise and hearing loss, see 46 employees whose noise exposures requests for clarifications in light of the FR 4081-4113 (January 16,1981), which equaled or exceeded an action level of is hereby incorporated by reference. 85 dB, as an 8-hour TWA,4 be included * Chocolate Manufacturers Association v. The type of hearing loss caused by in a hearing conservation program. Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Dept, of Labor, No. 81-1210; American Iron exposure to noise, sensori-neural and Steel Institute etal. v. Secretary of Labor and hearing loss, can be identified and 3 The existing standard (29 CFR 1910.95. (a) and OSHA, No. 81-1991; Chamber of Commerce v. measured by an audiometric (b) sets a permissible exposure level for noise at 90 OSHA, U.S. Dept of Labor, No. 81-1990. These examination even before a person dB as an 8-hour time-weighted average and requires cases were consolidated in the Fourth Circuit Court the employer to reduce employee exposure to within of Appeals. The Court is holding these cases in becomes aware of a deterioration in this level by the use of feasible engineering controls abeyance pending completion of the rulemaking hearing. The record of a given or . In addition, the existing proceeding. Fleck Industries also sued OSHA, see individual’s hearing sensitivity is an standard (29 CFR 1910.95(b)(3)) requires that a Fleck Industries, Inc. v. OSHA, No. 81-1409 (3rd audiogram. An audiogram shows “continuing effective hearing conservation program” Cir.), but the petition»was subsequently withdrawn. be implemented when employee exposure exceeds 6 Th e A F L - C I O s u b s e q u e n t l y su e d t o s e t a s i d e the hearing threshold level measured in 90 dB, without regard to the use of hearing Secretary’s deferral of the effective date of the decibels as a function of frequency protectors, but the standard does not Bpell out the hearing conservation amendment. See AFL-CIO v. measured in hertz. It indicates how elements of Such a hearing conservation program. Donovan, No. 81-1667 and 81-1763 (4th Cir.). On intense or loud a sound at a given 4 Assuming an exchange rate of 5 dB, the action September 18,1981 the Fourth Circuit Court of level or trigger for initiating a hearing conservation Appeals denied the motion without prejudice; the program occurs when exposures are approximately AFL-CIO subsequently moved for voluntary * A person’s hearing threshold represents the level half of the permissible exposure level (PEL), an 8- , and the motion was granted on of sqund that that person can just bearly hear. hour TWA of 90 dB. November 6,1981. Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9741 lengthy preamble to the amendment and ultimate goal of the standard: conserving method of compliance which will give consistent with the requirements of E.O. employee hearing. The provisions that the protection mandated by the 12291 to evaluate regulations. Based on went into effect in August allowed amendment and achieve the goal of the this review, OSHA decided that major employers to adapt hearing standard, that is, conserving employee portions of the amendment should be conservation programs to their own hearing. * allowed to go into effect. A Regulatory operations better than those originally As a result of new evidence placed Impact Analysis was prepared for the promulgated in January 1981. into the record as well as testimony parts of the amendment going into The revised amendment being issued submitted at informal public hearings, effect. On August 21,1981, the Agency today has adopted a performance OSHA has once again reviewed the lifted the administrative stay of major approach insofar as possible. This is in record as it pertains to the issues in this portions of the hearing conservation marked contrast with the detailed proceeding. After carefully amendment, allowing the amendment to specifications of the January reconsidering the entire record, the go into effect (see 46 FR 42622). The stay amendment, which did not fully Agency has decided to take the actions was continued, however, and the record consider the mandate of section 6(b)(5) discussed in detail below. The entire reopened for additional comment on a of the Act that standards be expressed hearing conservation amendment, rather number of other provisions that are in terms of performance criteria where than just those portions being revised, is discussed in detail below. practicable. The revised amendment reprinted at the end of this document. Generally, the record was reopened generally allows the employer to choose This is being done as a matter of for substantive comment where there his own method of complying with the convenience to avoid any confusion as was reason to believe, based on the obligations imposed by the amendment. to the various requirements of the comments received, that there might be This approach is particularly standard. a more cost-effective way of appropriate where the standard applies accomplishing the desired result of to many different types of industrial IV. Summary of Regulatory Impact and protecting employee hearing, or where settings and work environments. The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis new information as to the feasibility or flexibility inherent in the performance A Regulatory Impact and Regulatory desirability of a particular requirement approach allows the employer, who is Flexibility Analysis consistent with the was submitted which deserved further familiar with the unique circumstances requirements of Executive Order 12291 evaluation. It was suggested that the and problems of his workplace, to use and the Regulatory Flexibility Act of stayed provisions were too detailed, this knowledge to develop the most 1980 has been prepared. The document imposed unnecessary restrictions on the effective and efficient mechanism to discusses, inter alia, the costs of the operation of hearing conservation protect his employees. The employer is hearing conservation provisions programs, were financially burdensome, given sufficient leeway to adopt a published in January 1981 and the costs and were confusing. hearing conservation program which of the provisions contained in this OSHA received a great number of will be compatible with all of the revised hearing conservation submissions containing comments and peculiarities of the work environment amendment, presents information on the evidence in response to the August and the needs of his business, rather relative cost-effectiveness of the two Federal Register document. While many than having to implement a number of sets of provisions, and describes the comments urged that the Agency should requirements that would be inadequate, impact on small business. revoke the stayed provisions of the inappropriate or unnecessary in his The total costs of the revised hearing conservation amendment, others working environment, merely because amendment are estimated to be $210.3 objected to the stays of various they are required by the standard. The million a year, for an average cost of $41 provisions. For example, several labor performance approach allows and even per worker included in hearing groups objected to the continuation of encourages employers to develop conservation programs mandated by the the stays, feeling that they had an creative and innovative methods of amendment. For comparison, the adverse effect on the enforceability of meeting the obligations imposed by the Regulatory Impact Analysis also the standard. In addition, they requested amendment. presents costs of the January 1981 that a hearing be held on the suggested It is expected that by providing some amendment, which have been changes. In response to these requests, flexibility, the amendment will recalculated based on new information an informal public hearing was encourage compliance because in the rulemaking record. That scheduled. The hearing was convened compliance can be achieved in the amendment would have cost $295.3 on March 23,1982, with Administrative manner that is the easiest under the million a year,7 for an average of $58 per Law Judge Stuart A. Levin presiding. circumstances present in the particular worker, about 40 percent more than the The hearing lasted approximately five working environment. This is also costs of the revised amendment. After days, during which time about 50 consistent with one of the purposes of allowing for the hearing conservation interested parties offered testimony and the Act, as stated in section 2(b)(1), of activities already established, the evidence. At the close of the hearing, a stimulating employers and employees to provisions of the revised amendment are 60-day period for receipt of post hearing institute new programs and to perfect estimated to cost $197.3 million comments was authorized by Judge existing programs to provide healthful annually. Levin. working conditions. In addition, the The analysis concludes that the The provisions which went into effect performance approach adopted herein is regulation is both technologically and in August 1981 are more performance consistent with the Supreme Court economically feasible for both large and ruling in oriented than the amendment originally American Textile small businesses. Even if firms were M anufacturers Institute, Inc. v. promulgated in January 1981. These forced to absorb the total costs of the 452 U.S. 490,101 S. Ct. 2478 provisions set out certain basic elements Donovan, hearing conservation provisions, these that were thought necessary to include (1981) suggesting that standards must be in industrial hearing conservation cost-effective. The revised hearing ’ The January 1981 Regulatory Analysis initially programs, while affording employers conservation amendment allows estimated the total costs of the hearing conservation considerable flexibility in achieving the employers to adopt the most efficient amendment at $270 million a year (p. IV-2). 9742 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

costs would represent less than 0.2 the final rule was published. The final the workplace when the speaker and percent of profits for the industries Environmental Impact Statement listener faced each other at a distance of studied. A typical small business with concluded that the hearing conservation two feet. If this initial determination under 20 production workers might need amendment would beneficially impact was positive, the employer was required to spend about $163 per year to comply the workplace environment by reducing to measure personal noise doses for all with the hearing conservation both the incidence and the degree of or representative employees within 60 amendment requirements. hearing loss among workers. It also days.9 The amendment also required The Regulatory Impact Analysis relies concluded that the incidence of other that initial determinations and on the benefits calculations of the adverse health effects associated with subsequent monitoring (if the initial Regulatory Analysis that was prepared noise exposure might also be reduced. determination was positive) be repeated for the amendment promulgated on In August 1981, OSHA concluded that every two years and within 60 days of January 16,1981. OSHA estimated that staying the various provisions of the any change in process or working hearing conservation programs for all amendment would not have any conditions that might increase the noise employees exposed above 85 dB would significant environmental impact, and level and thereby render any hearing eliminate 212,000 cases of material the Environmental Impact Statement protectors being used inadequate or impairment of hearing after 10 years, was therefore not revised. OSHA also which would result in the inclusion of 696,000 after 30 years and 898,000 cases asked for comments on whether the new employees in the hearing at equilibrium.8 OSHA believes that the Agency’s action would have any conservation program. more performance-oriented provisions significant environmental impact. No The January amendment also required of the revised amendment will not substantive comments were received on that all monitoring be conducted with significantly reduce these benefits. this issue. Based on the record, OSHA sound level meters or dosimeters Therefore, the revised amendment will now concludes that the action taken meeting certain detailed specifications. significantly reduce the risk of hearing today revising the amendment will have It also contained specific requirements impairment present in many workplaces. no significant environmental impact. Copies of the Regulatory Impact and for the calibration of measuring Therefore, no revised Environmental equipment. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis can be Impact Statement is necessary. obtained horn the Docket Office, at the Many comments, objections, requests address listed in the “Further VI. Summary and Explanation of for clarification, and petitions for Information” section at the beginning of Actions Taken administrative stays were received in this Federal Register document. Monitoring response to the monitoring requirements of die January amendment. Many V. Environmental Impact Monitoring provides a mechanism for employers objected to the prohibition On February 19,1974, OSHA measuring and evaluating the against area monitoring, asserting that announced in the Federal Register its significance of an employee’s the personal monitoring mandated in the intention to prepare an Environmental occupational exposure to noise (see January amendment was burdensome, Impact Statement assessing the impact discussion, 46 FR at 4131 (January 16, impractical, and unnecessary for the of a standard that would be proposed 1981)). This is important because the purposes of implementing successful for occupational noise exposure (see 39 senses alone are not reliable quantifiers hearing conservation programs (Exh. FR 6119). Information was solicited from of sound level. For example, people’s 325-266-A, pp. 6-8; Exh. 325-138; Exh. the public on a variety of perception of the relative intensities or 325-47; Exh. 325-57). These commenfers environmentally related issues including loudness of sounds may be affected by believe that area monitoring is simpler possible environmental impacts of the the relative pitch of those sounds. and less costly, and that the adequacy recommended standard and any Monitoring of workplace noise levels of hearing protector attenuation can be irreversible commitments of resources is necessary for the following reasons: computed from sound levels obtained which would be involved if the standard (1) To identify employees who must for die various areas in which should be implemented. be enrolled in the hearing conservation employees work. A draft Environmental Impact program: Some employers maintained that the Statement was made available to the (2) To identify employees for whom requirement for an initial determination public on June 16,1975 (40 FR 25525) and hearing protection is mandatory; was unnecessary, and that the (3) To determine the amount of environmental impact was specifically conditions determining the need for an issue at the first hearing held in 1975. attenuation that hearing protectors need monitoring were unnecessarily A final Environmental Impact to provide; and complicated and expensive (Exh. 325-66; (4) To familiarize both employers and Statement was prepared in accordance Exh. 325-68; Exh. 325-70). Other with the Council on Environmental employees with the degree of the noise commenters objected to the requirement Quality (CEQ) Guidelines (40 CFR Part hazard. that if the employer wished to use 1500 et seq.) and the Department of The monitoring provisions in the representative monitoring the employee Labor’s regulations (29 CFR Part 11) January amendment were extensive and with the highest exposure must be setting out procedures to be used by detailed. This document required that all selected and measured as Department of Labor agencies to ensure employers make an initial determination representative, asserting that the effect compliance with the National as to whether any employee’s exposure of such a requirement would be to force Environmental Policy Act. The final equalled or exceeded an 8-hour TWA of employers to monitor all employees. In Environmental Impact Statement was 85 dB. These determinations were to be addition, commenters objected to the made available to the public at the time based on exposure measurements, periodic remonitoring requirement, calculations, or other relevant stating that remonitoring eyery two . * Final Regulatory Analysis of the Hearing information, including such elements as years was costly and unnecessary, and Conservation Amendment January 1981, p. 111-27. employee complaints about noise, Equilibrium is defined as that time in the future indications that employees might be after which all current and retired workers would *The January amendment did not permit area have been enrolled in a hearing conservation losing their hearing, or difficulties in monitoring to be used to comply with the monitoring program for their entire working lives. understanding normal conversation in requirements (see 48 ER at 4133). Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9743 that remonitoring when there was a the enforceability of the standard (Exh. Personal monitoring using a dosimeter change in process or equipment should 327-59; Exh 327-107; Exh. 327-136; Exh. involves positioning the device on the be sufficient (Exh. 325-68; Exh. 325-66; 329-57; Exh. 345; Tr. Vol. Ill, pp. 31-48, body of the employee, with the Exh. 325.57; Exh. 325-138; Exh. 325-214; March 25,1982; Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 109-114, microphone located near the employee’s Exh. 325-258; Exh. 325-252). March 28,1982; Tr. Vol. V, p. 273 March ear. liie employee carries the dosimeter In response to these objections, 29,1982). In addition, these commenters throughout the day, during which time OSHA decided to seek additional public urged OSHA to reinstate the original the dosimeter is continuously recording input on the various monitoring specification requirements, contending sound levels. Employee exposure is provisions published in January. In that they were more protective of determined simply by attaching the August, therefore, the administrative employee health (Exh. 331-17; Tr. Vol V, dosimeter to another instrument or stay was continued on many of the p. 273, March 29,1982). These objections reader and reading out the results. detailed monitoring provisions. The are discussed more specifically below. OSHA believes that personal monitoring monitoring requirements put into effect A rea Versus Personal Sampling is one method of providing an accurate in August were more performance estimate of employee exposure, and the oriented, and consisted of two The January amendment did not Agency routinely uses dosimeters and provisions: permit the use of area monitoring to personal sampling techniques for fulfill the noise monitoring requirements (e)(1) When information indicates that any compliance purposes. As discussed employee’s exposure may equal or exceed an (see 46 FR at 4133). The more below, OSHA does not believe that 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibles, performance-oriented monitoring personal monitoring is the only method the employer shall obtain measurements for provisions oi the August document, of collecting the information necessary employees who.may be exposed at or above however, allow the employer to use any to fulfill the needs of the hearing that level. monitoring technique, including area conservation program. (g)(2)(ii)(6) All continuous, intermittent, monitoring, that will correctly identify Area monitoring is any method of and impulsive sound levels from 80 dB to 130 all employees eligible for inclusion in dB shall be integrated into the computation. sampling with sound measuring the hearing conservation program (i.e., instruments when the microphone is not Many comments were submitted in those exposed at or above the action placed in the vicinity of the employee’s response to the fourteen questions level) and will allow the employer to ear. Area monitoring is used to evaluate related to monitoring that were raised in determine that the hearing protectors workplace noise for various purposes, the August 21 Federal Register provided to employees have sufficient including the design of engineering document (see 46 FR at 42624). Most attenuation capability to protect the controls and estimation of employee commenters recognized the need for employees in their particular work exposures. Either a dosimeter or a sound monitoring to implement hearing environment. level meter can be used for area conservation programs effectively. The relative merits of area versus monitoring. Moreover, a majority of the parties personal exposure monitoring generated A large number of commenters submitting comments favored the a great deal of comment. A review of favored permitting the use of either area performance-oriented monitoring these submittals indicates some requirements in the August document misunderstanding (Exh. 327-107, p. 4; monitoring or personal monitoring to (Exh. 327-20; Exh. 327-51; Exh. 327-70; Exh. 326-21; Exh. 327-32, p. 1; Exh. 384, fulfill the monitoring requirement, noting Exh. 327-71; Exh. 327-86; Exh. 327-99; pp. 9-11) as to what constitutes that the sampling method most Exh. 327-102; Exh. 327-138; Exh. 327- ‘‘personal” as opposed to ‘‘area” appropriate to a particular work 143; Tr. Vol. IV, p. 76, March 3,1982). monitoring within the meaning of this situation should be selected (Exh. 327- These participants felt that the rigid standard. 67; Exh. 327-70; Exh. 327-86; Exh. 327- specifications contained in the Personal monitoring consists of 89; Exh. 327-91; Exh. 327-96; Exh. 327- monitoring provisions promulgated in measurements taken with the instrument 102; Exh. 327-105; Exh. 327-121; Exh. January were not practical and could microphone in the proximity of the 327-122; Exh. 327-135-a; Exh. 327-1)51; not effectively accommodate the diverse exposed employee’s ear (for a Exh. 331-11). work situations encountered in the dosimeter, near the employee’s shoulder Many respondents pointed out that American industrial environment. For or head, and for a sound level meter, not area monitoring usually is less example, it was alleged that factors such less than two inches or more than two disruptive of work flow, is generally as worker mobility variations in worker feet from the employee’s ear). Personal easier to conduct, and is less costly to tasks, changing sound sources and monitoring is generally used to obtain perform than personal monitoring (Exh. levels, and transient work sites made estimates of employee exposures or to 326- 35; Exh. 327-58; Exh. 327-63A; Exh. personal monitoring, and even determine the effects ofidifferent work 327- 103; Exh. 327-110; Exh. 327-122; representative personal sampling, practices on employee exposure. Exh. 329-2; Exh. 329-16). Further, difficult and.inappropriate in some Personal monitoring can be done with commenters asserted that area circumstances (Exh. 327-70 p. 2; Exh. either a sound level meter or a monitoring makes it easier to gaiige 327-86, p. 3). Most respondents believed dosimeter. general changes in the acoustic that performance requirements for Personal monitoring with a sound environment, simplifies recordkeeping, monitoring would allow employers the level meter usually requires the person is independent of employee or flexibility to adopt the most cost- performing the sampling to hand-hold job reassignment, and can be as effective and appropriate methods of the sound level meter near the effective as personal monitoring in some noise monitoring in their particular employee’s ear. Because sound level acoustic environments or in association exposure situations (Exh. 326-55; Exh. meters are only capable of taking spot with certain work regimens (Exh. 326- 327-70; Exh. 327-71 p. 2; Exh. 327-86; p. measurements at the instant measured, 41; Exh. 327-55; Exh. 327-103; Exh. 327- 2; Exh. 327-91; Exh. 327-99). a sampling strategy which includes 106; Exh. 329-2). However, several labor groups sufficient sound level meter readings However, others objected to the use of objected to staying the various taken at various times and locations area monitoring, asserting that OSHA monitoring provisions, stating that the throughout the work shift is necessary to was unjustifiably modifying the January stay would have an adverse effect on estimate employee exposure accurately. monitoring requirements and that 9744 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

allowing area monitoring and using sampling (e.g., when work conditions not selected with the goal of identifying performance requirements would be were favorable) would be expected to employee exposures” (Exh. 367, p. 7). In unenforceably vague (Tr. Vol. IV, p. 243, yield much closer agreement between addition, BBN allowed a 6 dB range in March 28,1982; Exh. 328-41; Exh. 327-59; personal and area monitoring results. defining a given sound level area (i.e., ± Exh. 327-109; Exh. 345). Additionally, Despite this shortcoming, the use of 3 dB), which would by definition lead to other participants stated that area area monitoring may have little adverse disagreements between the area and monitoring was not acceptable because effect on identifying employees to be personal monitoring data in certain they felt it would underestimate included in a hearing conservation situations. exposures and thereby exclude eligible program. In fact, BBN even stated that OSHA agrees that area monitoring is employees from membership in the "it is possible that * * * the area not appropriate in all situations; nothing hearing conservation program (Exh. 326- monitoring method could be used as an' in the monitoring provisions encourages H; Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 107, March 25,1982). indicator that a hearing conservation its use in inappropriate circumstances. They supported this opinion by citing a program is required (i,e., that one or In other words, the indiscriminate report by Bolt Beranek and Newman more workers have TWA’s equal to, or application of area monitoring to all (BBN) (Exh. 327-94-C), which they greater than, 85 dB)” (Exh. 327-94-C, pp. work situations is recognized to be contended showed evidence of exposure 2- 11). inappropriate. For example, where underestimation. Additionally, BBN admitted that the workers are highly mobile, tasks are BBN surveyed seven establishments procedure for estimating area sound dissimilar, a large component of in the Iron and Steel Foundry Industry levels involved the subjective impulsive sound is contained in the (SIC 332) having a total sample size of determination of the spatial distribution exposure, or there is a great deal of 531 employees, and nine establishments of measurements to encompass all variation in sound level, area monitoring in the Saw Mill and Planer Mill Industry sound level variations within an area. becomes more difficult and less (SIC 242) with a total sample size of 906 BBN reported that “Consequently, it is appropriate. However, as indicated in employees. The purpose of the initial possible that different area sound levels numerous submittals, area monitoring study (Exh. 373-1, pp. 1-3; Exh. 327-94-C could be obtained if measurements were' can be used in many situations and is a p. 2-2) was to develop a machinery made at arbitrarily selected locations” valuable tool that should not be noise computer model that could be (Exh. 327-94-C, p. 2-4). overlooked (Exh. 326-15; Exh. 326-34; used to assess the effect of occupational It seems clear that the BBN report Exh. 327-34; Exh. 327-55; Exh. 327-86; noise on industrial workers. After (Exh. 373-1; Exh. 327-94-C) has been Exh. 327-89; Exh. 327-90; Exh. 327-103; completion of the study, the data were taken out of context when it is used to Exh. 327-113; Exh. 327-133; Exh. 327- reanalyzed to obtain a comparison of develop area versus personal monitoring 140; Exh. 329-2). One of the reasons personal and area-wide monitoring comparisons. These data were derived, OSHA prohibited area monitoring in the techniques. All noise measurements as the report clearly states, "for the January amendment was the problem of were taken using Type 2 (or better) purpose of developing a machinery monitoring workers who move from sound level meters. A criterion of ± 3 dB noise computer model to be used in place to place during their workshifts. variation was used to define any assessing the effect of occupational However, as unrebutted testimony at the specific area, and this criterion was noise on the health and welfare of March 1982 hearing indicated, there are applied to all work situations. industrial workers” {Exh. 327-94-C, p. 2- many workplaces where in-plant According to the BBN study (Exh. 373- 2). BBN has also explained that, “(he mobility is not a factor (Tr. Vol. Ill, pp. I; Exh. 327-94-C), there was little end result of the evaluation is a rank- 101-102, March 25,1982). Therefore, it difference in the percentage of ordering of the machinery items which would be unwise to prohibit the use of employees predicted by area versus most contribute to the noise exposure area monitoring in all situations simply personal monitoring as being exposed at problem in each industry (of the two because it may not be useful in some or above a TWA of 85 dB.10 However, sampled]” (Exh. 373-1, Executive circumstances. when the criterion was changed to 90 Summary). Moreover, the inaccuracies In order to emphasize the point that dB, a substantial difference in the involved in area sampling may not be as area monitoring can only be used where percentage identified was seen in one great as the BBN report leads one to industry.11 This difference appeared to it is appropriate, language has been believe. As AISI points out, BBN’s sound increase as sound levels increased. added to the amendment requiring that level meter sampling strategy "was the sampling strategy employed to Therefore, BBN concluded in part that touted as the definitive and most area monitoring underestimated measure noise must be capable of accurate means for determining properly identifying the correct personal exposures, particularly at high exposure levels. employee exposure (and against which employees for inclusion in the hearing Although the BBN report does reflect the allegedly inaccurate ‘area conservation program. a problem that would arise if area monitoring’ was compared)” (Exh. 367, In addition, the revised amendment monitoring was used in all work p. 7). After reviewing the report’s prohibits the use of area monitoring in orginial objectives and study protocols, situations, the report included results certain situations unless the employer obtained with area monitoring in the AISI felt that BBN’s personal can show that this type of sampling monitoring "may in fact have been spot situations where this sampling method strategy will produce results similar to might not be considered appropriate. It checks of employee exposures at thejr personal sampling. This prohibition on is not surprising that substantial operating stations,’' and that “In fact no the use of area sampling to fulfill the disagreement between area and full shift time weighted average monitoring obligation under the hearing personal samples would occur in such a exposure levels were determined for conservation amendment is only each employee of even for case. A more reasonable use of area operative when factors are present that representative employees” (Exh. 367, pp. are generally conceded to make area 10 81.9% to 87.6% for SIC 332 and 70.8% to 68.4% for 7-8). In addition, AISI noted that “* * * monitoring inappropriate. In most SIC 242. area monitoring measurements were instances, area sampling will not be “ 5.1% to 63.1% for SIC 332 and 34.2% to 34.0% for actually measurements of a limited appropriate where there are significant SIC 242. number of equipment types which were variations in sound levels, where there Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9745 is a significant amount of impulse noise 109; p. 5; Exh. 345, p. 5) was that shall provide for monitoring or measuring present or where workers move around permitting employers to use area employee exposure at such locations and a lot within a particular work area or monitoring for the purposes of the intervals, and in such manner as may be between various work areas. In hearing conservation amendment would necessary fo r the protection o f employees. recognition of the extremely wide be contrary to OSHA’s directive to its [emphasis added] variation among these situations and the compliance personnel and field The performance monitoring high degree of sophistication that may industrial hygienists. Although it is true requirements contained in the hearing be used in refining area monitoring that the Agency requires its field staff to conservation amendment are not techniques, OSHA has decided not to use personal monitoring for compliance contrary to the mandate of section absolutely prohibit the use of area purposes, the question in this case, as 6(b)(7) of the Act. Nothing in the Act monitoring ifl the situations described John Martonik, OSHA’s Deputy Director requires personal monitoring to be used above, but instead to shift the burden to of Health Standards, pointed out at the as the exclusive monitoring technique. the employer who wishes to use area public hearing, is "whether this much As discussed above, in many instances monitoring under these circumstances to detail in specification is necessary * * * area monitoring can be as effective as show that the results of such monitoring for the purposes of the Hearing personal monitoring. The most cost- are equivalent to those that would be Conservation Amendment * * *” (Tr. effective method of monitoring should obtained using personal or Vol. I-A, pp. 31-32, March 23,1982). be allowed, if it is appropriate in the representative personal sampling. The In the compliance context, it is situation. As shown above, the area > shifting of the burden of proof to the generally simpler for OSHA staff to use method of monitoring is appropriate in employer to show the adequacy of area the dosimeter, although a sound level many work areas. Substantial evidence sampling is appropriate under these meter may also be used to obtain in the record clearly supports the circumstances and strikes a good personal samples. This is advisable conclusion that the performance balance between the need to assure because compliance personnel are monitoring requirements prescribed in adequate employée protection and the generally not familiar with the details the amendment will provide the desire to give the employer sufficient and variations of exposure patterns necessary protection of employees flexibility in complying with the within individual workplaces, and referred to in section 6(b)(7). In other requirements to allow the use of new or sometimes must conduct monitoring the words, the monitoring prescribed will innovative techniques and to adopt a first time they are on site. Therefore, identify the appropriate employees for compliance mode that is the least personal monitoring is more appropriate inclusion in an employer’s hearing burdensome to the employer without in such a situation because it saves the conservation program and aUow the diminishing necessary employee compliance officer the time of employer to determine that any hearing protection. determining noise exposure patterns Typical of comments supporting the protectors used have sufficient before the sampling begins. However, attenuation capability to protect performance monitoring approach was a the employer’s familiarity with his or her statement that “Monitoring should be employees. Moreover, this performance- own workplace should in many oriented monitoring approach is clearly required, but the choice between area instances enable the employer to and personal should depend upon the consistent with the mandate of section develop a monitoring program based on 6(b)(5) of the Act, which states that particular situation in the workplace” area monitoring that is just as protective (Exh. 327-102, p. 6). when practical, standards dealing with as personal monitoring. When enforcing harmful physical agents should be In fact, when comparing personal the amendment, OSHA inspections will representative sampling of similarly drafted “in terms of objective criteria focus on whether employers have and of the performance desired.” situated employees of careful area included all employees exposed to noise Another objection to the performance- sampling, Deborah Berkowitz [Health at or above the action level in their based monitoring provisions now used and Safety Director, Food and hearing conservation programs. OSHA in the amendment was that they would Beverages Trades Department, AFL- inspectors will in most cases continue to not be enforceable (Exh. 327-109, p. 6). CIOl admitted, “I think you come up use personal sampling methods because with the same results” (Tr. Vol. V, p. The Agency disagrees; the Agency in view of the compliance officer’s 138, March 29,1982). believes that the standard does provide purpose and lack of familiarity with Support for a choice of monitoring fair and reasonable warning of each particular workplace, this method technique was also voiced by Dan situations in which monitoring is is generally easier and yields more MacLeod, certified Industrial Hygienist required12 and does specify what reproducible results (see Tr. Vol. I-A, with the United Brotherhood of sounds should be included in the pp. 40-41, March 23,1982). Automobile, Aerospace, and measurements.18 George Taylor [ALF-CIO] and several Agricultural Implements Workers of other commentera questioned the There is widespread agreement that America (UAW). Although he expressed legality of performance-oriented area monitoring is appropriate in many some concern about the ability of small work situations, and it is also clear that or non-union companies to conduct area monitoring requirements; these participants believed that performance any type of monitoring may be monitoring, Mr. MacLeod stated ‘1 think inaccurate if it is applied that there are a lot of locations where it monitoring requirements, which remain part of the hearing conservation inappropriately. However, OSHA also would be perfectly okay to do a lot of believes that the employer should be area sampling” (Tr. Vol. HI, p. 102, standard published today, are contrary March 25,1982). In addition, MacLeod to the legislative mandate of section 6(b)(7) of the Act (Exh. 327-109, pp. 5-7; 12 Appropriate monitoring is required when specifically described certain specific information indicates that any employee’s exposure work situations involving thousands of Tr. Vol. V, p. 209, March 29,1982; Tr. may equal or exceed an 8-hour time weighted employees in which area monitoring Vol. HI, pp. 34, 37, March 25,1982). average of 85 decibels (paragraph (d)(1) of the revised amendment). would be appropriate (Tr. Vol. HI, p. 102, Section 6(b)(7) of the Act states in pertinent part: M All continuous, intermittent and impulsive March 25,1982). sound levels from 80 dB to 130 dB shall be Another concern raised by Where appropriate, such standard integrated into the noise measurements (paragraph commentera (Exh. 327-78; p. 5; Exh. 327- [promulgated under this subsection] * * * (d)(2) of the revised amendment). 9746 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

permitted to develop a monitoring are in the vicinity of an 8-hour TWA of determination's necessary to specify program, whether area or personal 85 dB” (46 FR at 4131). The January when monitoring is required and when a monitoring is chosen, that will protect amendment listed factors meriting a hearing conservation program is needed. exposed employees from positive initial determination, including Margaret Seminario of the AFL-CIO, occupationally-induced hearing loss. employee complaints about noise, stated “Deletion of the initial Therefore, it is appropriate to allow the difficulties in communication at a determinations of exposure provision employer to select any monitoring distance of approximately two feet, or has removed any affirmative obligation technique that will ensure that the measurements recording levels at or of the employer, to conduct a preliminary objectives of the standard are met. above the action level made with a evaluation of noise exposure levels” (Tr. Also, many commenters who sound level meter or dosimeter. OSHA Vol. V, p. 268, March 29,1982). supported the use of area monitoring use stayed this requirement because “some Moreover, the AFL-CIO claimed it a “worst case” method for determining employers maintained that the would be difficult for compliance which employees to include in their requirement for initial determination personnel to cite employers for hearing conservation programs. These was unnecessary” (46 FR at 42624). inadequate exposure monitoring without employers attribute the highest sound Although some commenters felt that specific criteria such as those contained level in a particular area to all the initial determination was a normal in the initial determination requirement employees in the area (Exh. 326-11; Exh. part of the monitoring process in (Exh. 327-109, p. 4). 327-79; Exh. 327-101; Exh. 327-133; Tr. identifying those employees exposed at Still other commenters favored some Vol. I-B, p. 118, March 23,1982). Use of or above the action level, they also felt this approach would lead to the modification of the explicit initial that the initial determination was determination requirements (Exh. 327- assignment of more than the required subsumed by the existing performance 101; Exh. 327-20; Exh. 327-102). For number of employees to the program. monitoring requirements (Exh. 326-15; example, some asserted that OSHA encourages employers to take a Exh. 326-34; Exh. 327-101; Exh. 327-122; professionals with a background in more protective posture relative to Exh. 329-2). In addition, some felt that acoustics should be allowed to use their hearing conservation; i.e., to do more the initial determination should not be a judgment about initial determinations, than the minimum required. separate requirement (Exh. 327-67; Exh. and further that the specific factors Some commenters suggested that 326-49; Exh. 326-54; Exh. 326-32;'Exh. listed as meriting a positive OSHA provide a simplified non- 326- 15; Exh. 326-31; Exh. 327-76; Exh. determination might result in needless mandatory monitoring guide as an 327- 97). monitoring. appendix (Exh. 327-102, p 7; Exh. 368, p. Russell Hannula [Manager-Noise 2). Such an appendix was seen as being Services; National Loss Control Service OSHA believes that an initial particularly helpful to small businesses Corporation] -objected to the inclusion of determination is an inseparable portion who were considering area sampling as employee complaints as a factor of any overall performance-oriented an alternative monitoring method. A meriting a positive initial determination, monitoring process, and that the initial general non-mandatory appendix noting: determination provision originally (Appendix G) has been included to included in the January amendment was familiarize employers with various « “Employee complaints are * * * not valid merely an articulation of the thought approaches to monitoring as .well as since these are based on a subjective determination by inexperienced people. It has process of a person doing the resources to which they may look for monitoring. As originally promulgated, help in meeting their noise measuring been my experience that employee complaints are often related to noise that is the initial determination provision might obligations under the amendment. annoying, as opposed to noise that is have been difficult to enforce in and of OSHA’s decision to permit employers hazardous. Difficulties related to itself, since there was no requirement to choose the most appropriate understanding normal conversations in the that it be written. Moreover, the Agency monitoring sampling strategy parallels presence of background noise may be related believes an initial determination is the January amendment’s performance to hearing impairment of the participants in implicit in the monitoring requirements approach toward selection of monitoring the conversation and not to potentially in the revised amendment. It is therefore instruments. Although the January hazardous noise levels” (Exh. 326-12, p. 1). not necessary to require it specifically.14 preamble (46 FR at 4136) noted that a Also challenging the necessity of a Accordingly, the initial determination sound level meter might be less accurate separate initial determination provisions are being revoked. than a dosimeter “in situations where requirement was Dr. Carl Bohl there is, a significant impulse noise [Monsanto Fellow, Monsanto Company]. Remonitoring component,” employers were given the He stated: “option of using a sound level meter, The issue of remonitoring also providing it is used in a manner which “* * * The need for monitoring is not generated considerable interest. The disputed. Normal procedure for evaluating a * * * ensures the maximum accuracy.” January promulgation required work area for a hazard requires an initial Similarly, the monitoring provisions in monitoring to be conducted at least determination not only to determine if an every two years and within sixty days the revised amendment generally permit exposure is probable but, also, what either area or personal monitoring, instrumentation is to be used. Then, if of a change in production, processes, providing it is used in a manner which needed, samples or measurements are taken equipment, controls or personnel that ensures that valid data are generated. and from this data conclusions are reached changed noise exposures to the extent about the significance of the exposure. This is that employees previously exposed Initial Determination the way monitoring is performed and trying below a TWA of 85 dB would be The amendment as promulgated in to separate initial determination from exposed at or above that level. January required employers to make monitoring is foolishness” (Exh. 326-49, p. 1). Remonitoring was also required if the initial determinations, stating that "This On the other hand, some commenters determination must be based on the were in favor of retaining the specific 14 The employer’s ultimate obligation is to monitor employer’s good faith inquiry into any language for initial determination (Exh. when noise exposures are at or above the action factors which would tend to indicate level. Regardless of the outcome of any initial 326-42, p. 10; Exh. 326-11; Exh. 327-59; determination, employers are subject to citation for that noise exposures in the workplace Exh. 327-109). They felt that an initial failing to monitor. Federal Register / Vol 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9747 change rendered the hearing protectors The majority of those favoring (Exh. 327-121; Exh. 331-11), because in issued inadequate. remonitoring, however, supported it only cases where employers do not do their The January preamble also stated that when there was a significant change in own monitoring, it would be difficult to sound levels tend to be affected as process or equipment rather than at set time arrange for a return visit by a consultant intervals (Exh. 327-89; Exh. 327-98; Exh. 327- machinery ages, causing changes in 112; Exh. 327-122; Exh. 327-149; Exh. 329-15). within such a short time. This type of employee exposure. Therefore, various For example, Julia Phillips of Du Pont detailed requirement is inconsistent hearing conservation amendment stated: with the performance approach adopted requirements might not be implemented herein and is therefore being revoked. It “Remonitoring is unnecessary absent some without some remonitoring. Another should be noted, however, that the justification for remonitoring was that change in process, equipment or exposure pattern. Unless there is reason to suspect a performance remonitoring provisions "workers will be reminded of the nature change in the noise environment, the adopted herein will require monitoring and extent of their exposures and will remonitoring requirement will simply add to be conducted frequently enough to be better motivated to participate additional costs to the hearing conservation correctly identify those employees who cooperatively in the hearing program without there being a corresponding should be included in the hearing conservation program, and to wear benefit" (Exh. 326-28, pp. 2-3). conservation program and to allow properly fitted hearing protectors” (46 Similarly, R. W. Murray and Paul E. sufficient information to be gathered to FR at 4134). Toth [Ford Motor Company], indicated The January preamble noted that assess the adequacy of hearing “it would be more appropriate to require many commenters were opposed to a protectors. follow-up monitoring only when there periodic monitoring requirement, A few comments stated that it was has been a significant change in especially where noise levels were difficult to obtain meaningful production, processes, equipment, uniform over long periods of time (46 FR remonitoring data because of the wide controls or personnel which impacts on at 4133). Similarly, other groups (Exh. variety of tasks and noise exposures of employee noise exposures. Requiring 142; Exh. 64-4; Exh. 14-862) believed employees in their particular industries routine periodic monitoring of areas "periodic monitoring was unnecessary (Exh. 329-1; Exh. 360). However, OSHA where no significant changes have been unless there was a significant change in believes that the performance made since the last monitoring would production process” (46 FR at 4134). monitoring approach in this revised result in inefficient use of scarce In August 1981, OSHA continued the amendment will accommodate this type stay of this requirement, noting that resources” (Exh. 329-2, p. 1). OSHA agrees with those commenters of job site and task variability. It allows "comments [received since the who recognize that conditions and the employer the flexibility to determine promulgation] objected to the periodic if and when remonitoring is necessary. monitoring requirement, stating that sound levels in the work environment The performance monitoring approach remonitoring every two years was costly are not static over time, and that adopted herein also allows for the and unnecessary, and that remonitoring exposures may be adversely affected by exercise of professional discretion in when there is a change in process or these changes. OSHA believes that equipment should be sufficient” (46 FR under certain conditions remonitoring is conducting noise monitoring, a major at 42624). necessary to accomplish the objectives component of the hearing conservation Comments and testimony submitted of the amendment. Therefore, a program. It also allows the most cost- since the August publication were remonitoring requirement which is effective monitoring methods to be overwhelmingly in favor of some form of stated in performance terms has been applied in establishing and maintaining remonitoring (Exh. 327-59; Exh. 327-88; included in this revised hearing the mandated hearing conservation Exh. 327-109; Exh. 331-17; Exh. 326-62; conservation amendment. Remonitoring program. must be done when there is reason to Exh. 327-20; Exh. 327-95; Exh. 329-16). Representative Monitoring Some commenters preferred retaining believe that employee exposures may periodic monitoring (Exh. 326-12; Exh. have increased to die extent that The amendment promulgated in 327-59; Exh. 327-109; Exh. 327-113; Exh. employees not already included in the January permitted employers to fulfill 327-135; Exh. 329-36; Exh. 331-17). hearing conservation program would their monitoring obligation by using Generally, Iheir rationale paraphrased need to be included. Additional representative personal sampling for that used in the January 16 preamble, monitoring must also be undertaken employees engaged in similar work and i.e., sound levels tend to increase as when there are increases m exposure exposed to similar noise levels, but sufficient to render the attenuation machinery ages and may therefore alter required measuring that member of the provided by any employee’s hearing the need for or the adequacy of a exposed group reasonably expected to protectors inadequate. In view of the company’s hearing conservation have the highest exposure. Since this tremendous variation among workplace program. Comments by Robert Frase result was then attributed to the [Director of Health and Safety, United environments covered by this remaining employees of the group, the Paperworkers International Union] amendment, a periodic remonitoring exposures of many employees would be typified this group's concerns: requirement is neither necessary nor appropriate to provide adequate overestimated. Therefore, an employer "Monitoring of noise exposures should be employee protection. Therefore, the using representative personal done every two years to ensure noise levels monitoring would probably include are not increasing. Many machines will have requirement to remonitor every two increased noise as they get older and years is being revoked. more employees in the program than tolerances increase due to wear. * * * It is Some objections were also raised were required. This “worst case” imperative that noise level monitoring be concerning the rigid time frame representative done within sixty (60) days of a change to the permitted for remonitoring (60 days) in approach may be overly protective and production process, equipment or controls. the January amendment when unnecessarily expensive for the Any of these changes could potentially company. The alternative to increase noise levels to the extent that significant changes did occur. hearing protection may be required or that Commenters reported that these specific representative personal monitoring existing protection would not be adequate” time constraints presented practical allowed in the January document was to (Exh. 327-59, pp. 1-2). problems in arranging the remonitoring continue to monitor increasing numbers 9748 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

of employees to ensure that all exposed Exh. 327-136). Moreover, individual agents * * * at levels which exceed workers are included in the program *s. notification was said to increase costs those prescribed by an applicable In many specific work situations, the and recordkeeping burdens (Exh. 326-35; occupational safety and health standard representative monitoring approach can Exh. 327-21; Exh. 327-103). promulgated under Section 6 * * *” be more cost-effective in identifying the The comments that follow are George Taylor, Director of Occupational appropriate employees for inclusion in a . representative of this view. The DuPont Safety and Health, AFL-CIO, contended hearing conservation program. The Company stated that individual that staying worker notification of employer is not prohibited from using notification is burdensome in light of the monitoring results is not justified simply the “worst case” or representative fact that “* * * employees receive by exposure variability because that approach, thereby providing a more adequate notification when results of factor is present for all the hazards protective program than required. their area or personal monitoring are addressed by other Section 6(b) However, the Agency believes the posted. Employers should be given standards and because Section 8(c)(3) of performance monitoring approach does flexibility to determine the most the OSH Act mandates notification. not require that degree of specificity to effective and efficient method of However, the AFL-CIO admits that accomplish the objectives of the hearing communicating monitoring results to posting is an acceptable way to transmit conservation amendment. OSHA is employees” (Exh. 326-28, P. 3). worker exposure information “as long as therefore revoking the representative “Notification of employees within 21 such posting methods are fully effective monitoring paragraphs of the January days of monitoring is not reasonable in apprising workers of exposure levels” amendment; employers may use any when an outside consultant is used” (Exh. 327-109, p. 15). monitoring strategy which correctly (Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Those who opposed including identifies the correct employees for Company, Exh. 327-62, p. 1). A report employee notification in the amendment inclusion in the hearing conservation submitted by North Carolina OSHA generally felt that othei provisions of the program. asserted that industry should not be hearing conservation program, such as required to determine individual TWA's Em ployee N otification training, would provide adequate notice but instead should be required to inform of exposure (Exh. 326-62, p. 2; Exh. 327- The majority of commentera employees what their area or job- 71, p. 2; Exh. 327-93, p. 2; Exh. 327-146, supported some form of employee equivalent TWA is (Exh. 327-84, p. 57). p. 4). OSHA believes employees have a notification of noise levels or exposure “The basic right of all employees to fundamental right to be apprised of the levels (Tr. Vol. V, pp. 112-113, 3/29/82; have access to their exposure records is results of monitoring. This is consistent Exh. 326-11; Exh. 326-41; Exh. 327-62; guaranteed by another OSHA standard Exh. 327-64; Exh. 327-149; Exh. 327-122; with the mandate of Section 8(c)(3) of [29 CFR 1910.20] and need not be the Act to notify employees of exposure. Exh. 349-1). Most commentera favored a reiterated in the hearing conservation Moreover, this right of notification of more performance-oriented approach amendment” (American Telephone and exposure goes beyond the provisions of rather than the detailed notification Telegraph, Exh. 327-89). The Motor 29 CFR 1910.20 which merely requires provisions of the January amendment Vehicle Manufacturers Association that employees have access to exposure which continued to be stayed when the stated that: records upon request. This explicit hearing conservation provisions went “[Employee] notification would require that into effect in August (Exh. 326-28; Exh. requirement to inform employees has records of noise measurements be retained educational value and will encourage 326- 34; Exh. 326-35; Exh. 327-62; Exh. for individual employees. For individuals more effective and enlightened worker 327- 64; Exh. 327-70; Exh. 327-76; Exh. who are reassigned frequently, this would participation in hearing conservation 327-89; Exh. 327-90; Exh. 327-97; Exh. involve extensive remonitoring and 327-101; Exh. 327-103; Exh. 327-106; recordkeeping. It is more appropriate to programs. In recognition of the many Exh. 327-122; Exh. 327-129; Exh. 327- notify the employee of the representative practical objections raised, however, the 138; Exh. 329-2; Exh. 349-1; Exh. 364). exposure he can expect in a work area and/ Agency has decided that the time frame or job classification, and the appropriate Major objections were raised with within which to notify employees and protection which may be necessary” (Exh. the requirement for individual written regard to the detailed specifications 327-103, p. 2). requiring individual employee notifications will be revoked because notification in writing and within 21 On the other hand, some commenters such specificity is inconsistent with the days, and requiring that specific were opposed to altering the general performance approach toward exposure doses be computed for each specifications of the stayed employee monitoring adopted herein. The employee (Exh. 326-12; Exh. 326-28; Exh. notification provision. Lonnie L. Johnson administrative stay of the more general 326- 58; Exh. 327-12; Exh. 327-71; Exh. [Director of the National Post Office employee notification requirements will 327- 76; Exh. 327-99; Exh. 327-102; Exh. Mail Handlers * * * Union, AFL-CIO] be lifted. The amendment now requires 327-105; Exh. 328-5; Exh. 349-1). stated: “We strongly object to the total the employer to notify each employee Objections were also raised to including stay of employee [exposure] notification who is exposed at or above the action a specific notification requirement in the requirements * * *” (Exh. 326-42, p. 11). level of the monitoring results. This hearing consèrvation amendment when The Mail Handlers also believe allows employers the flexibility needed 29 CFR 1910.20, Access to Records, notification is necessary to protect and to communicate monitoring results in already provides employees with access inform employees of conditions posing what they judge to be the most to monitoring information (Exh. 327-76; significant risks to their health so they reasonable and cost-effective manner. Exh. 327-89; Exh. 327-98; Exh. 327-122; may avail themselves of statutory OSHA believes that employers will protection. Comments from the AFL- notify their employees of monitoring “ Employers would have to monitor the “next CIO asserted that by staying the results as promptly as possible. highest” individual in a stepwise fashion until all of employee notification provisions, OSHA Moreover, although it is no longer those with a TWA greater than 85 dB are monitored. was not complying with Section 8(c)(3) specifically required, employers may This technique would reduce the number of of the Act, which mandates that “Each employees in the program to those deserving want to inform their employees in membership, but would also effectively require employer shall promptly notify any writing rather than orally because personal monitoring of most employees exposed employee who has been or is being written notification may be helpful in above the action level. exposed to * * * harmful physical gaining employee cooperation in the Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9749 hearing conservation program and in equipment to meet the requirements and instruments and methods (Exh. 327-122, protecting the employer against the need for such specificity. The p. 4; Exh. 327-149, p. 4). allegations that employees have not comments show bonsiderable The Agency recognizes that it is not been informed. disagreement on the need for or amount necessary to specify dosimeter crest of sound measuring equipment Methods o f Measurement and factor capability in workplaces without specification needed in the standard. Instrument Calibration implusive noise. Similarly, it is not Some respondents would like to retain reasonable to require employers to The method of measurement and the requirements exactly as they were purchase equipment to measure sound calibration sections in the January stated in the January amendment (Exh. levels up to 120 or 130 dB if a particular hearing conservation amendment 327-59, pp. 2—3; Exh. 327-78, pp. 5-9; worksite does not have sound levels established specific requirements for Exh. 345, pp. 7-8). Others wish to above 100 dB. “* * * The employer instruments and techniques to be eliminate the specifications, so that a should be allowed to use any instrument employed in measuring noise. In performance approach allowing or measurement technique that will promulgating these requirements, OSHA professional judgment to be applied in provide employee exposure information stated, “These specifications are evaluating specific environmental which will include continuous, considered necessary in order to conditions could be used (e.g., intermittent, and impulsive sound levels standardize and evaluate the continuous and intermittent noise * * *” (Exh. 329-64). measurement results” (46 FR at 4135). without an impulse component) (Exh. The January document required OSHA believes that the performance 326- 28, pp. 1-3; Exh. 327-122, p. 3; Exh. approach taken in this document clearly dosimeters and sound level meters to 149; Exh. 329-64). Still others preferred a states the objectives of monitoring and meet certain criteria (e.g., ANSI modified specification requirement, the capabilities that will be required, specifications, specified operating which would accommodate concerns for where appropriate, of sound measuring ranges and specified dosimeter crest crest factor appropriateness, ability of equipment that may be used. All factor capabilities). The preamble the equipment to integrate impulse continuous, intermittent and impulsive stated, “By specifying minimum noise, and appropriateness of an sounds between 80 dB and 130 dB must requirements for noise measuring instrument operating range of 80 to 130 be included in the measurement. instruments the Agency believes that it dB. A few participants wished the Additionally, the employer has the will better identify those workers OSHA standard only to include what is ultimate responsibility to ensure that needing audiometric testing and will contained in the current ANSI measurements will allow the proper help ensure that those workers requiring standards, and some requested a phase- identification and classification of hearing protectors because of a in for companies with existing significant threshold shift will be given equipment now in service (Exh. 326-1; employees with regard to a hearing protectors with proper attenuation to Exh. 327-64, p. 4; Exh. 327-82-B; Exh. conservation program. OSHA expects afford them adequate protection” (46 FR 327- 89, p. 3; Exh. 327-98, p. 9). that adherence to the performance at 4135). approach prescribed in the revised Comments supporting implementation The August document continued the amendment will ensure accurate data of the January amendment stated: stay on the instrument specification and that the appropriate employees will provisions, the calibration requirements, “The stay of provisions * * * stating be selected for the hearing conservation and provisions specifying techniques to equipment performance criteria * * * program. Adoption of specific ANSI be applied in obtaining measurements, weakens the protection provided by the standards on measuring equipment will standard * * * Without these standards, in response to many adverse comments in some circumstances limit employer about the necessity for and ability of there would be no assurance of the validity and reliability of noise exposure flexibility in complying with the existing equipment to meet these measurements at individual workplaces” amendment without providing requirements. The August document (Exh. 345). additional employee protection. Thus, it stated, “The Agency also received is difficult to see how the adoption of Other commenters noted that, "* * * comments objecting to the calibration the ANSI standard on monitoring [There is] no justification for eliminating requirements, stating that they were equipment16 will better effectuate the equipment specifications * * *” (Exh. unnecessary” (46 FR at 42624). purposes of the Act than the 327-109, p. 8), and that “* * * It is Additionally, microphone placement performance approach adopted in the entirely inconsistent to permit and specific sampling instructions revised amendment. Therefore, the employers to use * * * equipment which (Appendix B in the January amendment) ANSI equipment specifications meets no performance specifications” were stayed pending a final decision on contained in the January amendment are (Exh. 327-78, p. 8). the use of area monitoring. revoked. OSHA finds that the revised However, other comments contended The method of measurement sections monitoring provisions adopted herein that specifications were not needed in which remained constituted a will better effectuate the purposes of the the standard. In addition, some performance requirement. Employers Act within the meaning of section 6(b)(8) commenters pointed out that "OSHA’s Were expected to integrate “* * * all than will the adoption of the ANSI [stayed] specification for dosimeters continuous, intermittent, and impulsive standard. This approach will provide the rendered obsolete 23,000 dosimeters sound levels from 80 dB to 130 dB * * * flexibility to apply appropriate methods * * * it would likely cost OSHA itself into the computation” (46 FR at 42633). of measurement using equipment that around one million dollars to replace its Employers would choose the method meet or exceed stated expectations. and technique of measurement, supply of instruments * * * [and] fifteen Comments concerning monitoring providing that all appropriate employees million dollars [for industry]” (Exh. 326- equipment calibration were very similar were included in the hearing 28, p. 3). Measuring instruments should to those about equipment specifications. conservation program. conform to the specifications of The August document also continued nationally recognized consensus “ American National Standard Specification for the stay on the specifications for sound standards, but the specifications should Personal Noise Dosimeters, Sl.25-1978 and measuring equipment, in response to not be mandated, because it might American National Standard Specification for objections about the ability of restrict the development and use of new Sound Level Meters, Sl.4—1971 (R 1976). 9750 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Supporters of calibration requirements Beverages Trades Department, AFL- instruments precludes total reliance on contended that they were needed to CIO], “Field calibration of a sound level these instructions to ensure ensure valid measurements, were not meter can be performed in a matter of measurement accuracy. For example, time consuming (i.e., field calibration), seconds and calibration of a dosimeter some manufacturer^’ instructions and were a matter of good industrial may take only several minutes" (Tr. Vol. specify calibration intervals and hygiene practice (Exh. 326-41; Exh. 327- V, p. 105, March 29,1982). techniques, while others simply 22, p. 2; Exh. 327-103, p. 4).17 Many felt Despite the widespread recognition of recommend periodic calibration. In that the requirement for specific detailed the need for calibration procedures to addition, the Agency finds some merit in calibration procedures should not be ensure measurement accuracy, however, the view expressed by G. V. Cox of the attempted in a hearing conservation many commentera (Exh. 327-87; Exh. Chemical Manufacturers Association amendment. 327-89; Exh. 327-98) objected to the (Exh. 327-122), that specifically Dosimeters and sound level meters degree of specification in the January addressing calibration intervals is used to measure employee exposures calibration requirement. Several inconsistent with the revised were required by the January respondents argued that the revised amendment’s performance approach to amendment to be calibrated at specific amendment should refer employers to monitoring instruments, which permits times and in accordance with detailed the calibration procedures specified by employers to choose the most specifications.18 In response to the manufacturer of the particular appropriate device rather than comments (Exh. 325-33; Exh. 325-50; instrument used (Ekh. 327-87, p. 3; Exh. specifying instrument type and Exh. 325-77) that the calibration 327-91, p. 13; Exh. 327-98, p. 11; Exh. capability. provisions were too detailed and too 327-101, p. 5; Exh. 327-89, pp. 3-4). Consideration of all the comments burdensome, the August document According to H. M. Williams of the and testimony received on the issue of stayed these requirements. In the American Telephone and Telegraph measuring instrument çalibration has interval since August, many commentera Company (Exh. 327-89), “* * * convinced the Agency that adopting the have stressed the importance of calibration of instruments is usually performance approach to instrument calibration for the accurate unique to the instrumentation being calibration will ensure that exposure measurement of noise exposures (Exh. used, and it is, therefore, best left to the measurements are accurate and that 347; Exh. 331-17; Tr. Vol. Ill, pp. 283-284, manufacturer’s instructions * * * ” employers conduct calibration at the 294-295, March 25,1982; Exh. 345; Exh. Other commentera believe that including 327-103; Exh. 326-11; Exh. 326-41; Exh. calibration procedures in a non- intervals and in accordance with the procedures specified in the 326-12). As J. H. Stenmark (American mandatory appendix, to be used either Iron and Steel Institute] stated: by OSHA compliance personnel or manufacturer’s instructions or those dictated by good practice. Accordingly, “Field calibration of sound level meters is employers, would provide sufficient guidance about appropriate calibration the revised amendment requires that all essential and should be conducted before the noise measuring instruments be measurements, during the measurements, and techniques (Exh. 327-99, p. 9; Exh. 327- after the measurements on each day the 121, p. 2; Exh. 327-102, p. 7). As the calibrated to ensure the accuracy of instrument is used. For dosimeters which are Shipbuilders Council of America exposure measurements. This approach, worn all shift by the worker, field calibration reported (Exh. 327-104, p. 21): which was recommended by severed should be conducted on the instrument before rulemaking participants (Exh. 327-102; the shift and after the shift Laboratory “* * * we do not think that OSHA should Exh. 327-106; Exh. 327-140; Exh. 327- specify the method of calibration of noise calibration should be conducted when 149; Exh. 368), has several advantages. measuring equipment * * * Publishing problems are encountered during field First, it is consistent with the revised calibrations, anytime the instruments must be instructions to OSHA inspectors about repaired, and on a periodic basis” (Exh. 327- calibration techniques * * * can greatly amendment’s performance orientation. 105, p. 3). assist by providing models for many In addition, it permits employers to companies. Making such guidelines follow the instructions recommended by R. J. Wurm (Quest Electronics] pointed mandatory, however, unnecessarily freezes the instrument’s manufacturer, and to out that the use of noise measuring the state of the art * * *” adapt these as necessary to particular instruments in industrial settings J. G. Tritsch, of the American Textile circumstances of their workplaces. For increases the need for calibration: “Field Manufacturers Institute, recommended example, employers are not required to equipment is always subject to rough (Exh. 327-106, p. 3) that “the standard return instruments to the laboratory for use * * * A calibration check after any * * * only require the instruments [to] calibration unless they cannot be important measurement is best to be properly operative and let properly calibrated in the field. confirm the reading” (Exh. 326-11, p. 3). performance be the criteria [sic].” J. B. Moreover, contrary to the opinion In addition, calibration is not time Browning of the Union Carbide expressed by George Taylor of the AFL- consuming, burdensome, or costly, and Corporation asserted that no calibration is necessary to ensure accurate CIO (Exh. 327-109), OSHA believes that ] provision should be included in the measurements (Exh. 326-12). According adopting the performance approach will j to Deborah Berkowitz (Food and revised amendment,, because methods of better effectuate the purpose of the Act calibration should be determined by the than adopting the national consensus professional taking die exposure 17 The January amendment required that field standard because it will ensure that calibrations be done before and after each day’s measurements (Exh. 329-17). employers maintain their noise measurements to verify the accuracy of the OSHA agrees with R. K. Meyers, of monitoring instruments within measuring equipment In addition, it required a the Texaco Corporation, among others, calibration specifications whenever laboratory calibration when acoustical calibration that the calibration of sound measuring and manual adjustments could not be used to verify exposure measurements are made. On the accuracy of the measuring instrument. equipment is essential to obtaining the other hand, employers will not be “ The January calibration requirements read in accurate exposure measurements (Exh. required to perform field or laboratory part: Whenever acoustical calibration and manual 329-15; Exh. 327-87; Exh. 329-14; Exh. calibrations that are not essential to adjustments of the measuring equipment cannot 329-16; Exh. 329-57). However, the ensuring measurement accuracy. For verify the accuracy of the measuring instrument laboratory calibration shall be performed to ensure Agency believes that the diversity of these reasons, OSHA is revising the conformance with the requirements of ANSI Sl.25- sound measuring instruments and the amendment to include a requirement 1978 or Sl.4-1971, as appropriate. variability in manufacturers’ calibration that employers calibrate all sound Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9751 measuring instruments as necessary to performance goals. The revised working group on Personal Noise ensure that employee exposure amendment requires that the employer Dosimeters (Sl-78), addresses this measurements accurately reflect the choose a sampling strategy designed to matter directly (Tr. Vol. ID, pp. 135-145, noise exposure of their employees. identify employees for inclusion in the March 24,1982). Earshen points out that Since the performance approach to hearing conservation program and to the dosimeter’s function is to measure monitoring allows either area or enable the proper selection of hearing sound in the same way as a sound level personal monitoring, the specifications protectors. The revised amendment, meter and to carry out automatic data for microphone placement are no longer therefore, requires that the employer processing of the measurements to consistent with the monitoring must choose a sampling strategy, which calculate a time-weighted average requirements and are also being could be tailored for his own plant, that sound level or noise exposure. When revoked. results in attaining the monitoring goals. using the sound level meter, Many commentera requested a Since OSHA compliance personnel use measurements must be visually simplified non-mandatory version of personal sampling techniques for obtained from the instrument and then Appendix B, which suggested a inspection purposes, employers who use must be.manually processed (e.g., by monitoring strategy to be used with area monitoring in situations where recording the length of time of the sound ievel meters (Exh. 327-99; Exh. monitoring results would be various levels) to calculate the . 327-102, p. 7; Exh. 327-121, p. 2). substantially different from those employee’s noise exposure. Mr. Earshen Appendix B, as it appeared in the obtained with personal monitoring will stated that if a sound level meter’s January amendment (46 FR 4166-4176), increase their risk of being judged to be output were carefully recorded with a was designed to implement a personal out of compliance. device such as a graphic level recorder, sampling program; since the amendment Although OSHA acknowledges that the measurement information could be has been revised, this Appendix is no many monitoring procedures may permit mathematically processed in the same longer necessary and it is being revoked. employers to identify employees for manner as the dosimeter’s output. As noted above, a new appendix, inclusion in the hearing conservation Processing of the sound level meter Appendix G, has been included to program, the Agency believes that output in this way will theoretically give provide employers, particularly small personal monitoring with a dosimeter is the same exposure results as the the most accurate method of estimating employers, with some useful data to aid dosimeter gives. In other words, the employee noise exposure (employee in meeting their monitoring obligations difference between a dosimeter and a noise exposure is expressed as a under this amendment. sound level meter is that the dosimeter numerical value that represents the As the above discussion clearly integrates sound level information with shows, the detailed monitoring employee’s noise dose). For this reason, time electronically whereas the sound requirements being revoked herein are OSHA uses the dosimeter for level meter produces data that require not necessary to ensure that the noise compliance determinations in routine manual processing. To repeat, if the monitoring mandated in the hearing workplace inspections. Since the sound level meter output were conservation amendment achieves the Agency bears the burden of proof when processed automatically, the results goals for which it was intended: to alleging that an employer has violated select all employees who should be an occupational safety and health would be, theoretically, the same (Tr. included in the hearing conservation standard, OSHA strives to allege Vol. Ill, pp. 135-145, March 24,1982). program and to ensure that any hearing violations only when relatively certain The difference in results between protectors used will provide adequate that violations have occurred. The dosimeters and sound level meters is attenuation to protect employees in their procedures OSHA uses to obtain caused by differences in human particular workplace noise environment. exposure data are therefore designed to perception during the intergration of OSHA agrees with Dr. Harold Dietz yield the best estimates available. sound level meter readings. “Therefpre, [Director of Health and Environmental many of the problems that people Dosimeters Services of the BF Goodrich Company], attribute to being fundamental who stated: During the March hearings, the differences between sound level meters accuracy of dosimeters was questioned and dosimeters are really reflections on “The company has carefully reviewed the proposed monitoring obligations, as well as by Paul Hess, appearing for the what an operator can and cannot do” complied with the performance standard Chocolate Manufacturers Association. (Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 137, March 24,1982).19 which has been in effect pending the stay of Hess stated that he conducted an Earshen included in his post-hearing the more complex requirements. In our experiment using two or three submission an article by Warren R. experience, we have found the performance dosimeters from the same manufacturer Kundert entitled, "Dosimeters, Impulsive standard to be far superior to the more and that “1 found variances as much as Noise, and the OSHA Hearing ^ detailed monitoring requirements, and we 100 percent, 120 percent or more” (Tr. believe that employee protection would in no Conservation Amendment,” which way be diminished should OSHA retain the Vol. II, p. 250, March 24,1982. He further supports OSHA’s conclusion. performance standard when it promulgates concluded that he did not want When discussing the measurement of its final rule” (Exh. 327-86, p. 2). dosimeters used in his workplace. The impulse noise, Kundert states that: revised amendment does not require Enforcement o f Monitoring employers to use dosimeters. However, 19 Earshen claimed that if a high speed motion The preceding section discussed the OSHA does not agree with Hess’ picture camera recorded the bouncing needle of a ! differences between the monitoring conclusion. When Hess compared 8- sound level meter and if these pictures were hour TWA values obtained with analyzed frame by frame to synthesize what the | requirements of the January 1981 readings were on the sound level meter, the results j amendment, which contained many dosimeters to calculated 8-hour TWA would be similar to the results produced by a specifications for noise monitoring, and estimates made by sound level meters, dosimeter. He concluded that the human eye/brain i the revised amendment, which also he assumed that the sound level meter combination was not able to analyze this high speed requires noise monitoring but allows the measurements and sampling strategy dynamic motion properly and that this fact, rather than any flaw in the dosimeters, accounted for employer flexibility under most were accurate and that the variations discrepancies between dosimeter readings and circumstances to select any method as were due to dosimeter inaccuracy. John sound level meter readings (Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 137, I long as it achieves the defined J. Earshen, Chairman of the ANSI March 25,1982). 9752 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

“An ordinary ANSI Type 2 sound level duration. OSHA has observed this kind of requiring that employees be given an meter sfaoald not be used. Only an impulsive agreement in its compliance experience. In explanation of procedures, observe all sound level meter (set to A slow) will provide such cases, the noise dose can easily be steps involved, and record the results. sufficient accuracy when short duration obtained with a sound level meter using Information was requested as to impulses are present. This instrument is Table G-16a and the procedures given in specified by standard IEC 651.1979 and Appendix A, I. However, if the sound level whether these stayed provisions are included in the current ANSI draft standard varies over a range of more than a few necessary to afford employees a that will replace S i .4-1971. decibels and, particulaiiy, if the sound level meaningful opportunity to exercise their W e have the task of taking many readings, undergoes rather rapid excursions due to statutory right to observe monitoring. (10 or possibly many more) assigning to each intermittent or impulse , it can be very OSHA has received many comments a duration which we must estimate and then difficult to obtain accurate noise doses using asking that the more detailed provisions using the equation given in that OSHA a sound level meter and a timing device. that were stayed be deleted on the regulation to find the percentage dose. It OSHA therefore concludes that a properly grounds that the general observation would seem that such a procedure should be calibrated dosimeter reads the correct dose automated. but that the use of a sound level meter, for requirement on which the stay was W e could take samples from our sound intermittent noise or noise with significant lifted in August provides sufficient level meter autom atically using a mini- impluse content, may lead to an assurance of employees’ right to observe computer and special interfacing equipment. underestimate of the correct dose.“ monitoring 20 (Exh. 326-21; Exh. 326-31; O f course this equipment could not easily be OSHA will, therefore, allow the Exh. 326-32; Exh. 326-62; Exh. 327-13; moved about in a manufacturing plant. To Exh. 327-20; Exh. 327-28; Exh. 327-51; solve this portability problem, we would employer to use any monitoring equipment. OSHA will evaluate Exh. 327-62; Exh. 327-71; Exh. 327-80; record the noise signal using a tape recorder Exh. 327-90; Exh. 327-102; Exh. 327-105; and then play the tape through our stationary compliance with the monitoring impulse sound level m eter and computer requirements by evaluating the Exh. 327-111; Exh. 327-129; Exh. 327- equipment. Can we afford the time and employer’s decisions for including 135; Exh. 327-138; Exh. 327-139; Exh. equipment for such a complicated procedure? employees in the hearing conservation 327-141; Exh. 327-145; Exh. 328-5; Exh. O f course not! Fortunately, there is not need program and for selecting the proper 329-15; Exh. 364). to. The dosim eter w ill do the jo b fo r us. hearing protection using exposure Several commenters suggested the The dosimeter is really an automatic language of the stayed provision system just like the one described. On site, a results obtained using the dosimeters. Employers whose monitoring program concerning explanations was confusing small wearable package continuously in that it places an open-ended monitors the A weighted sound level and fails to meet the goals of the monitoring solves the OSHA equation to determine the requirements will, however, be subject requirement for explanation on dose. The dosimeter is dearly more efficient to citation. employers (Exh. 327-67; Exh. 327-90; than a manual or even an automated Exh. 327-93; Exh. 327-136). Several procedure using a sound level meter. Observation o f Monitoring others asked detailed an explanation is Impulsive noises need not be a problem if OSHA’s January amendment required required (Exh. 327-21; Exh. 327-90; Exh. care is taken to select a dosimeter capable of employers to provide employees with 327-136; Exh. 364). The Diamond handling them’’ (Exh. 380-2, pp. 15-16, Shamrock Corporation suggested emphasis added). the opportunity to observe any measurements of employee noise “* * * because of the technical nature Since January 1981, OSHA has exposure being conducted pursuant to of the [we) suggest received other information concerning the amendment The January preamble that mandatory explanations be limited dosimeter accuracy. This information noted that the right to observe to the significance of observed essentially conforms with the monitoring is mandated by Section measurements and need not include information discussed in the January 8(c)(3) of the A c t The Agency also technical explanations of either the amendment Therefore, OSHA reaffirms reaffirmed its belief that “ * * * workers physical aspects of the noise being its January 1981 discussion, who observed] the monitoring of their measured or the practice of noise interpretations, and findings on the use exposures [will] gain insight into the measurement” [Exh. 327-95, p. 4). of dosimeters to make measurements nature and extent of the noise hazard, The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers under 29 CFR 1910.95 (46 FR 4135 to and will become more involved in the Association (Exh. 327-103, p. 4) and die 4139). They are repeated, in p art below hearing conservation program. This Ford Motor Company (Exh. 329-2, p. 4) (40 FR 4139b involvement should increase the opposed the detailed specifications, “It has been stated (Exh. 321-47, pp. 1-2) motivation for proper use of ear claiming that they interfere in areas that in certain conditions a noise dosimeter protection, and thereby increase the covered in negotiated labor agreements. overestimates the noise dose relative to that effectiveness of the program” (46 FR at Other commenters argued that which would be obtained using a sound level 4155). explanations of exposure monitoring are meter and timing device. OSHA believes that In addition to the basic right to this situation should not occur for the observe monitoring, the January 20 As promulgated in January the observation of following reasons: A dosimeter essentially amendment provided employees with monitoring provisions read: consists of a sound level meter followed by a (IjT h e employer shall provide affected circuit that integrates die proper function of the right to an explanation of the employees or their representatives with an the A-weighted sound level. When only a measurement procedures, to observe all opportunity to observe any measurements of sound level meter is used, sufficient data as steps related to the noise exposure employer noise exposure which are conducted to the temporal distribution of sound levels measurements, and to record the results. pursuant to * * * this section. must be taken so as to enable the integration After publication of the January (2) Without interfering with the monitoring to be done numerically. Assuming that each procedures the observer shall be entitled to: amendment, OSHA received comments (i) Receive an explanation of the measurement instrument performs accurately and that the expressing confusion as to the amount microphone positions are the same, the noise procedures; of explanation necessary and asserting dose obtained with a dosimeter and that (ii) Observe aU steps related to the noise that this requirement would be overly exposure measurements performed at the place of obtained using a sound level meter and a exposure; and timing device should agree when the daily burdensome (Exh. 325-58; Exh. 325-103; (iii) Record the results obtained. noise exposure is the result of several Exh. 325-245; Exh. 325-51 Exh. 325-239;). The stay of paragraphs (i)(2)(j), (ii) and (iii) was essentially constant sound levels, each Therefore, in August, OSHA continued continued in the August Federal Register document. experienced for an easily determined the stay of the paragraphs specifically Paragraph (i)(l) was allowed to go into effect Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9753

more easily provided in regular training here because this standard covers a far audiogram, employees were to be tested sessions (Exh. 327-102, p. 7; Exh. 327- greater number and variety of employers at least annually and the results of this 139, p. 4). than any other health standard. annual audiometric test were to be OSHA also has received many Moreover, it should be noted that a compared against the baseline comments attesting to the need to number of health standards, including audiogram to determine whether any specify the rights of employees when those covering asbestos and vinyl deterioration of hearing had occurred. observing monitoring (Exh. 326-41; Exh. chloride, have observation of monitoring The amendment used the term 326-42; Exh. 327-59; Exh. 327-78, p. 15; sections that do not specifically accord significant threshold shift (STS) to Exh. 327-109, p. 16; Exh. 327-136; Exh. the right to receive an explanation. We denote deterioration of hearing that was 329-36; Éxh. 329-57; Exh. 345; Exh. 347; are not aware of employees suffering as substantial enough to initiate follow-up Tr. VoL III, p. 63, March 25,1982; Tr. Vol. a result of the more abbreviated version procedures to prevent further hearing IV, p. 245, March 28,1982; Tr. Vol. V, pp. of the observation of monitoring rights loss. In response to some confusion 243-266, March 29,1982; Tr. Vol. V. pp. included in those standards. concerning the term "significant 266-273, March 29,1982). Frank Chimes In addition, OSHA finds the threshold shift”, OSHA has decided to of the United Steelworkers of America arguments of some commenters, that use instead the term "standard (Exh. 326-41, p. 3) asserted that information on monitoring procedures is threshold shift” (STS) to describe the observers need sufficient information to more effectively presented in scheduled point at which follow-up procedures are understand what is going on. He training sessions than during actual required. Under certain circumstances, contended further, ***** we do not monitoring persuasive (Exh. 327-58; Exh. the amendment required that an have any indication from any other 327-139; Exh. 329-17). For these reasons, employee with an STS be retested to health standard that problems with the OSHA has determined that in the determine if the hearing loss was explanation provision is more than a context of the hearing conservation permanent. Under other circumstances, figment of an employer’s hyperactive amendment the stayed provisions of the employees exhibiting STS‘s had to be imagination. In fact, the parties often observation of monitoring requirements referred to professionals for evaluation work out any procedures that are are not essential for employees to or counseled. Some of the audiometric necessary to implement this provision.” exercise their right to observe test provisions generated a good deal of The United Paperworkers International monitoring in a meaningful manner. controversy. Some of the other Union (Exh. 327-59, p. 3) recommended Therefore, these detailed provisions provisions caused confusion and many that the stay on the provisions be lifted have been revoked. commenters requested clarifications or because it “* * * will help to ensure Summary interpretations. Hie audiometric test that the worker is involved in the noise provisions and interpretations of some Clearly, substantial evidence in the measurements and is not a passive of these provisions are discussed below. record considered as a whole supports observer who does not understand the conclusion that the performance- measurement procedures." The Q ualifications o f Technician oriented monitoring requirements Paperworkers also specified a list of Administering Audiometric Tests adopted herein are all that is necessary items they believe should be included in or appropriate to ensure the employee Hie January amendment 21 provided the explanation of monitoring. protection contemplated by the hearing that audiometric examinations be OHSA has reviewed the comments conservation amendment. Moreover, administered by a licensed or certified submitted regarding the necessity of this approach is consistent with the audiologist, otolaryngologist or other retaining the stayed provisions to obtain mandate of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, qualified physician, or by a certified meaningful observation of monitoring. which stipulates that standards be audiometric technician under the Virtually all commenters agree that phrased in performance terms insofar as supervision of an audiologist, observation of monitoring is an possible. OSHA therefore finds that the otolaryngologist or physician. After employee right and many are monitoring provisions prescribed herein promulgation, commenters requested accustomed to providing such are appropriate. This finding is based on clarification of the qualifications of the opportunities. We do not think that the Agency expertise and judgment as to technicians permitted to administer revocation of these detailed provisions what is necessary to achieve the goals audiometric tests. In response to these will cause the observation of monitoring of the amendment and on the fact that requests, the Agency explained that all provisions to become meaningless in the the objections raised to the performance persons who can demonstrate context of noise measurement. There are approach adopted herein are speculative “competency in administering tests and two standard ways of measuring noise and conclusory. in the use and care of audiometers may exposure: The dosimeter and the sound administer audiometric tests required by level meter. The results obtained with a Adiometric Testing the standard” (46 FR 42625). This would sound level meter are readily The amendment promulgated in include trained technicians, hearing aid observable and understandable. When January required that employers make specialists, industrial hygienists, and dosimeters are used the Agency audiometric testing available to all nurses, in addition to the audiologists, assumes that the dosimeter readout employees who had workplace noise otolaryngologists, and physicians who would be observed by employees so exposures equal to or greater than an 8- are specifically permitted by the long as the readout device is located in ' hour TWA of 85 dB. After the phase-in standard to administer these tests. the plant The dosimeter readout, in period, initial or baseline audiograms OSHA still endorses this interpretation. percentage of allowable dose or in were to be obtained within 4 months of Questions raised during the recent decibels, should be self-explanatory. an employee’s first noise exposure at or public hearing indicate, however, that The fact that provisions similar to the above the action level. The audiometric further clarification would be useful. hearing conservation amendment’s testing was to be conducted by a The standard recognizes two methods original observation of monitoring physician, audiologist or for persons to become trained in requirements have been included otolaryngologist or by a technician administering audiometric tests. The without apparently causing confusion in under the supervision of one of these other health standards is not dispositive professionals. After the baseline ** 29 CFR 1910.95(0(3), 46 FR at 4162. 9754 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations first is to complete a training course interpret the results. The Agency gave difficult or impossible because these administered by a training institution notice in the August Federal Register workers work for several employers in a certified by the Council of Accreditation document that it believed that the word season or over the year. Furthermore, for Occupational Hearing Conservation “qualified” is unnecessary in the OSHA allowed the 4-month period to or a course given by another recognized amendment because adequate permit employers who used distant training organization, and to receive a professional judgment and responsibility consulting services to schedule mobile certificate upon completion of the can be assumed. test van visits at quarterly intervals. course. The second method involves In response to the Agency’s request Commenters argued that companies demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the for comments on this issue, many relying on mobile van audiometric test professional supervisor of the hearing commenters (Exh. 327-24, p. 1; Exh. 327- services would be forced by the 4-month conservation program, that competence 28, p. 2; Exh. 327-35, p. 1; Exh. 327-76, p. baseline requirement to send newly in test administration and audiometer 7; Exh. 327-77, p. 2; Exh. 327-88, p. 5; hired employees to a clinic, which use has been achieved. The wording of Exh. 327-95, p. 5; Exh. 327-102, p. 7; Exh. would be considerably more expensive the amendment has been changed 327-106, p. 7; Exh. 327-140, p. 3) agreed on a per employee basis than using a slightly to clarify the intent; that is, that with the Agency’s position that the term mobile test van. Mobile testing services the technician must be able to show “qualified” should be deleted because frequently impose a minimum fee and it competence in the proper use, licensed physicians who undertake might not be practical to have the test maintenance, calibration and responsibility for audiometric testing van visit the company more than once a functioning of the particular type of programs are assumed to be qualified. year. In view of the above audiometer being used, rather than Only one commenter, Dr. S. White of the considerations, the Agency decided to audiometers in general. This on-the-job American Speech-Language-Hearing reconsider the 4-month baseline training approach will permit employers Association, stated that the term should requirement. The stay was therefore a substantial amount of flexibility in be retained (Exh. 327-154, p. 3). continued in August, and the Agency staffing their hearing conservation Therefore, in view of the evidence in the requested data and information on this programs, while ensuring that employee record, OSHA has decided to delete the issue (see 46 FR 42625-42626). audiograms are properly taken. The term, “qualified,” preceding the word OSHA understands the value of standard envisions that persons physician in the audiometric testing conducting pre-employment baseline administering audiometric tests will provisions of the standard. audiograms, which are the most ensure the appropriateness of the test Baseline Audiogram accurate indicators of employees’ environment and functionally calibrate The baseline audiogram is extremely hearing levels before exposure to noise. and maintain the audiometer; in They help to determine if changes in addition, this person will screen important since it is the reference against which future audiograms are future audiograms represent actual audiograms to identify problem shifts due to noise exposures. Several audiograms needing further evaluation compared to determine the extent to which an employee’s hearing is organizations and companies, including by a professional and audiograms with DuPont (Exh. 327-91), Shell Oil (Exh. standard threshold shifts. OSHA agrees deteriorating. If the baseline audiometric 327-102, p. 8), Texaco (Exh. 329-15, p. 5), with J. C. Morrill [Impact Hearing test is not conducted properly, it will not Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Conservation], however, that the reflect the employee’s true hearing Association (Tr. Vol. II, p. 109, March 24, responsibility for direction of the thresholds, and any real changes 1982), Reynolds Metals (Tr. Vol. I-B, pp. hearing conservation program should between baseline and future tests may 270-271, March 23,1982), Edijson Electric remain “in the hands of a professional be masked. The January amendment Institute (Tr. Vol. II, p. 219, March 24, audiologist, otolaryngologist, or required employers to obtain a baseline 1982), American Iron and Steel Institute physician” (Exh. 327-35, p. 5), although or first audiogram for each employee (Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 277, March 25,1982),' and trained technicians can perform the within 4 months of the employee’s first Dresser Industries (Tr. Vol. IV, p. 80, tasks specified above. We believe that exposure to workplace noise at or above the amendment reflects this intention. an 8-hour TWA of 85 dB. The need to March 26,1982) either perform or perform baseline audiograms early recommend pre-employment audiograms Q ualified Physician during the employee’s exposure to when feasible. OSHA does not believe As stated above, the hearing safeguard the purity of the audiogram as that pre-employment audiograms are conservation amendment requires that much as possible was recognized. In the practical in many cases, or essential to certain portions of the audiometric January preamble, OSHA made a protect worker hearing in the context of testing program be performed by finding that to delay baseline testing an industrial hearing conservation professionals, while other functions may more than 4 months was not appropriate program. However, pre-employment be carried out by technicians. By the since employees might incur some audiograms do represent good or “ideal” terms of the amendment, professionals hearing loss dining the interval, which practice, and OSHA encourages include licensed or certified would cause the baseline audiogram to employers to obtain them where it is audiologists, otolaryngologists, and be elevated by temporary hearing loss practical to do so. “qualified” physicians. (46 FR 4143). This elevation would mask Dr. L. Royster (Exh. 327-84, pp. 30-31) After publication of the January the true extent of any threshold shift and others (Exh. 327-20, pp. 2—3; Exh. amendment, OSHA received requests between baseline and future tests and 327-135, p. 4; Exh. 327-119, pp. 2-3) for clarification of the term qualified would result in delayed detection of a urged that different intervals should be preceding physician (see 29 CFR significant threshold shift. Additionally, allowed for baseline testing, depending 1910.95(j)(3) and (j)(7)(ii), 46 FR at 4162). OSHA established the 4-month period to on the employee’s exposure level. They In the preamble to the August document, enable employers to exclude most argued that employees exposed to high OSHA explained that “qualified” was seasonal and temporary workers from levels of noise should be tested sooner intended to mean any licensed the audiometric testing program on the than those exposed to moderate or physician who believes that he or she basis that audiometric testing and lower levels. However, OSHA agrees has adequate training or knowledge to follow-up procedures for seasonal with D. C. Gasaway, who stated that administer audiometric tests and employees would be administratively using different time frames to establish Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9755 baseline audiograms for employees are not expected to be exposed to testing services that test on-site on an annual exposed to different levels of noise extremely high levels of noise at any basis. would lead to administrative confusion time during their employment, including “Since the standard requires the use of and might cause some affected during the period before the baseline personal hearing protectors and emphasizes training in the use and care of these deyices, audiogram is taken. Under these employees to be overlooked (Exh. 327- were they provided immediately to any 66, p. 17). Moreover, such a strategy circumstances, the Agency finds that it employee at his first exposure to noise at or would not solve the problem for those is appropriate to allow the employer 6 above a time-weighted average of 85 dB, and using mobile testing services. Others months in which to obtain employee were their proper use enforced, a valuable requested that the period for obtaining baseline audiograms. and reliable baseline hearing test would be baseline audiograms be extended to 6 Numerous commenters argued established for those employees at the time of months to exclude seasonal workers in persuasively that the 4-month baseline the annual hearing testing. some industries who work more than audiogram requirement contained in the “This approach would be effective in 120 days but less than 180 days, and January amendment was unduly preventing any threshold shift until the who often have a 100% turnover rate (Tr. restrictive and costly for those who rely baseline could be established at the Voi. HI, p. 8, March 25,1982; Tr. Voi. IV, on mobile test vans because it would economic convenience of the employer. "Many companies who rely on mobile p. 203, March 26,1982). either necessitate three visits by the van service have operations located far from After carefully considering the record a year or require employers to send cities and other urban areas. They rely on the evidence, the Agency has decided that employees to a clinic, which would mobile operations to go to them for baseline employers who have their own involve high cost, travel time, and and annual hearing testing and for catch-up audiometrìe testing facilities or who special testing fees (Exh. 329-15, p. 5; tests when possible. It would be send their employees to clinics for Exh. 327-146, pp. 18-19; Exh. 327-61, p. 2; economically disastrous for these companies testing should obtain baseline Exh. 327-96, p. 2; Tr. Vol. I-B, pp. 208- and logistically impossible for the mobile audiograms for their employees within 6 209, 254, March 23,1982; Tr. Vol. IV, p. services to travel to each location to conduct months of the employees’ first exposures 80, March 26,1982). baseline tests within four months of to workplace noise at or above the Many commenters recommended that exposure, or for the companies to send their employees to a local clinic or physician action level. The requirement to obtain OSHA extend the 4-month baseline baseline audiograms within 4 months of where the cost per employee would be much requirement to 1 year, provided that higher. the employees’ first exposure at or hearing protectors are used until a “Effective industrial hearing conservation above the action level is being revoked. baseline audiogram is performed (Exh. can be achieved with a program of annual This relaxation of the time period in 327-143, p. 5; Exh. 327-61, p. 2; Exh. 333, hearing testing conducted in conjunction with which to obtain baseline audiograms for p. 3; Exh. 327-96, p. 2; Tr. Vol. IV, p. 209, a conscientious and enforced program of those employers with in-house testing . March 26,1982; Tr. Vol. I-B, p. 208, personal hearing protection use” (Tr. Vol. I-B, capability and those using clinics for March 23,1982).» pp. 208-209, March 23,1982. audiometrìe testing is in recognition of These participants maintained that OSHA agrees in principle with P. the fact that the 4-month period allowed hearing protectors would be effective in Crouch of the Refractories Institute and in January to obtain baseline minimizing or preventing temporary others (Exh. 327-28; Exh. 327-66; Exh. audiograms was too short to permit the threshold shift prior to the baseline exclusion of many seasonal workers 327-143; Exh 327-146) that companies audiogram (Exh. 327-61, p. 2; Exh. 327- using mobile testing services to satisfy from the audiometrìe testing 143, p. 5; Exh. 327-96, p. 2; Tr. VoL IV, ' their audiometric testing obligations requirements (see Exh. 328-29; Exh. 326- pp. 86-81, March 26,1982). In the words 30; Exh. 374, pp. 199-206; Exh. 325-64). It under the hearing conservation of R. Connelly of Audiometric amendment should be allowed one year is neither practical nor appropriate to Associates: require audiometrìe testing of seasonal to obtain baseline audiograms provided workers; the tenure of employment is "The implementation of an effective that their employees exposed at or hearing conservation program should too short to permit the type of hearing above the action level use hearing eliminate the need to obtain a baseline protectors until such time as the evaluation mandated by the amendment audiogram within the first 4 months of in that the employee will not be baseline audiogram is obtained. Such an exposure to workplace noise. Companies approach would, however, treat employed long enough for the employer should be encouraged to obtain baseline tests to obtain an annual audiogram against as soon as possible for new employees and employees who are to be tested using which to compare the baseline [be] required to do so within 1 year of mobile test vans differently from those audiogram.22 exposure” (Tr. Vol. IV, p. 209, March 26, whose employers have their own in- In January, the Agency found that it 1982). house audiometric testing facilities. The was not appropriate to delay baseline W. E. Bodenheimer [Colorado Speech former group of employees would have testing more than 4 months since and Hearing Center] noted: to wear hearing protectors for up to a employees’ audiograms might be year before the baseline audiogram is “The intent here [of the 4-month baseline contaminated by temporary threshold taken even if their exposure is below the requirement] was to avoid contamination by permissible exposure level of 90 dB; the shifts (TTS) (46 FR 4143). While this threshold shifts on the basejine audiogram, to finding was undoubtedly correct when allow employers to exclude most seasonal latter group of employees would not employees are exposed to high noise and temporary workers from the testing need to wear hearing protectors during levels, it did not fully consider the program, and avoid the problems of requiring the six-month period in which the realities of the situation. The pre-employment baseline tests. employer has to obtain baseline occupational noise exposure standard "All of these problems can be solved in a audiograms if their exposures are below (29 CFR 1910.95(a) and (b)) requires that much easier and cost effective manner as far the permissible exposure level. as we are concerned, particularly for those Therefore, the amendment only requires employee exposures be reduced to thousands of companies that rely on mobile within the permissible exposure limits that where the employer is using mobile test vans and wishes to take a full year (90 dB as a TWA). Therefore, employees 23 The effect of the continued stay on the provision requiring that baseline audiograms be to obtain baseline audiograms, 15 The same rationale applies in all high turnover obtained within 4 months was to allow employers a employees whose exposures are below situations. year to obtain baseline audiograms. the permissible exposure level must 9756 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations wear hearing protectors from any period wearing of hearing protectors could not (hearing protectors) will prevent exceeding six months after first be used to provide this quiet period. significant contamination of the data exposure until the baseline audiogram is After publication of the January base by TTS” (Exh. 327-84, p. 4). obtained. This decision recognizes the amendment, many commenters informed Several comments claimed that valid practical limitations posed by the use of OSHA that prohibiting the use of baseline audiograms could be obtained mobile testing vans and the logistical hearing protectors to provide quiet if hearing protector use was well problems which would arise if the before the baseline audiogram might supervised on the day of the baseline amendment were to require audiometric prove unnecessarily restrictive (Exh. test. In fact, this was felt to be superior baselines to be obtained within 6 325- 220; Exh. 325-248; Exh. 325-251; to the 14-hour quiet period “without months, regardless of the size and Exh. 325-268). The stay on this exposure to workplace noise” where location of the employer’s firm. It also prohibition was continued in August and employee exposures are unknown and allows some flexibility for scheduling OSHA solicited evidence on whether uncontrolled (Exh. 327-113, p. 2; Exh. difficulties (Exh. 327-106, p. 4; Exh. 327- hearing protectors would be effective in 327-104, p. 17; Exh. 327-51, p. 3; Exh. 51; Exh. 327-91, p. 16) while minimizing preventing TTS before baseline 327-39; p. 1; Exh. 327-35, p. 2; Exh. 327- the chances that the baselines will be audiograms. 120, pp. 2-3; Tr. Vol. I-B, pp. 193-194, contaminated by temporary threshold The Agency received many comments 209, March 23,1982; Tr. Vol. II, p. 222, shifts as hearing protectors are only in favor of allowing the use of hearing March 24,1982; Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 67,107- being relied upon to provide a very protectors to supply quiet prior to the 108, March 26,1982. small amount of attenuation. Moreover, baseline audiogram (Exh. 327-103; Exh. Several commenters testified to the this approach is expected to 327-101; Exh. 327-105). On the other difficulties that the prohibition against substantially relieve the burden of hand, some commenters argued that substituting hearing protectors for the obtaining baseline audiograms on those hearing protectors should not be 14-hour quiet period would cause. employers with highly transient or substituted for the quiet period (Exh. Among the problems cited were the cost difficult to reach worksites.24 326- 41; Exh. 326-42; p. 12; Exh. 327-20, p. of paying employees R. Brisnehan of the Petroleum 3). For example, F. P. Grimes of the when they were tested on unscheduled Equipment Suppliers Association and G. United Steelworkers of America work days (Exh. 326-35; Exh. 326-43; McKown of the International asserted that even close supervision of Exh. 327-21; Exh. 327-34; Exh. 327-29; Association of Drilling Contractors employees wearing hearing protectors Exh. 329-64; Exh. 331-33), disruption of admitted that extending the baseline before testing is not equivalent to a 14- employee work schedules (Exh. 326-28; requirement to 1 year would solve hour pre-test quiet period (Exh. 326-41). Exh. 326-35; Exh. 326-43; Exh. 327-21; several of their industry’s problems with Two professional audiologists, J. Exh. 327-34; Exh. 327-54; Exh. 327-88; complying with the audiometric test Shampan of Impact Hearing Exh. 327-90; Exh. 329-64), and the provisions of the amendment (Tr. Vol. I- Conservation, Inc., and Dr. D. G. Harvey difficulty and expense associated with B, p. 295, March 23,1982).25 of Audiology Associates, Inc., expressed scheduling mobile audiometric test vans 14 Quiet Hours concern that the use of hearing (Exh. 326-43; Exh. 327-29; Exh. 327-54; protectors would not prevent TTS from The January amendment required that Exh. 327-90; Exh. 327-146; Exh. 331-33). contaminating the audiogram (Exh. 327- employees exposed at or above the 85 Many participants stated that these 53,,p. 1; Tr. Vol. V, p. 45, March 29,1982). dB action level be given an audiometric problems could be overcome by test to establish a baseline audiogram. Most commenters, however, stated permitting employees to wear hearing That test was to be preceded by a that hearing protectors can be effective protectors during the 14-hour period, minimum period of 14 quiet hours in minimizing TTS and will not interfere before the baseline is taken, particularly without exposure to workplace noise. witji obtaining a valid audiogram (Exh. if employees were made aware of the This quiet period was intended to allow 327- 114, p. 23; Exh. 327-108, pp. 6-7; Exh. effects of pre-test noise exposures (Exh. an employees’s hearing to recover from 327-105, p. 4; Exh. 327-101, p. 5; Exh. 327-141, p. 4; Exh. 327-61, p. 3; Exh. 327- any temporary threshold shift (TTS) 327-98, p. 19; Exh. 327-97, p. 3; Exh. 327- 140, p. 4). caused by pre-test noise exposure, 93, p. 3; Exh. 327-89, p. 4; Exh. 327-68, After thorough review and analysis of because TTS would mask the pp. 2-3; Tr. Vol. II, pp. 106-107, March the comments and testimony received in employee’s true hearing threshold. If the 24,1982). connection with this issue, OSHA has baseline audiogram was contaminated Dr. H. W. McCurdy, Executive determined that the use of hearing by TTS, subsequent comparisons of the Director of the American Council of protectors should be permitted as a baseline audiogram to the annual Otolaryngology, asserted that a hearing substitute for the 14-hour quiet period. audiogram would not show the true protector that reduces the level of sound The Agency concurs with the large extent of the hearing loss since the energy reaching the ear to 80 dBA or number of commenters who testified baseline would not reflect the true less will effectively reduce TTS; that hearing protectors may provide hearing threshold at the time it was attenuation to this level would limit the sufficient attenuation to prevent noise- taken (see 46 FR 4146-4147). The amount of baseline contamination to induced TTS from contaminating less than the usual amount of baseline audiograms. As Dr. McCurdy 24 Where employers with these type of audiometric measurement error (Exh. emphasized, * * * “[the] use of hearing workplaces do have an in-house test capability, 327-151, p. 3). protection to reduce exposure to noise there would, of course, be no problem in obtaining An evaluation of more than 40 prior to the baseline measurement baseline audiograms within 6 months. industrial audiometric data bases, which should be permitted * * * [An] 25 Clearly, high employee turnover rates do not render the requirement to obtain baseline was conducted by Dr. L. Royster of advantage of this allowance is that it audiograms impractical when a full year is allowed North Carolina State University, may aid in reducing TTS due to non- to obtain the baseline. The employer has the option confirms the effectiveness of hearing occupational noise exposure prior to of waiting to see which employees stay before protection in preventing TTS baseline testing, if the employer makes obtaining baseline audiograms; this may greatly reduce the number of baseline audiograms the contamination bf the audiogram (Exh. hearing protectors available to employer will have to obtain (Tr. Vol. I-B, p. 295, 327-84, p. 41). As Dr. Royster reports, employees for use outside the March 23,1982). “proper utilization of appropriate workplace. Informing employees of the Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9757 importance of avoiding excessive noise amendment required employers to notify agrees with Dr. W. E. Bodenheimer of exposure on and off the job is an employees of the need to avoid high the Colorado Speech and Hearing integral part of any hearing conservation levels of noise during the 14-hour period Center that, “although this paragraph effort * * *” (Exh. 327-151, p. 3). OSHA preceding their baseline audiograms. may be redundant because this kind of agrees with Dr. McCurdy that the This requirement was designed to help information would occur during training, amendment’s training provisions, which ensure that the baseline audiogram was which is already required by the require that employees be trained in the not contaminated with temporary standard, * * * retaining this selection, fitting, use, and care of threshold shift (see 29 CFR requirement would supply additional hearing protectors and the effects of 1910.95(j) (5) (ii)[b), 46 FR 4162). Some support to the goal of obtaining valid noise on hearing, will also operate to commenters suggested that this , and reliabe hearing testing results” (Tr. increase the effectiveness of hearing requirement was unnecessary and Vol. I-B, p. 212, March 23,1982). protectors in the workplace. * redundant since the effect of noise Although employers are not A number of other suggestions were exposures on audiogram results would responsible for employee noise given to help maximize hearing be explained during the training exposures sustained away from the protector effectiveness in preventing required by another provision of the workplace, the likelihood of non- temporary threshold contamination of standard (Exh. 327-20, p. 5; Exh. 326-34, occupational noise exposure the baseline audiogram (Exh. 327-114, p. p. 5; Exh. 327-91, p. 22). contaminating the baseline audiogram 23; Exh. 327-106, p. 3; Exh. 327-113, p. 2; Other commenters stated that even if can be substantially reduced by Exh. 327-105, p. 4; Exh. 327-103, p. 5). employees were notified of the counseling workers of the need to avoid For example, Mr. J. Morrill, an industrial importance of the quiet period as part of such exposures in the period before their audiologist and president of Impact the training required by the amendment, baseline tests. Therefore, this Hearing Conservation, recommended there would be no assurance that they requirement is necessary and that special steps be taken, such as would actually receive this training appropriate for the implementation of a instruction in the need to avoid high before taking their baseline audiograms successful hearing conservation levels of noise both on and off the job (Exh. 326-41, p. 5). Moreover, even if program. and careful fitting of hearing protectors, training were completed prior to taking when using hearing protectors to ensure a baseline audiogram, reiterating this Grandfathering of Baseline Audiograms the integrity of the baseline audiogram information would still be beneficial After publication of the January (Exh. 327-35). Some commenters since “repetition is a good teaching amendment, many commenters asked believed that only ear muffs are suitable method” (Exh. 327-80, p. 2). the Agency whether audiograms taken to provide quiet on the day of testing Moreover, other commenters felt that before the effective date of the since their visibility makes them easily informing employees of the importance amendment would be accepted as verifiable (Exh. 327-151, p. 3; Exh. 327- of avoiding noise prior to the baseline baseline audiograms. Most comments 103, p. 5; Exh. 327-62, p. 3; Exh. 327-56, audiogram is necessary to ensure ain urged OSHA to accept these p. 2; Exh. 327-154, p. 3; Tr. Vol. H, p. 151, accurate baseline (Exh. 326-31, p. 2; Exh. audiometric baselines, which had been March 24,1982). OSHA agrees, but has 326-41, p. 5; Exh. 327-12, p. 2; Exh. 327- taken using hearing protectors as a decided not to require that ear muffs (as 95, p. 6; Exh. 327-102, p. 8; Exh. 327-104, substitute for the 14-hour quiet period opposed to ear plugs) be used to provide p. 17; Exh. 327-131, p. 1; Exh. 327-135, p. required by the amendment. In August, quiet before baseline audiograms for the 4; Exh. 327-143, p. 6; Exh. 327-154, p. 4; OSHA decided to adopt a, very lenient following reasons: ear muffs may be Tr. Vol I-B, pp. 200, 212, 252, 3/23/82). policy on accepting baseline audiograms extremely uncomfortable in hot or According to J. Toupen, attorney for the taken before the promulgation of the humid environments, the use of glasses, Shipbuilders Council of America: amendment: goggles or respirators may interfere with “Employees who are so informed [about Since the prohibition against the use of their effectiveness, and certain the necessity for the quiet period] have every hearing protectors to achieve the quiet hours hairstyles may make it difficult to get a reason to protect themselves from excessive is being stayed, OSHA will accept baseline good seal. The revised amendment noise exposure, since it is in their interest for audiograms that were taken using hearing allows employers to have sufficient their baseline audiograms to record their protectors as a substitute for 14 quiet hours. flexibility to choose the most hearing capacity accurately. Workers who The Agency will continue to accept these appropriate method of providing a quiet are trained in protecting their hearing on the audiograms in the future as valid baseline period before the baseline audiogram job will have a special incentive to follow the audiograms regardless of the outcome of the hearing conservation program before their which is consistent with the particular stay, and will accept or “grandfather” older baselines” (Exh. 327-104, p. 17). working environment. In some baseline audiograms that reflect substantial instances, ear plugs will be used, in Dr. S. White of the American Speech- compliance with the audiometric test others, ear muffs, and in some Language-Hearing Association also requirements of the amendment. For example, believed this provision was important: to be acceptable, baseline audiograms should circumstances employees may be be administered by a trained technician, scheduled for baseline testing at the r “* * * the more information the employee taken at the required test frequencies (500, beginning of the work shift. Accordingly, has about why they should avoid the noise 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 6000 Hz), in a the prohibition on the use of hearing [prior to audiometric testing] the better. The reasonably quiet room, and with calibrated protectors before baseline audiograms is employee would be certain * * * to want a equipment. The Agency is prepared to be being revoked. Employers or valid audiogram * * *” (Tr. Vol. IV, p. 67, flexible in accepting or grandfathering old professionals supervising audiometric March 26,1982. baseline audiograms because in most cases testing programs are, of course, free to After a thorough review of the record, this would be more protective of the prohibit the use of hearing protectors to OSHA has decided to lift the employee since old baselines will allow the provide quiet hours before the baseline true extent of the hearing loss over the years administrative stay on the requirement to be evaluated. Obtaining a new baseline audiogram if, in their judgment, the that employers tell their employees to audiogram after many years of noise circumstances so warrant. avoid high levels of non-occupational exposure might be less protective since the Avoidance of Noise Before noise during the period preceding their new audiogram might show higher thresholds Audiometric Tests. The January baseline audiograms. The Agency and the true extent of future losses would 9758 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations appear smaller than when compared with the grandfathered (Exh. 327-98, p. 17; Exh. stated in the August Federal Register original baseline (46 FR at 42626). 327-89, p. 10). George Taylor of the AFL- document, of allowing the The Agency received many comments CIO (Ejdi. 327-109, p. 12) and H. Buoy of grandfathering of baseline audiograms. in response to this statement. There was the International Brotherhood of This policy is consistent with the a groundswell of support for the Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, exercise of professional judgment. It is proposition that pre-existing baseline Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (Exh. the responsibility of the professional audiograms should be acceptable and be 327-78, p. 13) recommended that supervising the hearing conservation given “grandfather” status (Exh. 326-49, employers conduct new baseline program to determine which pre-existing p. 3; Exh. 326-54, p. 3; Exh. 326-56, p. 4; audiograms and then chodse from audiograms are acceptable and which to Exh. 327-19, p. 2; Exh. 327-76, p. 3; Exh. among the old and new audiograms that choose as the baseline. audiogram with the lowest threshold as 327-87, p. 4; Exh. 327-89, p. 10; Exh. 327- Evaluation o f Audiogram 96, p. 3; Exh. 327-98, p. 17; Exh. 327-101, the employee’s baseline. p. 5; Exh. 327-106, p. 4, Exh. 327-112, p. OSHA believes that almost any The January amendment stipulated 15; Exh. 327-115, p. 3; Exh. 327-121, p. 2; baseline audiogram taken prior to the that evaluation of audiograms must be Exh. 327-122, pp. 5-6; Exh. 327-140, p. 4; present amendment can be valuable in performed by an audiologist, Exh. 327-149, p. 4; Exh. 327-154, p. 5; Tr. evaluating the true extent of an otolaryngologist, or qualified physician Vol I-B, p. 193, March 23,1982; Tr. Vol. employee’s hearing loss over time. As to determine if the baseline is valid and HI, p. 114, March 25,1982; Tr. Vol. IV, p. Dr. S. White of the American Speech- whether a' significant threshold shift has 233, March 26,1982. They reasoned that Language-Hearing Association occurred. These professionals are this policy was in the best interest of cautioned, however: responsible for supervising the employees since in most cases these “Hie grandfathering of pre-amendment employer’s audiometric test program older audiograms would show lower audiograms should only be allowed when the and ensuring that tests conducted by thresholds and would better reflect the supervising professional agrees that they are technicians are carried out properly, ture extent of hearing loss over the valid. Some previous audiograms may reflect, that the test equipment is calibrated, years (Exh. 327-76, p. 3; Exh. 327-88, p. in part, temporary threshold shifts because of pretest noise exposure or high background and that the test room is sufficiently 6; Exh. 327-90, p. 4; Exh. 327-96, p. 3; noise levels in the test area. Therefore, quiet. Professional also Exh. 327-115, p. 3; Exh. 329-17, p. 3; Tr. previous test equipment, environment, and determine the need for employee Vol. I-B, p. 193, March 23,1982; Tr. Vol. personnel should be considered. Obviously, if referral for further testing when test IV, p. 44, March 26,1982;) Tr. Vol. IV, p. a hearing conservation program were in place results are questionable or when 233, March 26,1982. Advocates of this prior to die enactment of the current problems of a medical nature are policy also claimed that grandfathering amendment, the ramifications of allowing a suspected. Because these professionals older audiograms would eliminate reestablishment of baseline should also be considered. If the hearing loss had occurred have extensive education and training in unnecessary costs (Exh. 327-76, p. 3; and the recognition of Exh. 327-122, pp. 5-8; Exh. 327-140, p. 4). prior to August of 1981, and that loss was due to industrial noise, the previous audiograms various types of hearing loss, they are So great was the support generated in would reflect that change in hearing. As it considered to be the most qualified to favor of “grandfathering” pre-existing presendy stands, the reestablishment of oversee a testing program.26 baseline audiograms that many of these baseline * * * would overlook the changes in The Agency received some comments, commenters requested that OSHA add hearing that took place and were already however, indicating that commenters language to the amendment explicitly documented" (Tr. Vol. IV, p. 44, March 26, had mistakenly interpreted the stating that audiograms taken prior to 1982). amendment as prohibiting technicians the effective date of the amendment are Similarly, R. Connelly of Audiometric from reviewing routine audiograms. In acceptable as baseline audiograms (Exh. Associates stressed the importance of thé August Federal Register document, 326- 49, p. 3; Exh. 326-54, p. 3; Exh. 327- professional opinion in deciding OSHA explained that technicians were 76, p. 3; Exh. 327-87, p. 4; Exh. 327-88, p. whether to depend on a pre-existing permitted to review typical audiograms 6; Exh. 327-89, p. 10; Exh. 327-98, p. 17; baseline: to determine STS, and that only problem Exh. 327-101, p. 5; Exh. 327-122, p. 5; “I believe that * * * the older the audiograms were required to be Exh. 327-149, p. 4; Tr. Vol. I-B, p. 193, audiogram * * * the more valuable it reviewed by professionals (see 46 FR at March 23,1982). Other commenters were becomes in terms of identifying significant 42626). This means that if technicians less enthusiastic, asserting that older change. I believe that audiograms should be preliminarily review audiograms, they audiograms should be considered as grandfathered as long as they appear to be must refer problem audiograms or acceptable baselines only if they have reliable. I don’t think there is any particular audiograms of questionable validity to been determined to be valid and to have problem with that, as long as some safeguard an audiologist, otolaryngologist, or been taken under conditions reasonably is given to the method of comparison by an qualified physician for further similar to those required by the appropriate professional (Tr. Vol. IV, p. 233, amendment (Exh. 326-49, p. 3; Exh. 326- March 26,1982). evaluation (Exh. 327-66, pp. 50-52; Exh. 327-87, p. 4; Exh. 327-88, p. 7; Exh. 327- 54, p. 3; Exh. 326-56, p. 4; Exh. 327-76, p. In response to a question about methods 3; Exh. 327-87, p. 4; Exh. 327-90, p. 4; of determining the validity of old 102, p. 3; Exh. 327-106, p. 7; Tr. Vol. I-B, Exh. 327-96, p. 3; Exh. 327-149, p. 4; Exh. baseline audiograms, Mr. Connelly pj 120, March 23,1982). As Dr. S. White 327- 154, p. 5; Exh. 329-17, p. 3; Tr. Vol. explained: of the American Speech-Language- rv, pp. 44, 233-234, March 26,1982; Tr. Hearing Association explained, it is “Generally what is done is that, if they acceptable for technicians to screen Vol. V, pp. 139-141, March 29,1982). appear to be inconsistent, then the credibility, However, others claimed that it is the validity of the audiogram comes into 26 The preamble to the January amendment unfair to require old baseline question. If they are generally consistent, explained that in companies and consulting firms audiograms to comply with the then they are generally accepted as where audiometrie test results are computerized, requirements of the present amendment evidence” (Tr. Vol. IV, p. 234, March 26, professionals do not have to review every (Exh. 327-101, p. 5) and that, at a 1982). audiogram but are responsible for preparing and developing the computer program to ensure that the minimum, audiograms meeting the 1974 After review of the evidence on this professional reviews audiograms on a selective proposal’s requirements should be issue, OSHA is reaffirming its position, basis (see 46 FR 4141). Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9759 audiograms as long as the professional The Agency therefore reaffirms its either ear, if the employee has previously in charge establishes the criteria for position, as stated in the August Federal suffered one or more' permanent significant audiogram review (Exh. 327-154, p. 5). Register document, which would require threshold shifts. Some commenters urged that the that professionals review problem Thus the January definition of STS Agency require professional review of audiograms including those of reflected a “sliding scale” approach, all audiograms indicating STS in questionable validity. This procedure with the amount of hearing loss addition to problem audiograms (Exh. will help to ensure that employees constituting a significant threshold shift 327-106, p. 7; Exh. 327-102, p. 3). Mr. Bert whose audiograms merit further becoming smaller as the worker’s Scott [Environmental Technology investigation will receive the necessary hearing loss becomes greater. (For a Corporation] argued that it is important professional atteiltion. more complete discussion of the for the professional to review every Standard Threshold Shift definition of STS promulgated in audiogram. January, see 46 FR 4144-4145). In the January amendment, OSHA “ETC does not agree with OSHA’s position According to many commenters, the * * * that technicians may review stated that: STS définition included in the January audiograms and give only problem "A definition and an understanding of what amendment would permit too many audiograms to the professionals for review. OSHA considers to be a significant shift of employees, or certain groups of ETC’s 11 years of experience in reviewing hearing threshold is very important in the hundreds of thousands of audiograms from employees, to suffer occupationally- proper implementation of the amendment’s induced hearing loss without detection various industrial sites reveal that trained requirements. Without such a definition, audiometric technicians are not always workers and employers are unable to know (Exh. 32^-21, p. 3; Exh. 326-28, p. 5; Exh. capable of determining whether or not an the seriousness of the noise-induced hearing 327-13, p. 5), while others maintained audiogram is valid. This is especially true loss. that OSHA’s definition would result in a when a self-recording audiometer is being Identifying threshold shift as significant large number of “false-positives” (i.e., used. W e have rarely if ever, reviewed plant means that it is outside the range audiometric persons initially identified as having audiograms and not found invalid data. We error (±5dB), and it is serious enough to STS although subsequent audiometric consistently found it necessary to reject warrant prompt attention because it is a audiograms generated by certified tests show they have not had a shift in precursor to material impairment of hearing. hearing threshold) (Exh. 327-91, p. 30; technicians. In addition to invalid testing When threshold shifts are significant, procedures, unlikely thresholds at one or employers must provide and fit hearing Exh. 325-30; Exh. 327-101, p. 7; Exh. 327- more frequencies, missing frequencies on protection, and take other remedial actions 138, p. 6; Exh. 327-151, p. 10).27 Although manual testing, failure to retest frequencies to depending upon whether or not the shift is a number of contributors supported determine invalidity by microprocessors or permanent. OSHA’s January STS definition (Exh. audiometers, reversal of earphones, etc. [sic] The definition of the term “significant” is 327-35, p. 4; Exh. 327-86, p. 6; Exh. 327- We observed other areas such as omission critical to the effective operation of the 97, p. 5; Exh. 327-136, p. 6), others stated of names, dates, use of non-standard hearing conservation program. If the audiometric symbols on manual audiograms, that it was too complicated to be used in definition is too stringent, spurious threshold the field (Tr. Vol. II, pp. 170-171, March out-of-date calibrations, and inconsistencies shifts may occur and workers will be between audiometric data and medical identified because of audiometer or 24,1982; Exh. 326-28, p. 5; Exh. 325-34; history” (Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 137-138, March 26, technician error. If the definition is not Exh. 327-84; Exh. 327-140, p. 4), or would 1982). stringent enough, workers will be allowed to require the use of a computer to analyze lose too much hearing before protective statistical trends in audiogram results Dr. McCurdy, Director of the American actions are taken. Correctly identifying (Exh. 327-135, p. 7; Exh. 325-48, Exh. Council of Otolaryngology—Head and significant threshold shifts of hearing is 327-22, p. 3; Exh. 327-151, pp. 10-11). Neck Surgery, and Dr. Summar, Medical particularly important for workers who have OSHA agrees that defining the STS in Director of MTS Associates, Inc., also already begun to lose their hearing, so that recommended that the professional the progression may be stopped before the a manner that requires computer should review every audiogram (Exh. hearing loss becomes handicapping” (46 FR analysis or extensive computation will 327-151, p. 5; Exh. 327-69, p. 6). As Dr. 4144). not encourage voluntary compliance, and will additionally place a Summar explained: The January amendment defined a disproportionate burden on small and significant threshold shift (STS) as: “The entire Hearing Preservation Program, medium-sized employers. The Agency not just the hearing tests, must be under the (i) A change in hearing threshold relative to also believes, after a thorough review of direction of an experienced otolaryngologist, the baseline audiogram of 20 dB or greater at other physician, or audiologist. He must be the rulemaking record, that the January any test frequency other than 500 Hz in either amendment’s STS definition might personally and intimately involved in all ear, if no previous audiograms have ' aspects of the program in order to compare thresholds that exceed 25 dB with' reference require unnecessarily complex threshold results as to whether a change is to audiometric zero as specified by American calculations and might prove difficult to present, why there is a change, and what National Standard S3.6-1969; or administer because the definition differs followup steps need to be taken” (Exh. 327- (ii) A change in hearing threshold relative for employees who have previously 69. p. 6). ^ to the baseline audiogram of 10 dB or greater experienced STS and those who have OSHA does not believe that the at 1,000 or 2,000 Hz, 15 dB at 3,000 or 4,000 not. Hz, or 20 dB at 6,000 Hz, in either ear, if any record evidence demonstrates a need to previous audiogram has one or more The August document (46 FR 42622) require professionals to review every thresholds that exceed 25 dB with reference continued the interim stay on the audiogram. Audiometric technicians, to audiometric zero; or definition of STS, noting that OSHA had under the general supervison of an (iii) A change in hearing threshold relative received many comments requesting the audiologist, otolaryngologist or to the baseline audiogram of 10 dB or greater Agency to reconsider this important physician have the skill necessary to at any test frequency other than 500 Hz in definitiort (Exh. 325-274; Exh. 325-268). review routine audio grams. The either ear, if any previous audiogram has The Agency has reviewed the comments amendment has been revised to more thresholds exceeding an average of 25 dB with reference to audiometric zero at the 27 For example, according to W. Carey, Chocolate clearly reflect this intent. Of course, if frequencies 1,000, 2,000 dhd 3,000 Hz; or the supervising professional wishes to Manufacturer’s Association, this criteria resulted in (iv) A change in hearing threshold relative medical referrals for 30% of the non-noise exposed review every audiogram, he or she is to the baseline audiogram of 10 dB or greater population and 75% of the noise exposed population free to do so. at any test frequency other than 500 Hz in (Tr. Vol. II, p. 299, March 24,1982). 9760 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations in the record thoroughly and has hearing conservation amendment. is simple to use and understand. reevaluated the available evidence Correctly identifying standard threshold However, J. L. McGuire (Acoustical pertaining to a definition of STS. The shifts will enable employers and Research Associates] argued that, great majority of comments supported employees to take corrective action so “* * * employing a STS of 20 dB or the inclusion of a standardized that the progression of hearing loss may greater for all employees does not definition of STS in any revised hearing be stopped before it becomes protect the worker effectively” (Exh. conservation amendment promulgated handicapping. Moreover, a standardized 327-115, p. 2). by the Agency (Exh. 326-42, p. 13; Exh. definition of STS will ensure that the Both McGuire and J. Ropes of the 326- 49, p. 3; Exh. 327-13, p. 5; Exh. 329- protection afforded to exposed Environmental Protection Agency (Exh. 16, p. 8; Exh. 331-33; Exh. 327-109; Tr. employees is uniform in regard to 327-94, p. 7) believe that a 20 dB Vol. V, p. 270, March 29,1982; Exh. 327- follow-up procedures. criterion is too lenient because it allows 89, p. 6). After much review and too great a threshold shift to occur at The STS concept is essential to the reconsideration OSHA reaffirms its individual frequencies before protective proper working of any hearing position on the ideal criterion for STS action is taken. Further, Drs. Larry and conservation program because, as R. F. which was articulated in the January 16, Julia Royster believe (Exh. 327-84, p. Boggs of Organization Resources 1981 promulgation (See 46 FR 4144). The 170) that “Use of a 20 dB shift * * * criterion must be sensitive enough to would fail to protect female populations Counselors noted, those conducting * * * tf audiometric examinations need to have identify meaningful changes in hearing a “flag” to indicate when additional level so that follow-up procedures can OSHA agrees with these and other testing or evaluation is needed (Exh. be implemented to prevent further participants that the 20 dB at any 327- 98, p. 15). Further, a standardized deterioration of hearing but must not be frequency criterion will not provide definition of STS permits both the so sensitive as to pick up spurious shifts necessary employee protection, since seriousness of an employee’s hearing (sometimes referred to as “false this definition of STS would permit an loss and the effectiveness of an positives”). In other words, the criterion employee with a shift as great as 19 dB employer’s hearing conservation selected must be outside the range of across the entire test frequency range to program to be evaluated and monitored audiometric error. Thus, while the go untreated. In addition, OSHA does (Exh. 327-66, pp. 48-49; Exh. 327-89, p. 6; ultimate goal of the hearing not find merit to the argument that using Exh. 327-94, p. 3; Exh. 327-99). R. G. conservation amendment is to identify any but the 20 dB criterion will make Wieneck, of General Motors, and retard hearing loss, this cannot be pre-and post-amendment test summarized the need for a standardized done effectively if many workers are comparisons difficult, since the definition of STS by describing it as the falsely identified as having threshold audiogram itself, which is the record of benchmark for evaluating audiograms to shifts when they do not. Falsely or actual hearing acuity, is not affected by determine whether hearing is being incorrectly identifying large numbers of thé choice of definition and can be workers for follow-up procedures is not conserved (Exh. 327-99). Margaret interpreted according to any definition. only costly and unnecessary but as Jack Seminario of the AFL-CIO also pointed Several organizations and agencies, Shampan of Impact Hearing out that the absence of a standardized including the Environmental Protection Conservation, Inc. pointed out, large definition would mean that "the level of Agency (Exh. 327-94, p. 4), the United numbers of incorrect identifications will employees’ protection will be highly Steelworkers of America (Tr. Vol. Ill, p. cause both labor and management to variable * * * in direct conflict with 129, March 25,1982, the Amalgamated lose confidence in their hearing OSHA Act requirements to set Clothing and Textile Workers Union conservation program (Exh. 375, pp. 24- standards that are protective of (Exh. 362-H, p. 3), and the International 25). Therefore the definition of STS must employee’s health” (Tr. Vol. V, p. 270, Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine reflect a careful balancing between March 26,1982). Workers (Exh. 331-17, p. 9), have these competing considerations. recommended that OSHA adopt the However, as the American Council of More than 40 different definitions of following definition of STS: a 15 dB shift Otholaryngology emphasized (Exh. 327- STS were recommended to OSHA by at any frequency other than 500 Hz in 152, p. 5), it is important to distinguish various individuals, groups, and either ear relative to the baseline between threshold shifts defined as organizations in the comments received audiogram, adjusted for presbycusis. significant, which merely trigger in- subsequent to the publication of the Many commenters praised the simplicity house hearing conservation program January amendment. The most of this definition (Exh. 327-68, p. 7; Exh. activities such as providing employee important of these are discussed below. 327-94, p. 4; Exh. 331-17, p. 9) and training and hearing protectors, and a The definition of STS included in argued that it is more protective than a criterion used for medical referral. As OSHA’s Field Operations Manual was single frequency 20 dB criterion (Exh.. the Council stated, STS should be recommeded by several commenters 327-94, p. 7; Exh. 331-17, p. 9); follow-up defined in a way that will detect the (Exh. 327-98, p. 12; Exh. 327-108, p. 9; procedures are provided at an earlier least amount of hearing loss in excess of Exh. 327-62, pp. 6-7; Exh. 327-79, p. 3; point in time. Although the 15 dB at any test-retest variability, while othologic Exh. 327-88, p. 8); this defines STS as a frequency (other than 500 Hz) criterion referral criteria are intended to detect change of 20 dB at any test frequency in has the advantage of simplicity, OSHA substantial abnormalities * * *” (Exh. either ear. These participants argued has not adopted it because it is not 327-152, p. 5). In accordance with these that adopting any other STS^definition appropriate. The Agency believes that and other comments and would make comparing past and future use of this definition would produce an recommendations, OSHA reaffirms the test results difficult (Exh. 327-108, p. 9) unacceptable number of false positive need for a standardized definition of and further that the 20 dB criterion was identifications. Clearly more false significant threshold shift 28 in the “straight-forward, easy to use, and does positive identifications than the 20 dB not require complex comparisons from criterion would result because the 28 As noted earlier, OSHA has decided to use the term standard threshold shift rather than significant computer programs to assure amount of shift required to identify threshold shift in the final version of the hearing compliance” (Exh. 327-98, p. 12). OSHA employees and implement follow-up conservation amendment. agrees that a single-frequency criterion procedures is smaller. Federal Register / Voi. 48, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9761

Although the Royster’s report, thresholds at different frequencies, does specifically addressing other otologic "Comparing the Effectiveness of STS not provide any additional diagnostic disorders, adoption of this criterion Criteria for Industrial Hearing information and may interfere with would be inappropriate for the purposes Conservation Programs,” found that the early detection of hearing loss (Exh. of the hearing conservation amendment. 15 dB criterion had the most appropriate 327-94, p. 7). Moreover such a definition The three STS criteria specifically identification rate and the lowest false which targets different amounts of considered above (that is: 20 dB any positive rate, the Royster’s criteria was hearing loss at different frequencies is frequency; 15 dB at any frequency from not the same as that recommended by somewhat complicated by its very 1000 Hz to 6000 Hz; and the NIOSH the commenterà. The Royster’s criterion nature. criteria) and the OSHA January 16,1981, required that the 15 dB shift occur on Many commenters advocated that criterion have a common feature. All two successive audiometrie tests rather OSHA adopt a simple to understand and indicate that a STS has occurred when a than on just one (see Exh. 378, pp. 1-2). easy to use definition. For example, D. hearing loss exceeds a certain value as This criterion would mean that C. Casaway, an An Air Force hearing measured at a single Jrequency. employees would not receive specialist with many years of Although the specifications differ for appropriate follow-up attention after experience, advised that f‘* * * [the each definition, all have the their annual audiograms showed STS method selected] by OSHA [should] be characteristic of having a high false until a subsequent audiogram confirmed a simple, uncomplicated, numeric positive rate. This is caused, in part, by the initial STS. Since the audiometrie method that can be easily understood intrinsic variation of the audiometric testing is only required annually, in and used by those who will actually testing instrumentation. As a result, a some cases this could result in the delay conduct the task” (Exh. 327-66, p. 65). large hearing loss might be measured at of follow-up procedures for as long as OSHA believes that a definition of STS only one frequency which would, by the three or more years (Exh. 387, pp. 3-10). that specifies different hearing nature of the STS criterion, give the OSHA does not believe that this thresholds for different frequencies may illusion that an STS has occurred. If the criterion adequately protects the be too complex and therefore will be audiogram is taken again, the hearing employee. When the Roysters evaluated subject to error in field and industrial loss measured at that frequency may not the effectiveness of a 15 dB shift once use. In addition, many commenters have be as large as previously measured, and (as opposed to twice) at the appropriate pointed out that any formula specifying therefore no real STS has occured. The test frequencies, they came up with a a shift of only 10 dB in individual initial observation that an STS occurred very high percentage of false positives frequencies will be very likely to was thus due only to the and a relatively low percentage of produce false positive identifications instrumentation and testing variability appropriate identifications (Exh. 366, pp. (Exh. 327-151 and 327-152, p. 10; Exh. and the nature of the STS criterion. 53, 63). It is clear therefore that using a 327-62, p. 7; Exh. 327-98, p. 12). OSHA believes that any definition 15 dB shift (once) will not be as effective Therefore, OSHA has decided not to that is triggered by a specified amount as other criteria io effectuating the adopt the NIOSH definition described of hearing loss at a given frequency is purposes of the hearing conservation above. more likely to produce false positives amendment. A large number of companies and than a definition that averages hearing A number of commenterà (Exh. 327- organizations, including the Chemical levels over a number of frequencies. For 91-D, p. 5; Exh. 327-20, p. 5; Exh. 327-96, Manufacturers Association (Exh. 326-54, example, with the two single number p. 4) advocated multi-level definitions, p. 2), the Dow Chemical Company (Exh. criteria considered above (15 dB at any which specify different shifts at different 327-76, p. 2), and the Monsanto test frequency or 20 dB at any test frequencies. These definitions usually Company (Exh. 326-49, p. 3) urged frequency) as well as the different level are relatively stringent for the lower OSHA to define STS in accordance with for different frequency NIOSH frequencies and more lenient for the “the American Academy of definition, a testing error at any higher frequencies (see Exh. 327-96, p. 4; Otolaryngology’s (AAO) definition.” frequency would trigger the prescribed Exh. 327-98, pp. 12-13; and Exh. 327-122, These participants mistakenly believed follow-up procedures regardless of how p. 7). For example DuPont, the American that the AAO's STS criterion was: a improbable the results appeared to be.29 Textile Manufacturers Institute and the shift of more than It^dB at 500,1000, or * Even where a very lenient criteria such American Paper Institute, recommended 2000 Hz, more than 20 dB at 3000 Hz, or as 20 dB is used, the flaws of this that OSHA adopt the National Institute more than 30 dB at 4000 or 6000 Hz (Exh. method are apparent: the criteria itself is for Occupational Safety and Health 326-54; Exh. 327-76; Exh. 326-49). not sufficiently protective and the (NIOSH) definition of STS (Exh. 372r-91; However, the AAO's successor defined change at any single frequency Exh. 327, p. 148; Exh. 327-20, p. 5). The organization, the American Council of can trigger follow-up procedures. This is NIOSH criterion is a 10 dB or greater Otolaryngology, emphatically states not necessarily a theoretical problem. shift at 500,1000, or 2000 Hz, a 15 dB (Exh. 327-151) that this criterion is The American Council of shift at 3000 Hz, and a 20 dB shift at 4000 intended to be used only for otologic Otolaryngology—Head and Neck or 6000 Hz in either ear relative to the referrals; it is not suitable for use as an Surgery (ACO) and the American baseline audiogram. Julia Phillips, STS criterion to trigger hearing Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO) speaking for the DuPont Company, conservation program follow-up reported that in a study of 260 aluminum asserted that this criterion is reasonable procedures. According to the Council and chemical workers, 19.6% of the test and will permit employers to distinguish (Exh. 327-151, p. 4), “(This criterion] population had shifts of 20 dB or more, between an STS caused by presbycusis * * * can be used to select those whereas-nearly that many (16.15%) had and one caused by occupational workers who are most likely to have changes toward better hearing (negative exposure (Exh. 327-91-D, pp. 4-5). non-occupational hearing loss for shifts) of 20 dB or more (Exh. 327-151 However, J. Ropes of the Environmental referral for otologic evaluation” [italics and Exh. 327-157, p. 13). The ACO Protection Agency’s Office of Noise added]. Since OSHA is concerned in concludes that this problem is due to the Control Programs stated that a STS this amendment with occupationally criterion using multiple level and induced rather than non-occupationally ** Audiograms showing large shifts at only one frequency measurements, i.e., different induced hearing loss, and is not frequency might be considered questionable. 9762 Federal Register / V o l . 4 8 , No . 4 6 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations use of an STS definition that specifies and the later, more severe losses, as which is generally considered to be one “any frequency, either ear,” and well as to other otologic conditions of the frequencies which is affected by recommends that the definition of STS (Exh. 378, p. 1). In addition, the noise earliest and most severely (see 46 adopted require that hearing levels be definition employs an averaging FR at 4085), is clear. The hearing averaged over several frequencies to technique, which discourages false threshold level at 3,000 Hz tends to avoid this problem (Exh. 327-151, pp. 12- positive identifications and reduces the , follow the level at 4,000 Hz fairly closely 14). degree of testing error commonly (46 FR 4088; Exh. 17, p. 12; Exh. 12, In addition, a number of commenters associated with the use of a single level Appendix 10; and Exh. 327-94, p. 7) and have testified that averaging shifts over at any frequency definition. is also severely affected by noise adjacent frequencies minimizes normal On the other hand, this definition damage. Hearing loss at the 2,000 Hz test error (Exh. 327-150, pp. 1-2; Exh. appears to have been articulated only frequency usually begins after the higher 327-151, p. 10; Exh. 327-152, p. 10; Exh. recently and has been tested on only frequencies have been affected; because 376A, p. 4). Acoustician W. Dixon Ward, one industrial population in one study. of this phenomenon, the 2,000 Hz on behalf of the American Iron and Steel Because relatively little information on frequency is an indicator of additional Institute, argued “Any multiple Dr. Dobie’s investigation has been hearing loss in employees who have frequency criterion has an advantage submitted to the record, it is difficult to already lost some Clearing. As noted over a single frequency criterion compare his results with those of the previously (46 FR 4082), the 2,000 and because random errors will tend to Roysters or other investigators. 3.000 Hz frequencies are very important cancel each other” (Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 225, Moreover, the definition is relatively for the understanding of speech, and March 25,1982). The ACO-AAO complicated, requiring a number of should therefore be included in any reported that, even under clinical computations and comparisons and it definition of threshold shift that will conditions, the probability of exceeding may be difficult for people to trigger follow-up procedures. a testing error of 10 dB 30 at a single understand and use. OSHA believes The OSHA STS definition is frequency could be as great as 56%, that any formula that is difficult may sufficiently restrictive to locate assuming that the measurement of all contribute to technician error and may meaningful shifts in hearing yet not so audiometric frequencies varied ultimately result in a less effective stringent that it will result in the independently (Exh. 327-151 and 152, p. hearing conservation program (cf Exh. implementation of unnecessary follow- 10).31 Test-refest variability would 327-66, pp. 51-54). While one group, the up procedures for numerous employees. probably be even greater in industrial American Academy of Otolaryngology In addition, the OSHA definition settings. and the American Council of requires averaging hearing levels at Dr. R. A. Dobie suggested using the Otolaryngology (AAO-ACO) has adjacent frequencies which reduces the following criteria for STS: a change for endorsed the definition, it is generally effect of testing errors at single the worse of 10 dB or more in the pure- unknown to professionals involved in frequencies (Tr. Vol. V. pp. 24-25, March tone average at either 500,1000, and industrial hearing conservation and 29,1982). 2000 Hz or at 3000, 4000 and 6000 Hz, in untried by professionals in the hearing either ear (Exh. 327-152, p. 11). Using The OSHA definition has a number of conservation community. In view of this definition, the technician takes 12 additional advantages. As noted above, these shortcomings and the fact that measurements (six frequencies, two many commenters urged OSHA to adopt another acceptable definition of STS ears), after which the average shift for a simple formula and praised the exists (see discussion below), OSHA the lower three frequencies (500,1000, simplicity of the 2,000 and 3,000 and has decided not to adopt this and 2000 Hz) is calculated, followed by 4.000 Hz average criterion (Exh. 376A, p. definition.32 the average shift for the three upper 4; Exh. 327-13, p. 3; Tr. Vol. I-B, pp. 192 OSHA has decided to adopt the frequencies (3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz). If and 198, March 23,1982; Exh. 349-1, p. following definition of STS: an average an average shift of 10 dB or more is 11; Exh. 327-142, p. 5). shift of 10 dB or more at 2000, 3000 and detected for either the upper or the Further, the average shift of 10 dB at 4000 Hz relative to the baseline lower group of frequencies* the 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hz definition has audiogram in either ear. This definition audiogram is deemed to demonstrate been “field tested” by industrial STS. is similar to the definition originally audiologists and many industry groups This definition appears to be proposed in 1974 (see 39 FR at 37775, (Exh. 376A, p. 3; Exh. 327-105, p. 6; Exh. protective and has several other October 24,1974)33 and meets all the 327-138, p. 6), and it has also been advantages as well. According to Dr. criteria for an appropriate definition of systematically compared to other STS Dobie, this STS definition is sensitive STS. The formula is sensitive enough to formulas. In a large study of military both to early noise-induced hearing loss give an early indication of noise-induced and civilian Air Force employees, a hearing loss because of the frequencies number of definitions were tested and used. The importance of using 4000 Hz, 30 The January amendment states that the range of the 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 Hz criterion audiometrie error is ± 5 dB. This value, that is ± 5 identified a reasonable number of STS dB, reflects the precision and accuracy of the 32 Several commenters have noted (Exh. 331-40; cases compared to the number tagged by audiometrie instrumentation. Variability in pp. 4-5; Exh. 327-66 pp. 60-65) that the 6000 Hz other definitions (Exh. 329-50C, Tables audiograms also result from test subject response frequency is particularly susceptible to test and slight procedural changes from one test to the variability. OSHA believes that averaging hearing 2-4). In addition, the Royster study was next, which increases the variability greater than levels at 3000 Hz, 4000 Hz and 6000 Hz in this essentially favorable to the definition of ± 5 dB. OSHA recognizes that false positives are definition will reduce the impact of the 6000 Hz test STS which OSHA is adopting. The caused by this variability as well as real, but variability, but does not know the magnitude of the Royster study found that an STS of 10 temporâry, changes in hearing levels (generally effect. This issue was not addressed at the hearing. referred to as a temporary threshold shift). OSHA believes that adopting an STS definition that dB or greater average at 2,000, 3,000, and 31 Dr. Ward cited a study by Berger, Royster and contains the 6000 Hz frequency involves 4.000 Hz produced the lowest annual Thomas (Exh. 266A) in which the use of the 2,000, unnecessary speculation regarding the number of percentage of unnecessary 3,000 and 4,000 Hz criterion rather than the single- resulting false positives. identifications of the various definitions number 20 dB criterion reduced the percentages of 33 In 1974 OSHA proposed that STS should be workers whom he judged “incorrectly” identified as defined as an average shift of more than 10 dB at evaluated. In addition, the Roysters having STS by more than half (Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 225, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hz in either ear, relative to the found that the OSHA definition March 25,1982). baseline audiogram. appropriately identified a higher Federal Register / Voi. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8,1983 / Rules and Regulations 9763

percentage of employees suffering STS definition was too complex to be Aging than most of the other definitions workable especially in view of the studied (Exh. 366, pp. 61-62).34 Because extremely diverse workplaces and OSHA has also decided, after careful of its concentration on the frequencies working populations covered by the consideration of the data in the record, that are the earliest or the most severely amendment. to permit employers to interpret audiograms using a presbycusis or aging affected by noise, the resulting high While some may feel that even the degree of appropriate identifications for correction before determining whether changed definition is not protective an STS has occurred. Many commenters follow-up and the simplicity of the enough because under certain (Exh. 327-106: Exh. 327-105; Exh. 327- definition, OSHA believes that the circumstances a shift of up to 25 dB 103; Exh. 327-10Q; Exh. 327-101; Exh. definition of STS which it is adopting could go untreated, OSHA believes that 327-94; Exh. 327-147) urged the Agency today will contribute more to the the definition of STS which it is effectiveness of hearing conservation to allow presbycusis correction factors adopting is as protective of the general programs than any other definition to be used. A substantial number of population as the January, 1981 STS considered. comments recommended the use of an definition which was subject to the The definition that OSHA has decided age correction, many stating that same flaws as all single frequency to adopt, that is, an average change in hearing loss can occur from aging, non- definitions. Thè ACO-AAO has labeled hearing level of 10 dB or greater at 2,000, occupational noise, and other factors, the single frequency criteria “equally 3,000, and 4,000 Hz is a slight change and such hearing loss should not be from the STS definition proposed in 1974 vulnerable" and noted that: considered part of a significant which included average shifts greater “If set at practical levels, e.g., 20 dB, they threshold shift within the context of the than 10 dB at these same frequencies. allow [to go undetected] broad shifts—up to OSHA standard (Exh. 14-110, p. 2: Exh. This change is in recognition of the fact 15 dB for the entire audiogram—which * * * 14-150, p. 2: Exh. 14-160, p. 2: Exh. 14- that the definition as originally proposed are more common than isolated large shifts 188, p. 1: Exh. 14-200, p. 1: Exh. 14-215, was not sufficiently protective of and are more significant both medically and p. 3: Exh. 14-248, p. 3. employee hearing in all circumstances. in terms o f communication handicap” Exh. The NIOSH criteria document (Exh. 1, 327-151, p. 14: Exh. 327-152, p. 14). (See, e.g. Exh. 9, pp. 37, 41, 51; Exh. 5, p. pp. 1-14 to 1-17, III-6) recommended 43802; Exh. 51, pp. 16-11; Exh. 80, p. 2; In many ways the new definition is a adjusting the baseline audiogram for Exh. 82, attach. 1, p. 2). There are some hearing loss that occurs naturally due to instances where large shifts in hearing better definition than the original STS the aging process. The adjusted baseline level could occur in the highest test definition; it provides the necessary could then be subtracted from the most frequencies (4,000 and 6,000 Hz), with protection but is more cost effective in recent annual audiogram in order to little or no change in hearing level that is reduces the number of false occurring in the middle frequencies. positive identifications. Therefore, in determine whether or not an STS had While shifts of this magnitude are not view of all of the relevant factors, the occurred. If employers wish to correct common, they may occur in noise- new OSHA definition of STS is the most for aging, the amendment directs them sensitive individuals especially in the appropriate and consistent with the to make the adjustment to the annua] early stages of noise-induced hearing purposes of the hearing conservation audiogram rather than to the baseline, loss. Under the 1974 proposed definition, amendment. so that the baseline will not be changed individuals suffering shifts as large as 30 The standard requires that by mistake. The NIOSH presbycusis dB at 4,000 Hz would not be identified audiograms include as a minimum values are similar to those of other well provided that hearing thresholds at the measurements taken at 500,1000, 2000, known presbycusis data bases. lower frequencies had not shifted. Such 3000, 4000 and 6000 Hz. while the STS Although there may be slight variations individuals should be identified so that criterion only uses the 2000, 3000, and at individual frequencies, the NIOSH protective action can be taken. The 4000 Hz frequencies, OSHA believes values are generally consistent with change in the STS definition will allow that requiring the measuring of these other presbycusis data such as the U.S. for earlier identification of individuals at other frequencies adds other benefits Public Health Service data, and those risk and earlier intervention in the justifying its inclusion in the standard. used by Robinson and Bums, and by process of hearing deterioration for Testing at all frequencies is important to Passchier-Vermqer (found in “Derivation these individuals.35 have a complete record of the of Presbycusis and Noise Induced In addition to the fact that the OSHA employee's hearing ability and may be Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS) To STS criteria is more protective than that invaluable to the audiologist or Be Used for the Basis of a Standard on originally proposed, this change will physician upon referral. the Effects of Noise on Hearing", (Exh. clarify the Agency’s intention and will Failure to do so might mean that 310, p. 31)). When applying an age help avoid some of the confusion medical problems that could easily be correction, the most recent audiogram is suffered in the past between self- treated might be ignored.36 OSHA corrected according to the procedures recording and manual audiometers (see believes that testing these frequencies outlined in Appendix F. In the appendix, 48 FR 42628, 42629, August 21,1981). constitutes good industrial hygiene and OSHA has adopted the procedures and The definition of STS contained in the medical practice. Moreover, testing at the age correction tables used by January amendment is being revoked. frequencies other than those specified in NIOSH in the criteria document (Exh. 1, 1-14 1-17). Further evaluation of the record has the STS criteria will impose minimal pp. to convinced the Agency that the original burden the employer. OSHA believes that these correction factors will aid in distinguishing 14 The only criteria that fared better was 15 dB “ Further, some employers may choose to use the between occupationally induced and twice, American Academy of Otolaryngology's otologic age-induced hearing loss. This is “ In addition, it should be noted that both the Air referral definition, in addition to this standard's particularly important because the Force and the Roysters used the OSHA definition definition of ST S , to provide employee protection pattern of hearing loss due to aging rather than the proposed criteria to analyze their against medically caused hearing loss. Since the data (Exh. 329-50B, Exh. 329-50C; Exh. 306). amendment still requires testing at all the usual test closely resembles that of noise-induced Therefore the change is consistent with the findings frequencies, employers will have little difficulty hearing loss. Therefore, although the of these studies. applying this definition. Agency agrees with D. C. Gasaway that 9764 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

requiring the use of a correction factor determines that the shift is work related. threshold shift was permanent (46 FR may complicate calculation procedures OSHA asked for comments and 4144). In August, the stay of the retest (Exh. 327-667, pp. 66-67) and cause information regarding the necessity of requirement was continued in response some errors, we believe that determining the cause of a significant to comments concerned with the professional supervision of the hearing threshold shift to protect a worker’s difficulty of determining the permanency conservation program will ensure that hearing and on methods for of an STS (Exh. 325-57, p. 26). In audiometric technicians understand how distinguishing between occupational addition, many persons objected to the to use the age-correction chart, included and non-occupational hearing loss. shortness of the time period for the in Appendix F of this revised A number of participants claimed that retest, asserting that the definition of amendment. Further, since the use of this requirement would not offer STS contained in the January presbycusis factors is discretionary, additional protection to workers and amendment resulted in many persons employers are free to use OSHA’s STS that determining causality is irrelevant being falsely identified as having an criterion without a correction for the to the effectiveness of the hearing STS, thereby requiring more retesting effects of age. The Agency believes that conservation program (Exh. 327-79, p. 2; than necessary (Exh. 325-48, p. 4; Exh. allowing the consideration of the Exh. 327-90, pp. 4-5; Exh. 327-104, p. 13, 325-57, p. 2). Moreover, it was claimed contribution of aging to hearing loss is Exh. 327-120, p. 3). that retesting was burdensome for those both reasonable and appropriate and “In any case, it is not necessary to employers using the services of a mobile will allow the employer to discern how determine the cause of a significant threshold test van (Exh. 325-130, p. 2). well the hearing conservation program shift in order to take the necessary steps to OSHA also requested information on is working by determining the amount of protect a worker's hearing. When significant whether retesting within a short period hearing loss attributable primarily to hearing loss is discovered, regardless of the of time to confirm the presence of a STS aging. Therefore, the stay on Appendix F source, the employee should be informed and was necessary to protect employee is being lifted. counseled regarding the effects of noisy activities both on and off the job. Ear hearing and, if retesting was necessary, Determination of Work Relatedness protectors should,be fitted and the employee whether it was appropriate to require The January amendment required that trained in their use and care. If ear protectors retesting within 60 days. OSHA received the professional reviewing employee are currently in use, they should be checked many comments in response to this for fit and attenuation” (Exh. 327-108, p. 8). audiograms determine whether any request for information. Several significant threshold shifts detected Others agreed with this position (Exh. commenters stated that a retest were caused by occupational noise 327-141, p. 4; Tr. Vol. II, p. 109, March 24, audiogram and the interval to perform exposure. The preamble explained that 1982; Exh. 327-143, p. 5). any retest audiogram should be left to under most circumstances die OSHA does not regard the the discretion of the professional professional supervising the hearing determination of STS causality as supervising the hearing conservation conservation program would refer the central to the effectiveness of the program and should not be firmly fixed employee for medical evaluation to hearing conservation program. STS is a by die standard (Exh. 327-101, p. 6; Exh. ascertain whether the hearing loss was means of identifying a change in hearing 327-154, p. 6; Exh. 327-141, p. 4; Exh. work related, unless the employer was that triggers certain follow-up actions to 329-22, p. 5; Exh. 326-15, p. 7; Exh. 327- willing to record the hearing loss as such prevent further change. Once STS is 20, p. 5; Exh. 327-121, p. 3; Exh. 327-98, on the OSHA Form 200, Log of found, the same actions are required, p. 14). Dr. S. White of the American Occupational Illnesses and Injuries (see whether or not the STS is work related. Speech-Language-Hearing Association 46 FR 4146). the preamble stated that in The determination of causality, explained that he favored this more most cases, occupational hearing loss therefore, does not enhance hearing flexible approach because it was not constituted the major component of a protection as far as the hearing possible to determine whether the STS worker’s hearing loss, because the conservation program is concerned. (See was permanent on the basis of a test average person generally spends more generally the discussion of this issue in performed in an industrial setting by a time at work than in recreational 46 FR 4146.) Therefore, the requirement technician. According to Dr. White, such activities that may also cause hearing to determine the causality of the STS is a determination could only be made loss, such as hunting. being revoked. In addition, OSHA has after a diagnostic evaluation had been The August document continued the determined that the paragraph directing performed in a clinical setting. For these administrative stay on this requirement employers to record STS’s on the OSHA reasons, Dr. White recommended that pending review of the many comments Form 200 is unnecessary. Employers are professionals in charge of the program objecting to this provision. Commenters already required pursuant to 29 CFR be allowed to decide, on a case-by-case stated that in some cases it is very 1904.2 to record work related injuries basis, whether a retest or referral was difficult, even for an audiologist or and illnesses on the OSHA Form 200. appropriate (Exh. 327-154, p. 6; Tr. Vol. otolaryngologist, to determine the cause, Since this reiteration of the employer’s IV, p. 46, March 26,1982). or work relatedness, of a significant obligation is duplicative, the Richard Crewdson [Industrial Health, threshold shift because of the similarity requirement as stated in the hearing Inc.) also observed that: between an occupational and conservation amendment is hereby “* * * the majority of shifts found in this nonoccupational audiometric hearing revoked. loss configuration on the audiogram way are artifacts * * * caused by the normal (Exh. 325-130; Exh. 325-239; Exh. 325- Retest Audiogram inaccuracies inherent in audiometric testing 248; Exh. 325-96). Specifically, the The January amendment required * * * the supervisor [should] determine the necessity to retest” (Exh. 327-83, p. 3). Agency stayed the paragraphs requiring employers to provide employees with a determination of the work-relatedness retest audiogram within 60 days if the Other commenters claimed that it was or cause of a significant threshold shift, annual audiogram showed that the not necessary to perform a retest or to and the paragraph requiring employers employee had a significant threshold determine whether an STS is permanent to record the existence of a significant shift (STS). The preamble explained that since simply identifying an STS triggers threshold shift on the OSHA Form 200 the purpose of the retest was to protective action (Exh. 327-28; Exh. 327- when the professional reviewer determine whether the significant 61; Exh. 327-62). In addition, the costs Federal Register / Voi. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9765

and complications of scheduling retest indicated that they wished to conduct audiometric test results (Exh. 327-12, p. audiograms, especially for employers retest audiograms to validate the results 3; 327-19, p. 2), and thus the artifactual who contract their audiometric work out of earlier audiograms showing STS and nature of many threshold shifts. The to mobile van services or whose firms did not wish to implement follow-up word “permanent” as it relates to the are located in remote areas, were procedures until this had been term “STS” has therefore been deleted. emphasized by several commenters accomplished. The stay of the retest Accordingly, an STS subsequently (Exh. 327-146, pp. 5-6i Exh. 327-120, p. 3; provisions had the effect of disallowing confirmed by another audiogram is Exh. 329-22, pp. 4—5). this approach in many cases because of termed “persistent” rather than Despite these considerations, time constraints. OSHA has decided to “permanent” in the revised amendment. however, representatives of several amend the retest provisions to allow but companies reported they would perform not require a retest within 30 days Follow-up Procedures a retest audiogram after an STS was where the annual audiogram shows that The January amendment permitted identified even if such a requirement an employee has suffered a standard employees initially identified as having was not mandatory. In fact, J. Stenmark threshold shift. An employer wishing to STS to discontinue the wearing of of the American Iron and Steel Institute retest under these conditions may hearing protectors if retesting showed asserted that employers will usually consider the retest audiogram as the that the STS was not permanent, unless elect to retest because in many cases the annual audiogram. Therefore, if a valid such employees were required to wear retest audiogram does not show that the shift will be caused by subjective hearing protectors anyway because they employee has suffered a STS, no follow- problems or testing artifacts (Exh. 327- were exposed over the permissible up procedures need be implemented. 105, p. 5). Dr. McCurdy o f the A m erican exposure level, a TWA of 90 dB. Since This change will permit employers and Council of Otolaryngology thought that the retest requirement of the January the professionals who direct their retesting would reduce the costs of the amendment has been revoked, the hearing conservation programs to hearing conservation program by language of the paragraph 38 has been decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether eliminating the need for further amended to be consistent with these a retest audiogram is necessary or preventive action if the retest showed revisions, and the provision now reads desirable. that the shift was not persistent (Exh. “subsequent tests” rather than In response to comments received 327-151, p. 7). In a similar vein, a “retesting.” The provision would not number of commenters suggested that after publication of the January amendment, the stay of the word permit employees exposed to an 8-hour retesting reduces the number of TWA of less than 90 dB to discontinue unnecessary referrals (Exh. 327-57, p. 2; “permanent” before the phrase “significant threshold shift” in the the use of hearing protectors “if Exh. 329-8, p. 2; Exh. 327-12, p. 3; Exh. subsequent audiometric testing of an 327-135, p. 5; Exh. 329-14, p. 6; Exh. 327- follow-up procedures section of the audiometric testing provisions was employee * * * indicates that the 68, p. 5; Exh. 326-21, p. 3; Exh. 327-66, standard threshold shift is not persistent pp. 3 4 - 4 3 ) . R i c h a r d B o g g s o f continued in the August document.37 Some commenters have argued that * * * ” (emphasis added). Organization Resources Counselors and making the distinction between H. M. Williams of the American Revised Baseline Audiograms. permanent and temporary threshold Telephone and Telegraph Company also shifts is irrelevant in relation to a The January amendment39 required believed that most employers would hearing conservation program in that the revision of the baseline audiogram when wish to retest to avoid unnecessary employer should provide protection as a subsequent audiogram revealed an referral fees (Exh. 327-98, p. 14; Exh. soon as STS is discovered. (Tr. Vol.. improved hearing threshold at two or 327-89, p. 5)., any I-B, pp. 212-213, March 23,1982; Tr. Vol. more test frequencies with respect to the Several participants indicated that II, pp. 108-109, March 24,1982). This baseline audiogram or when a although they felt a retest was would be true of course in the absence subsequent audiogram revealed a necessary, OSHA should allow of a retest. OSHA believes that labeling permanent significant threshold shift. In employers more time to conduct retests, the STS^as permanent is not important either case, the baseline was revised by especially if mobile van test services in this context and may even be substituting the annual or retest were used (Exh. 327-20; Exh. 327-84A). misleading. The term “permanent” audiogram for the original baseline A few commenters suggested that the implies that shifts identified on audiogram. In the case of an improved retest interval, rather than the decision successive audiograms are never hearing threshold, the preamble to retest, should be determined by the subsequently determined to be explained that the revised baseline professional supervising the program, temporary. There is ample evidence in would more closely resemble the and others recommended that a flexible the record to indicate the variability of employee’s actual non-noise exposed time period be permitted for employers baseline. Revising the baseline after an using mobile vans to obtain retest 37 As originally promulgated, paragraph STS had been identified would prevent audiograms (Exh. 327-139, p. 7; Exh. (j)(8)(iv)(a) and (6) read: the same STS from being identified 1327-138, p. 5; Exh. 327-142, p. 4; Exh. (iv) If a significant threshold shift has been repeatedly for the same employee. i 327-140, p. 4; Exh. 327-106, p. 5; Exh. determined to be permanent on the basis of a retest audiogram or an annual audiogram conducted after After publication of the January ¡327-103, p. 5; Exh. 327-80, p. 5; Exh. 327- 14 hours without exposure to workplace noise, the amendment, the Agency received 91, p. 27) . employer shall: requests for clarification of the amount (а) Inform the employee in writing, within 21 days After careful consideration of the of improvement in thresholds needed to evidence in the record, OSHA has of the determination, of the existence of a permanent significant threshold shift; concluded that it is not necessary to (б) Refer the employee for a clinical audiological 38 As originally promulgated, paragraph (j)(8)(iii) require employers to conduct retest evaluation or an otological examination, as read: If retesting of an employee reveals that the I audiograms. Deleting the retest appropriate, if additional testing is necessary to significant threshold shift is not permanent, the use requirements from the hearing determine the cause of the permanent significant of hearing protectors by that employee may be conservation amendment would not in threshold shift, or if the employer suspects that a discontinued, unless the employee is required to j medical pathology of the ear (as defined in wear hearing protectors pursuant to paragraph any way diminish employee protection. Appendix I) is caused or aggravated by the wearing (b)(1) of this secton. (Italics added) ¡However, a number of participants of hearing protectors. [Italics added] 3329 CFR 1910.95(j)(9) (ij and (ii), 46 FR at 4163. 9766 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations trigger a revision of the baseline and baseline should not be revised if a retest left to the discretion of the supervising methods of handling the situation in audiogram had not been performed professional since many variables, such which an annual audiogram shows (Exh. 327-98, p. 14; Exh. 327-103, p. 6; as results of otologic referral, instrument improvement at some frequencies and Exh. 327-139, p. 7). calibration, and the test environment, losses at others. To consider these Some commenters advocated revising must be considered. Dr. McCurdy also comments, the Agency continued to stay baselines only when subsequent criticized the criterion for improved on this requirement in the August audiograms showed improved thresholds in the January amendment Federal Register document. thresholds (Exh. 327-135, p. 6; Exh. 327- because he felt that a majority of OSHA received a variety of comments 95, p. 8). Dr. W. G. Thomas of the North audiograms would meet this criterion and opinions on revising the baseline Carolina Memorial Hospital stated that without showing a consistent change in following the continuation of the interim employee hearing thresholds could hearing across different frequencies stay. Many comments supported the improve by as much as 20 to 40 dB after (Exh. 327-151, pp. 8-9). Dr. S. White of January amendment’s requirement to the initiation of a hearing conservation the American Speech-Language-Hearing revise baselines when improved program. Dr. Thomas stressed the Association also recommended that the thresholds or an STS occurs (Exh. 329- importance of revising the baseline to professional determine the revision 14, p. 6; Exh, 327-154, p. 6; Exh. 327-142, reflect such an improved threshold criteria for improved thresholds (Tr. Vol. p. 4; Exh. 327-139, p. 7; Exh. 327-138, p. because otherwise the initial baseline IV, p. 72, March 20,1982). 5; Exh. 327-119, p. 3; Exh. 327-105, p. 6; would be contaminated by temporary A number of other commenters also Exh. 327-101, p. 0; Exh. 327-102, p. 10; threshold shift, which would render any believed that the professional should be Exh. 327-103, p. 6; Exh. 327-98, p. 14; comparison of audiograms meaningless the one to decide whether it is necessary Exh. 327-94, p. 8; Exh. 327-89, p. 6; Exh. (Exh. 329-26, p. 2). D. C. Gasaway, a to revise the baseline either for STS or 327-53, p. 2; Exh. 326-21, p. 3; Exh. 327- hearing conservation specialist, improved thresholds (Exh. 329-22, p. 5; 84, p. 27). These commenters stated that discussed the results of an Air Force Exh. 329-15, p. 6; Exh. 327-143, p. 6; Exh. if the baseline were not allowed to be study which had led him to conclude 327-91, p. 29; Exh. 327-76, p. 10; Exh. revised when an STS occurs, the that: 327-20, p. 5). employee would be classified as having •i* * * negative [improved] threshold A few commenters objected to an STS on each subsequent audiogram, values greater than 10 dB (i.e., 15 dB or more) permitting any revision of the baseline and the employer would repeatedly be at 500 Hz and/or 6000 Hz should be used to at all (Exh. 327-120, p. 3; Exh. 327-108, p. require re-establishment of reference required to institute follow-up measures. audiograms and/or negative differences of 10 9; Exh. 327-106, p. 5; Exh. 327-71, p. 3; Dr, S. White of the American Speech- dB or more at 1000 through 4000 Hz. This Exh. 327-69, p. 7; Tr. Vol. I-B, p. 244, Language-Hearing Association approach would be simplified further if only March 23,1982). Many felt that revisions maintained that baseline revision is the differences (negative) at only 1000 will lead to confusion and tampering essential for accurate audiogram through 4000 Hz, either ear, were used. If with audiometric records, and will not comparison. He recommended that the adopted, then negative values of threshold contribute to the overall hearing original baseline be revised after a shift would * * * [be] equal to, or exceeding, conservation program (Exh. 327-120, p. significant threshold shift when two 10 dB at two or more frequencies between 1000 and 4000 Hz, either ear. Under these 3; Exh. 327-108). Some reasoned that the successive annual tests confirm a conditions the reference audiogram should be annual audiogram should be compared change in hearing, either for better or re-established. Of course, the re-established to the baseline as well as to any worse (Exh. 327-154, p. 6). Other reference should be accomplished only after subsequent audiogram rather than commenters also supported revising the the individual has been free from noise a revising the baseline (Exh. 327-71, p. 3) baseline but favored different criteria minimum period of time * * *” (Exh. 327-66, and another commenter recommended for determining an improved hearing pp. 46-47). that noting the date of the change would threshold (Exh. 327-119, p. 3; Exh. 327- Other commenters stated that the be sufficent (Exh. 327-69, p. 7). 115, p. 3; Exh. 327-105, p. 6; Exh. 327-102, baseline should be revised only when a In light of the evidence in the record, p. 10; Exfi. 327-98, p. 14; Exh. 327-35, p. significant threshold shift occurs ^nd not OSHA has decided that an annual 4; Exh. 327-29, p. 2; Exh. 327-84, p. 25; when an improvement in hearing lias audiogram may be substituted for the Exh. 327-142, p. 4; Exh. 327-139, p. 7; occurred. These participants believed baseline audiogram if the professional Exh. 327-138, p. 5). For example, some that revising the baseline when hearing supervising the program determines that participants defined improvements as a improved would cause confusion, and the employee has experienced a shift for the better of 10 dB or more require the use of a computer to track persistent STS or has shown a beyond any test-retest error. J. Morrill of employee baselines (Exh. 329-18, pp. 6- significant improvement in hearing Impact Hearing Conservation, Inc., 7; Exh. 329-16, pp. 7-8). acuity. The Agency agrees with the view believed that revising the baseline when Two commenters suggested that expressed by Robert Connelly, an STS occurs is only appropriate if a OSHA should require revised baselines industrial audiologist with Audiometric sliding scale STS criteria, such as that for audiograms showing STS, but that a Associates: included in the January amendment, is professional should decide whether to used (Exh. 327-35, p. 4). revise them after an improvement in “Revising the baseline test would provide an effective means of monitoring hearing hearing had occurred. D. McCurdy of the J. Shampan of Impact Hearing levels over time” (Exh. 327-119, p. 3). Conservation, Inc., reported at the American Council of Otolaryngology OSHA hearing that his company intends explained that after a permanent In addition, OSHA agrees with Dr. to retest before revising the baseline to significant threshold shift occurs it is no McCurdy of the American Council of eliminate the problem of revising the longer suitable to compare subsequent Otolaryngology (Exh. 327-151) and baseline on the basis of a temporary audiograms to the initial baseline since Richard Klinzing of the American Paper threshold shift (Tr. Vol. V, p. 52, March even if no further change occurred the Institute (Exh. 329-22, p. 6), among 29,1982). Other commenters supported reviewer would repeatedly identify the others, that the professional supervising revising the baseline only on the basis of same shift. However, with regard to the employer’s hearing conservation a confirmed STS or a permanent improved thresholds, he felt that the program can best determine when an threshold shift, implying that the decision to revise the baseline should be annual audiogram should be substituted Federal Register / Voi. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rúles and Regulations 9767 for the baseline audiogram. For these OSHA received comments stating that screening procedure is where the test is reasons, the mandatory requirements in the sound pressure levels in Table D -l presented at one intensity level and it is an the January amendment concerning are not necessary and are not feasible all or none response. Audiometric threshold revision of the baseline audiogram have for industrial audiometrie testing testing requires the identification of threshold been restated in non-mandatory at the selective frequencies, as should be programs. For example, some comments [done] in industry” (Exh. 327-56 p. 7). performance language. In addition, it indicated that double-walled rooms should be noted that all audiograms would have to be used to meet the Commenters who favored Table D -l must be retained for the length of permissible background sound pressure essentially paraphrased the rationale employment of the affected employee. levels (46 FR at 42628). The stay of the given in the January 16,1981, preamble • This revision of the provisions requirement that employers meet the (46 FR 4148): background sound pressure concerning revised baseline audiograms specifications of Table D -l was levels in audiometric test rooms must be does not in any way permit the continued in August 1981. In the interim, quiet enough to permit accurate destruction of any original baseline employers conducting audiometrìe threshold measurements (Exh. 327-62, p. audiograms. examinations have been required to 7; Exh. 327-137 B, p. 1; Exh. 331-17, p. 14; Exh. 376 A, p. 2; Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 143, 211, Microprocessor Audiometers meet the less stringent background sound pressure level specifications of March 26,1982; Tr. Vol. V, p. 22, March The January amendment required Table D-2. 29,1982). audiometric tests to be conducted with Many comments submitted since the Dr. Francis I. Catlin [American equipment meeting the specifications of August publication have addressed the Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and the American National Standard issue of whether Table D -l or Table D-2 Neck Surgery] emphasized the Specification for Audiometers, S3.6- is the most appropriate for industrial Academy’s concern. He asserted that 1969. The preamble to the August audiometrie testing. Background sound the background sound pressure levels Federal Register document (46 FR 42628) levels required by Table D -l are permitted by Table D-2 would result in noted that although microprocessor essentially the same as those specified a loss of ability to identify early hearing audiometers were not specifically in the ANSI S3.1-1977 standards, while losses from hazardous noise exposures. mentioned as acceptable instruments, Table D-2 was adopted directly from At these levels, the hearing test program they were allowed by the amendment if the older ANSI S3.1-1960 standard. would only identify problems after they meet the requirements of ANSI 3.6- There is widespread agreement that employees have experienced significant 1969. In August OSHA indicated it was the audiometrie testing requirements of hearing loss close to that of material considering adding language to the this amendment describe “industrial impairment, or when the noise levels amendment explicitly permitting the use audiometry” rather than “clinical were high enough to produce temporary of this equipment. Two commenters, D. audiometry.” Industrial audiometry threshold shifts of more than 25 dB (Exh. E. Rapp of Dow Chemical (Exh. 327-76) consists of obtaining actual air 327-152, p. 19). and H. T. Buelter of the American conduction thresholds at specified An overwhelming number of Center for Occupational Health (Exh. frequencies. Paragraph (h)(1) of the commenters recommended the use of 329-95), requested that the Agency amendment requires, in part, that Table D-2 rather than Table D-l, specifically permit the use of audiometrie test examinations consist of contending that Table D-2 is adequate microprocessor audiometers in the pure tone, air conduction thresholds, for determining STS and for obtaining revised amendment. OSHA agrees with with test frequencies including as a valid measurements (Exh. 327-112, p. 14; these suggestions and is adding minimum 500,1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and Exh. 327-122, p. 7; Exh. 327-149, p. 6; clarifying language to the provisions 6000 Hz. Clinical audiometry, however, Exh. 329-17, p. 4). James T. McCallum, describing acceptable audiometric is comprehensive, and includes, as a Corporation Audiologist at the Reynolds measuring instruments. minimum, air and bone conduction Metal Company and others asserted that Background Levels in Audiometric Test threshold measurements at each the more stringent sound pressure levels Rooms frequency for the purpose of diagnosis of Table D-l are necessary in a clinical The January amendment required and rehabilitation. Since this setting for diagnostic purposes. (Tr. Vol. that, within two years, audiometric amendment does not require I-B, p. 264, March 23,1982; Exh. 326-34, testing.must be conducted in test rooms audiological diagnosis but rather only p. 3; Exh. 327-61, p. 4; Exh. 327-84, p. 32; meeting the background sound pressure requires employee referral for a clinical Exh. 327-56, p. 7; Exh. 327-91, p. 36; Exh. level specifications of Table D -l in audiological evaluation or an otological 327-103, p. 7; Exh. 327-114, p. 26; Exh. Appendix D. In the January amendment, examination, under certain special 327-139, p. 8; Exh. 329-11, p. 4; Tr. Vol. I- Table D -l’s specifications were circumstances, the audiometrie test B, p. 194, March 23,1982). However, an essentially those of the American program is not considered a clinical- industrial audiometric testing program National Standard Institute’s (ANSI) program. Richard L Stepkin, an which is intended merely for S3.1-1977 standard, except that the industrial audiologist and President of identification of persons susceptible to background sound pressure levels Enviromed Corporation, best describes noise does not require such rigorous permitted at 500 Hz (27 dB) were higher the difference between clincial and levels. Dr. S. White of the American than those of the ANSI standard (21.5 industrial audiometrie testing: Speech-Language-Hearing Association dB). “The best criteria for establishing stated the following: OSHA relaxed ANSI’s requirement for differences between clinical and industrial Concerning the appendix to the a background sound pressure level of audiometrìe test programs are by the types of audiometric test rooms, there is an express 21.5 dB at 500 Hz to 27 dB in response to tests performed. Industrial audiometrìe purpose for the allowable octave band sound data suggesting that this level could not evaluations require only an air conducted pressure levels as recommended by the be met at 500 Hz in industrial settings threshold and nothing more. Clinical American National Standard for Permissible audiometry includes anything and everything Ambient Noise during Audiometric Testing or and that audiometric precision was not beyond this process. ANSI S3.11977. That purpose is to ensure as important at 500 Hz as at other It should be noted that industrial ability to achieve hearing threshold levels to frequencies (see 46 FR 4148-4149). After audiometrìe threshold testing is not to be zero decibels. These are the, background publication of the January amendment, confused with “screening” programs. A levels required for hearing research and 9768 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No, 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations accurate diagnostic measurement of absolute values presently acceptable in Table D-2 the requirements detailed above, the thresholds of people with normal hearing. A (Exh. 329-97, pp. 1 to 2).” Agency assumed that manual monitoring program does not need such Therefore, Table D -l of Appendix D, audiometers, which trace thresholds in 5 rigorous levels. dB increments, were being used. It was Authorities cite a range of normal hearing required by the January amendment is and the levels presently permitted by OSHA revoked. The background sound intended that the trigger for an acoustic as indicated in Table D-2 would allow pressure levels for audiometric test calibration be deviations of 10 dB and measurement of hearing to well within the .rooms which are required by this the trigger for an exhaustive calibration range of 0 to 25 decibels during threshold amendment are contained in Table D of be deviations of 15 dB or more.40 levels. Table D -l levels should only be Appendix D. The Agency’s position on this issue mandated if precise scientific measurement is was discussed in the August Federal to be accomplished with highly trained Audiometer Calibration Register document and an interpretation personnel and highly calibrated The January promulgation of the instrumentation (Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 49-50, March consistent with the above discussion 26,1982). hearing conservation amendment was given (see 46 FR 42628-42629). After required that audiometers be given a evaluating the comments on this issue, After thorough review and analysis of functional check each day they are in OSHA has decided to incorporate into the comments in the record in use. This process involves a biological connection with this issue, OSHA has the text of the amendment explicit calibration and a listening check. This is language to clarify these points. The determined that the background sound done by testing a person with known, pressure levels specified in Table D-l revised amendment therefore specifies stable hearing thresholds and by that an acoustic calibration is necessary are not necessary for the purposes of the listening to the audiometer’s output to hearing conservation amendment. if the results of the biological calibration make sure it is free of distorted or indicate "deviations of 10 dB or greater” OSHA concurs with Dr. S. White and J. unwanted sounds. Such sounds might McCallum, and many others, that the and an exhaustive calibration is lead to invalid audiograms. necessary when an acoustic calibration intent of the audiometric testing When the biologic calibration resulted program required by this amendment is results in “deviations of 15 dB or in "deviations of more than 5 dB” in greater.” to identify persons with hearing loss hearing level from the subject’s known before the loss progresses to material audiogram, the January amendment Summary impairment. The fact that the employer required an acoustic calibration. An is not required to make a determination The audiometric test provisions of this acoustic calibration is one in which the revised hearing conservation of work relatedness, and the fact that audiometer is checked with a sound employees are advised to seek referral amendment are somewhat less detailed level meter and earphone coupler to than those promulgated in January 1981, where a medical pathology is suspect, make sure the instrument is producing although they have not been simplified are evidence that "medical or the correct level of pure tones at specific as much as the amendment’s monitoring audiological diagnosis” is beyond the frequencies. Also included in the provisions. It was not possible to scope of the audiometric test program. acoustic calibration is a linearity check embrace the performance approach Tlie Agency reaffirms its position as to ensure that the sound pressure output completely for the audiometric testing stated in the preamble of January 16, is increasing at the proper increments. provisions. Based upon a thorough 1981 (46 FR 4148) that background sound The January amendment also review of the information and comments levels in audiometric test rooms must be stipulated that "deviations of more than in the record, OSHA believes that a* quiet enough to permit valid 10 dB” on the sound pressure output certain degree of specificity in the measurements of audiometric check and linearity check triggered an thresholds. However, OSHA is now exhaustive calibration. Exhaustive audiometric test provisions is absolutely convinced that the levels of Table D-2 calibration involves a thorough necessary to protect employees in the are sufficient for obtaining valid instrument check and, where necessary, hearing conservation program threshold measurements for purposes of an adjustment to conform with adequately and to realize fully the industrial hearing conservation requirements of the ANSI Standard benefits the Agency has predicted will programs. Thus, OSHA no longer Specification for Audiometers (S3.6- occur as a result of such program (see believes that the sound pressure levels 1969). The audiometer usually must be Regulatory Analysis). specified in Table D-l are necessary to sent back to the manufacturer or to a OSHA recognizes that employers may achieve this goal. The comments laboratory for the exhaustive calibration employ different professionals to submitted which reflect a variety of because specialized equipment is supervise their audiometric test program professional experiences have needed to perform this calibration. from year to year. Moreover, the persuaded OSHA that the background Commenters (Exh. 327-66, p. 68; Exh. professional supervising the program levels in Table D-2 will ensure an 347-141, p. 5; Exh. 327-91; Exh. 349-1; may use any number of audiometric adequate environment for audiometric Exh. 327-154) pointed out that since self- technicians to obtain the required testing. Ronald D. Poole, Director of the recording audiometers trace thresholds audiograms. As a result, it is quite Audiology Clinic, Mankato State in 1 dB increments, “deviations of more possible that there will be little University, summarized the opinions of than 5 dB” could be interpreted to mean continuity of personnel responsible for those who favor Table D-2: that a 6 dB deviation would trigger an the program from year to year. It is ■ y* , acoustic calibration. Similarly, crucial to ensure that certain basic “In the past 5-6 years I have seen the audiograms of literally hundreds of “deviations of more than 10 dB” would elements of the program are performed employees tested in rooms where the imply that an employer using a self- in a relatively uniform manner so that maximum allowable background noise recording audiometer would be required the evaluation of audiometric test data conformed to that contained in Table D-2 to send the audiometer back to the and their thresholds were found to be well manufacturer or to a laboratory for an 40 These performance triggers were in addition to within that range of normal between 0—25 exhaustive calibration when only an 11 the stated frequency with which such calibrations dB, and in most instances were even closer to must be done: at least yearly for acoustic dB deviation was found. This would calibration and every two years for exhaustive those minimum (0 dB) than the maximum (25 result in a much more stringent rule than dB). I do not feel any test accuracy or calibration. For a more complete discussion of integrity will be sacrified by retaining those the Agency intended. In promulgating audiometer calibration, see 46 FR 4149-4151. Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9769 and comparison of results are B), which is mandatory, describes the contents of any meaningful. Therefore, it was necessary NRR and three alternative NIOSH compliance plan in effect; (6) the to specify certain items, such as methods that may be used to estimate purpose of hearing protectors, the audiometric test frequencies, hearing protector attenuation. advantages and disadvantages of permissible background sound pressure In response to the August 1981 request various types of protectors, and levels in audiometric test booths, a for information, some commenters instructions on their selection, fitting, definition of standard threshold shift, suggested that the noise reduction rating use, and care; and (7) the purpose and and certain follow-up procedures. (NRR) method produces an accurate procedures of audiometric testing. Whenever OSHA felt that the specific estimate of real-world attenuation and After publication of the January details of a particular provision were should be continued (Exh. 327-34; Exh. amendment, OSHA received numerous not absolutely essential to the protection 327-91, pp. 40-41; Exh. 327-85, p. 9; Exh. comments contending that the training of employees, however, we have tried to 327-95, p. 10; Exh. 327-131; Exh. 327-142, requirements were too detailed and did allow for the use of professional p. 7). Others stated that the NRR should not provide employers with enough discretion. For example, OSHA revoked not be adopted as part of the standard flexibility to tailor their training the retest requirements because we at all (Exh. 327-80, p. 3; Exh. 327-35, p. 5; programs to the specific needs of their anticipate that employees will be Exh. 327-13, p. 7; Exh. 327-77, p. 9; Exh. employees. In August, OSHA continued provided the same amount of protection 327-28, p. 3; Exh. 327-106, p. 7). Several the stay of several training provisions, whether an STS is temporary or T comments suggested alternative which are listed above (1, 3,4, and 5) permanent. A professional directing a methods of evaluating hearing and requested information on the particular program, however, may deem protection (Exh. 327-47; Exh. 327-46; necessity of these training requirements it important to determine whether an Exh. 327-62-A, p. 8; Exh. 327-99), while for an effective hearing conservation employee’s STS is temporary. The others supported de-rating of the program. revised amendment is designed to give laboratory derived attenuation values of Many commenters stressed the the supervising professional a hearing protectors to reflect the actual importance of training in obtaining the considerable amount of latitude in attenuation achieved under real-world full cooperation of employees in the making these decisions, while conditions which is often significantly hearing conservation program. However, simultaneously affording the greatest less than the NRR would indicate. (Exh. these commenters also stated that such amount of employee protection. 327-64; Exh. 327-61; Exh. 327-66; Exh. detailed training requirements were too 327-116). OSHA plans in the near future Hearing Protector Attenuation rigid (Exh. 326-15, p. 9; Exh. 326-30, p. 2; to propose a new rule to modify the Exh. 326-32, p. 1; Exh. 326-34, p. 9; Exh. existing noise standard (29 CFR The amendment requires that when an 327-20, pp. 5-6; Exh. 327-70, p. 2; Exh. 1910.95(b)). At that time the Agency will employee has suffered a STS, the 327-76, pp. 13-14; Exh. 327-87, p. 4; Exh. assess the overall effectiveness of the employee must wear hearing protectors 327-89, p. 9; Exh. 327-97, p. 6; Exh. 327- hearing conservation program, that attenuate exposure to a TWA of 85 146, p. 7; Exh. 327-145, p. 7; Exh. 329-22, administrative and engineering controls, dB or below. There may be some p. 6). For example, the DuPont Company and personal protective equipment (i.e. circumstances or environments where it stated: is not possible to attenuate noise down hearing protectors). Since the issue to the appropriate level with hearing raised in the present rulemaking— “DuPont believes it is appropriate for the agency to stay and modify the employee protectors. It should be noted that whether the Appendix should be modified so that estimations of hearing training provisions of the amendment impossibility of compliance is because the specifications contained in the protector attenuation more accurately recognized as a defense to any citation original version [January standard) were by the Review Commission. reflect the amount of attenuation more detailed than necessary and did not In August, 1981, OSHA reopened the achieved in “real use” situations—will permit enough employer discretion in record and requested data and be the central focus in that proposal, determining what communications will information on whether Appendix G 41 OSHA is not changing the provisions guarantee diem the best employee should be amended so that estimations dealing with hearing protector participation and cooperation in the hearing of hearing protector attenuation would attenuation at this time. Comments conservation program. DuPont agrees with more accurately reflect the amount of received in connection with this portion OSHA that employee training is important of the rulemaking on the hearing but does not believe OSHA’s specifications attenuation received in actual industrial would elicit employee attention and use. The value of hearing protectors lies conservation amendment will be considered in the development of the compliance with necessary safety in their ability to attenuate or reduce the precautions” (Exh. 326-28, p. 7-8). noise that reaches the ear. Hearing proposed occupational noise standard. Other commenters indicated that the protector manufacturers are required by Training Program training requirements would be the Environmental Protection Agency In the January amendment, OSHA (EPA) to identify clearly in a uniform administratively burdensome and of required training to be repeated little benefit (Exh. 326-12, p. 5; Exh. 327- manner, the noise reduction capability annually for all employees included in 51, p. 5; Exh. 327-93, p. 3; Tr. Vol. IV, p. of all hearing protectors sold in the hearing conservation programs. The Ill, March 26,1982). Some participants United States. This measure of contents of the training program where noted that professionally prepared and effectiveness is called the noise specified iri detail. Employees were packaged programs that aré often less reduction rating (NRR). The NRR is a required to be informed about: (1) costly and of higher quality than those laboratory derived numerical estimate OSHA’s noise standard and the hearing developed in-house could be used if the of attenuation that is provided by the conservation program; (2) the effects of stayed portions of the January hearing protector. Appendix G noise on hearing; (3) identification of the amendment were revoked (Exh. 327-145, (subsequently redesignated as Appendix specific machinery at the jobsite that p. 9; Exh. 327-89, p. 9; Exh. 329-13, p. 4). could produce hazardous noise 1 In the revised amendment, Appendix G: In fact, the Dow Chemical Company Methods for Estimating the Adequacy of Hearing exposures; (4) the role of engineering declared that of some of the Protector Attenuation, has been redesignated as and administrative controls in the requirements listed above (3,4 and 5) Appendix B. reduction of noise exposure; (5) the "are not necessary as they do not 9770 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and *Regulations pertain to a hearing conservation engineering and administrative controls protection was advisory or mandatory program” (Exh. 327-76, pp. 13-14). and the employer’s compliance plan is in certain areas (see 46 FR at 42630, Other commenters addressed the role not essential to the employee’s August 21,1981). of training in industrial hearing understanding of or cooperation in the Warning signs by their nature conservation programs. Dr. Larry hearing conservation program. describe area noise levels rather than Royster, of the Department of OSHA does not agree with the individual exposures (Exh. 64-6, pp. 1- Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering suggestion of the International 2). The need for warning signs depends of North Carolina State University, Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship on the nature and extent of the - stressed that successful training must Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and occupational exposure (Exh. 327-143, p. reflect the company’s commitment to Helpers that section 6(b)(7) of the Act 8). For example, an employee in an area hearing conservation and should include requires training in die identification of with 92 dB of noise for two horn’s a day an explanation of how hearing loss specific machinery at the jobsite that with no significant noise exposure for occurs and how each employee can be could produce hazardous noise the rest of the day would not need to protected, the mechanics of the program exposures (Exh. 327-78, p. 16). Section wear hearing protectors, whereas the and the employee’s and employer’s 6(b)(7) of the Act states in part that “any employee who spends the whole day in respective responsibilities, detailed standard promulgated under this that area would (see Exh. 326-82, p. 3). instructions on hearing protection subsection shall prescribe the use of Therefore, in cases where employees devices, and an explanation of labels or other appropriate forms of move in and out of noisy areas, such audiometer tests and procedures (Exh. warning as are necessary to insure that warning signs might be unduly 327-84). employees are apprised of all hazards to confusing. which they are exposed * * *.” Noise is Several participants, however, Similarly, many commenters felt that the hazard,to which employees are supported the inclusion of detailed the fact that only some employees (those exposed and the requirement to include training requirements (Exh. 326-41, p. 6; with STS) exposed above 85 dB were training on the effects of noise on Exh. 328-42, p. 13; Exh. 327-59, p. 4; Exh. required to wear hearing protectors hearing certainly meets the statutory 327-86, pp. 92-94; Exh. 327-78, pp. 15-16; would contribute to the confusion.42 obligation of apprising employees of the Exh. 327-107, p. 7; Exh. 327-109, p. 16-17; Accordingly, they suggested that hazards encountered in the workplace. Exh. 327-136B, p. 6; Exh. 329-57, p. 2; warning signs be required only when Exh. 345, p. 11; Exh. 347, p. 9). For For these reasons those provisions of the training requirements on which the exposures were at or above an 8-hour example, Frank Grimes of the United TWA of 90 dB (Exh. 327-62, p. 8; Exh. Steelworkers of America stated: stay was continued in August are hereby revoked. The revocation of some 327-71, p. 4; Exh. 327-145, p. 9; Exh. 329- “It is essential that the persons affected get of these detailed requirements will 2, p. 4; Tr. Vol. I-B, p. 265, March 23, as much detail as possible on the allow employers to avail themselves of 1982; see also Exh. 327-101, p. 8). requirements and controls so that the pre-prepared materials such as Despite these considerations, W. J. program will be properly implemented” (Exh. Rheume of the Teamsters Union stated 347, p. 9). pamphlets and films, where appropriate, which may be more effective and less that “warning signs are an integral part George Taylor, Director of Occupational expensive than individually prepared of any hearing conservation program.” Safety and Health for the AFL-CIO, also programs. As written, the training He added that they are inexpensive generally supported this view (Exh. 327- provisions in the hearing conservation indicators of high noise areas and have 109, p. 17). amendment require employers to been common industrial practice for In general, the great majority of conduct annual training foï all years (Tr. Vol. HI, p. 62, March 25,1982). commenters agreed that employee employees included in their hearing Wayne Bodenheimer of the Colorado training is an important part of any conservation programs. Such training Hearing and Speech Center also favored hearing conservation program. However, must include, at a minimum, information the use of warning signs, characterizing OSHA agrees with those commenters on the effects of noise on hearing; the them as “constant reminders to who contended that some details of the purpose of hearing protectors; the everyone about high noise areas and the training program should be left to the advantages and disadvantages of need to protect themselves.” Moreover, judgment of the employer or the various types of protectors; instructions he felt it “naive” to assume that professional administering the hearing in the selection, fitting, use, and care of everyone would remember the high conservation program. In addition, protectors; and the purposes and noise areas on a day-to-day basis several commenters (Exh. 327-88, p. 20; procedures of audiometric testing. without such visual reinforcement (Tr. Exh. 327-110, p. 5; Exh. 327-59, p. 4) Vol. I-B, p. 215, March 3,1982). Warning Signs argued that the requirement to inform Similarly, Dan MacLeod, an industrial employees of the contents of the The January amendment required hygienist for the International Union of amendment is redundant with another signs to be posted at entrances to or on United Automobile, Aerospace and requirement in the amendment: the the periphery of all well-defined work Agricultural Implements Workers of requirement to post a copy of the areas where employees might be America, testified from personal standard in the workplace. OSHA does exposed at or above a TWA of 85 dB. experience about the educational value not believe it is necessary to include a These signs were intended to alert of warning signs (Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 98-99, specific requirement to inform employees that they were entering a March 25,1982). In addition, a number of employees of the contents of the high noise area and that hearing other commenters such as the standard in the training program when protectors might be required (see 29 GFR International Brotherhood of these documents are required to be 1910.95fp), 46 FR 4164, January 16,1981). readily available to employees and The stay of this provision was continued 4* Hearing protector use is mandatory for copies must be posted. The Agency also in the August Federal Register document employees exposed below an 8-hour TWA of 90 believes that it is not necessary to because of objections asserting that dBA in only two situations: after experiencing a standard threshold shift and, where employee require the items listed, as 3, 4, and 5 warning signs would be costly and baselines are delayed beyond six months because above to be included in the training inconvenient and that employees might mobile testing vans are used, for that period beyond requirements because information about be confused as to whether hearing six months until the baselines are obtained. Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9771

Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, where high noise exposures may occur and redundancy of some of these Blacksmiths, Forgers, and HelpersTUnion will be revoked. The revocation of this recordkeeping provisions. Therefore, on and the Air Products and Chemicals requirement is not meant to discourage August 21,1981 (46 FR 42630) OSHA Corporation also felt that warning signs employers from posting any warning continued the stay of several specific were helpful in a hearing conservation signs. Rather, it recognizes that the recordkeeping provisions and asked for program (see Exh. 327-13, p. 7; Exh. 327- employer is more familiar with the comments on whether they were 56, p. 8; Exh. 327-58, p. 4; Tr. Vol. IV, p. workplace environment and will be in a necessary for an effective hearing 61, March 26,1982; Exh. 327-78, p. 17; better position to determine if the conservation program. Exh. 327-86, p. 8; Exh. 327-135, p. 9; Exh. posting of signs in a given situation will OSHA received many requests that 327-138, pp. 6-7). aid in the success of the company’s the detailed recordkeeping provisions On the other hand, a number of hearing conservation program. A for noise exposure monitoring be participants questioned the educational number of those commenting noted that revoked 43 (Exh. 326-31, p. 3; Exh. 327-93, value of warning signs (Exh. 327-70, p. 2; warning signs may be helpful in p. 3; Exh. 327-145, pp. 9-10; Exh. 327-110, Exh. 327-76, p. 14; Exh. 327-97, p. 6; Exh. enforcing hearing protector use where p. 5; Exh. 327-89, p. 10; Exh. 327-88, p. 327-89, p. 7). For example, Dr. Thomas required. Therefore we expect that, 10; Exh. 327-121, p. 3; Exh. 328-5; Exh. Summar, who based his opinion on 25 where appropriate, employers will 329-17, p. 4). Objections focused on the years of experience in directing voluntarily adopt the use of warning excessive amount of detail required and industrial hearing conservation signs as part of their hearing argued that such detailed records are programs, felt that warning signs had conservation program. not necessary for an effective hearing “minimal” educational value (Exh. 327- Several unions argued that Section conservation program. Many stated that 69, p. 9; Tr. Vol. I-B, p. 126, March 23, 6(b)(7) of the Act required the use of the performance language at the 1982). Others questioned the wisdom of warning signs (Exh. 327-109, p. 18: Exh. beginning of the exposure monitoring the requirement and stated that warning 327-78, p. 17). Section 6(b)(7) of the Act recordkeeping requirement was signs would be ignored after a short merely requires that standards sufficient.44 period of time, becoming, in effect, part “prescribe the use of labels or other of the “scenery” (Exh. 327-116, p. 3; see appropriate forms of warnings as are OSHA has concluded that the detailed also Exh. 326-62, p. 3; Tr. Vol. I-B, p. 265, necessary to insure that employees are exposure monitoring information March 23,1982). Some commenters apprised of all hazards to which they originally required in the January indicated that while warning signs have are exposed * * * [italics added]. It amendment is not essential to an some educational value (Exh. 329-14, p. should be clear from the above effective hearing conservation program. 10; Exh. 329-15, p. 7), good training and discussion that warning signs are not Since the recordkeeping provisions for enforcement practices contribute far generally necessary, nor are they audiometric tests require that a record more to the success of the hearing always the most appropriate method of of the lastest exposure measurement be conservation program (Exh. 329-19, p. 2; apprising employees of the hazards of retained with the employee’s Exh. 327-51, p. 5; Exh. 327-129, p. 3). noise. Training may be a more audiometric test record, much of the Moreover, Dow Chemical (Exh. 327-76, appropriate vehicle to inform workers of information required by the exposure p. 14) and the Motor Vehicle the hazards of noise to their hearing monitoring recordkeeping requirements Manufacturers Association (Exh. 327- and, in fact, employers are required to would be redundant.48 OSHA believes 103, p. 9), among others, suggested that include this in their training program that the detailed exposure measurement warning signs are not necessary for an (see discussion above). Therefore, data required in January 1981 has effective hearing conservation program. substantial evidence in the record extremely limited usefulness and this Many commenters, including General supports the conclusion that the level of detail is not essential to the Motors Corporation (Exh. 327-99), felt revocation of the warning sign effective implementation of a hearing that while warning signs might be useful requirement is not contrary to Section conservation program. Therefore, the in some work environments, they serve 6(b)(7) of the Act. stayed provisions concerning exposure no useful purpose in others; therefore monitoring recordkeeping have been the decision as to whether or not to post Recordkeeping warning signs should be left to the The January amendment required that “ The January amendment required that the discretion of the employer (see Exh. 327- extensive and detailed records be exposure record include the employee’s name and job classification; the date, location, and result of 89, pp. 7-8; Exh. 327-120, p. 4; Exh. 327- maintained of exposure measurements, each measurement taken; and the number of 105, p. 7). audiometric tests, audiometric test room measurements (where sound level meters are used After a careful analysis of thé record sound levels, and calibration of to make the measurement), as well as a description comments, OSHA agrees with the audiometers. OSHA explained (46 FR of the noise measurement equipment used and the 4159) that recordkeeping is necessary to date of its last laboratory calibration. The stay of position taken by General Motors and these provisions was continued in August. the others cited above that the use of enable professional reviewers to “* * * “ That provision simply stated that the employer signs to warn employees about noise make sure that the audiometric tests must keep accurate records of all employee hazards in high noise areas should be were carried out under proper exposure measurements required by the left to the discretion of the employer. In conditions and that audiograms reflect amendment. so doing, OSHA finds some merit in the employees’ true hearing levels. Records 45 As it now reads, the employer must keep the following information with audiometric test records: [serve an] * * * educational purpose for view that noise is more readily (i) The employer shall retain all employee discernible than other harmful physical employees because they enable audiometric test records obtained pursuant to agents and therefore a specific warning employees to assess the continuing paragraph (g) of this section; sign requirement may not be necessary status of their hearing. In addition, they (ii) This record shall include: to protect employees and that in certain provide employers with a way of (a) Name and job classification of the employee; circumstances such signs might confuse assessing the success or failure of the (b) Date of the audiogram; rather than serve a useful educational hearing conservation program.” (c) The examiner’s name; (d) Date of the last acoustic or exhaustive purpose. After the amendment was calibration of the audiometer; and Therefore, the provision requiring that promulgated in January, OSHA received (e) Employee’s most recent noise exposure warning signs be posted in all areas many objections to the detailed nature assessment. 9772 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations revoked. Thus, only the general has been pointed out that some in the revised amendment are essential exposure recordkeeping requirement is audiometrie forms are not sufficiently and sufficient to insure the effectiveness being retained. This is consistent with large to permit this information to be of the hearing conservation program and the mandates of sections 8(c)(3) and 8(d) actually recorded on them. It was not OSHA so finds. of the Act which require that employers OSHA’s intention to require that this Record Retention keep accurate records of employee information be entered on the actual exposures to harmful physical agents audiogram; the wording of this provision In August, OSHA stayed the which are required to be monitored but has therefore been changed to permit provisions requiring records of test room that the burden of such an obligation be this information to be kept with the sound pressure levels and audiometer reduced to the maximum extent feasible. audiometrie records. Employers may calibratiorfs to be kept for 5 years. The maintain the information in a separate requirement for retaining audiometric OSHA also received many comments document that is kept or filed with the test records was partially stayed insofar asking for the revocation of the stayed audiometrìe test results. as it required employers to retain provisions regarding audiometrie test Several commenters requested audiometric test records for 5 years after records 46 (Exh. 326-62, p. 4; Exh. 327-20, revocation of the stayed provision that termination of employment. OSHA p. 6; Exh. 327-90, p. 6; Exh. 327-88, p. 10: specified the audiometrie frequencies for received many requests that these Exh. 327-121, p. 3; Exh. 327-145, pp. 9-10; which background sound pressure level stayed provisions regarding record Exh. 328-5; Exh. 329-17, p. 4). For measurement records were to be kept retention be revoked ( Exh. 327-90, p. 6; example, the DuPont Company (Exh. and the date of the measurement (Exh. Exh. 327-122, pp. 10-11; Exh. 327-125; 326-28, pp. 8-9) pointed out that it is 327-145, pp. 9-10; Exh. 326-62, p. 4; Exh. Exh. 327-145, pp. 9-10; Exh. 327-149, pp. unnecessary for each employee’s 327-20, p. 6; Exh. 327-90, p. 6; Exh. 329- 8-10; Exh. 329-15, p. 7; Exh. 327-110, p. 5; audiogram to include general 22). OSHA has concluded that this Exh. 327-129, p. 3; Exh. 327-105, pp. 7-8; information, such as manufacturer and requirement is unnecessary since Table Exh. 327-143, p. 8). Some commenters model of the audiometer and a D -l in Appendix D specifies the cited the costs of retaining individual statement of whether sound pressure required frequencies.49Further, standard records and asserted that such records levels in the test room comply with audiometrìe practice provides that the are not necessary to employee health or Table D -l of Appendix D, when this date of sound pressure measurements be safety. information is available from other recorded. OSHA has therefore revoked OSHA has decided to revoke the records. OSHA has determined that the stayed portions of the provision (see requirements to retain separate records having a record of the qualifications of footnote 49, above). of sound pressure levels and audiometer the examiner and of the manufacturer Several commenters also asked that calibrations since this information must and model of the audiometer is not the stayed requirement to maintain be kept with or on the audiogram. In essential to determining the validity of records of acoustical and exhaustive addition, OSHA has concluded that the test. In addition, the requirement for audiometer calibrations be revoked retention of audiometric records for 5 a statement as to whether the sound because it is unnecessary (Exh. 326-62, years beyond termination of pressure levels in the test room meet the p. 4; Exh. 327-20, p. 6; Exh. 327-90, p. 6; employment is not necessary, since this levels of Table D -l or Table D-2 of Exh. 327-141, p. 6; Exh. 329-22). OSHA section also requires the employer to Appendix D is being revoked to be agrees that this provision is redundant, provide employees with access to their consistent with the revocation of Table since the date of the last acoustic or records. Since employees can obtain a D -l. The remaining requirement that a exhaustive calibration must be kept copy of audiological records during their record be kept of background sound with the employee’s audiometrie test employment or upon termination of pressure levels in audiometrie test record. OSHA has therefore revoked employment, the requirement to retain rooms is sufficient to ensure adequate this provision in its entirety. such records for 5 years after information to enable proper audiogram By its actions today, OSHA has termination is not necessary. OSHA has evaluation.47 For these reasons, OSHA revoked those detailed recordkeeping concluded that it is more appropriate to has revoked the stayed provisions on requirements found to be unneces*sarily require retention of audiometric test audiometrie test records. burdensome or redundant. This is records for the length of employment consistent with the mandate of the There is some coitfusion (Exh. 327-91, rather than the longer period originally Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 p. 46: Exh. 327-149, p. 8) about whether specified. Therefore the requirement to U.S.C. 3501 and section 8(d) of the OSHA intended the audiometrìe et seq keep audiometric test records for 5 years OSH Act. OSHA does not agree with the information required to be kept to be after the termination of employment is Teamsters assertion (Exh. 345, p. 12) entered on the face of audiograms.48 It being revoked. that trimming the recordkeeping 46 In August 1981, OSHA continued the stay of the requirements in this manner will reduce Other Issues following audiometrìe test recordkeeping the effectiveness of the hearing Other Alternatives. In the August 21, provisions: qualifications of the person who conservation program. The administered the audiometrìe test, name of the 1981, Federal Register (46 FR 42631), recordkeeping requirements remaining manufacturer and model of the audiometer, and a OSHA noted that alternatives to the statement of whether the sound pressure levels in hearing conservation amendment had the test room meet those specified in Table D -l or one sheet of paper rather than separately for each D-2. audiogram. been suggested to the Agency. OSHA 47 The amendment requires that “the employer 49 In January, employers were required to keep thepublished and asked for comments on shall maintain accurate records of the following information concerning audiometric test the following performance provisions, measurements of the background sound pressure rooms, (i) The employer shall maintain accurate which are referred to as the alternative levels in audiometrìe test rooms (see paragraph records of the measurements of the background (m)(2)(ii)(/) below). sound pressure levels in audiometric test rooms, (ii) provisions or the three-paragraph 48 This information includes such things as This record shall include: (a) Background sound alternative. measurements of background sound pressure level pressure level measurements at each o f the 1. Employers shall conduct in the audiometrìe test room, and the examiner’s f o l l o w i n g o c t a v e b a n d s : 5 0 0 , lOOO, 2 0 0 0 , 4 0 0 0 , a n d audiograms annually of every employee name and date of the last calibration. Where this 8000 Hz; and (6) D ate o f measurem ent. The stay information is the same for an entire group of was continued on the italicized portion of this exposed to noise in excess of an 8-hour audiograms, this information may be maintained on provision in August. time weighted average sound level Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9773

(TWA) of 85 dBA,50 according to employers without strong technical workers * * V* The International standards on audiometers and capabilities to comply with effectively Brotherhood of Teamsters (Exh. 345, p. audiometric test rooms established by and suggested that the alternative 12) argued that “* * * it offers no the American National Standards standard would result in lack of uniform improvement over the previous standard Institute,51 and under the supervision of enforcement from one employer to [29 CFR 1910.95(b)(3)] * * *.” a qualified technician; another (see generally Exh. 327-78, p. 17; Some comments contained more 2. Such audiograms shall be reviewed Exh. 327-113, p. 3; Exh. 327-98, p. 21). specific criticism. For example, annually by a qualified audiologist, Several commenters who generally submissions by Dow Chemical (Exh. otolaryngologist or physician to identify supported the three-paragraph 327-76, p. 17), Shell Oil (Exh. 327-102, p. employees whose hearing acuity has alternative suggested specific changes. 13) and others emphasized the need for diminished more than normal; For example, Owens Illinois (Exh. 326- an explicit monitoring requirement, or 3. Employers shall instruct all 15, p. 3), the Chocolate Manufacturer’s offered alternative performance employees identified under paragraph 2 Association (Exh. 327-112, p. 17-18), the language for the monitoring provision in the proper use of hearing protection National Soft Drink Association (Exh. (Exh. 327-87, p. 5; Exh. 327-91, p. 52; when working in noisy areas and shall 327-90, p. 6), and the Edison Electric Exh. 327-99; Exh. 327-106, p. 1; Exh. 345, take appropriate measures to enforce Institute (Exh. 327-108, pp. 1-2) objected pp. 12-13). In addition, one commenter the use of suitable protective devices for to the incorporation by reference of pointed out that the three-paragraph those employees when they are exposed American National Standard Institute alternative fails to indicate the types to noise levels in excess of an 8-hour standards. Air Products and Chemicals and levels of sounds to be included in time weighted average sound level (Exh. 327-58) suggested that a the noise exposure measurement (Exh. (TWA) of 85 dBA. requirement be added stating that the 327-82). He suggested that the lack of The August document noted that the employer should have a written such a specification could result in purpose of publishing these alternatives description of the program to make all underestimates of exposure. was to “determine whether the goal of persons aware of it. R. C. Crewdson of The National Screw Machine Products hearing conservation could be achieved Industrial Health, Inc. (Exh. 327-83, p. 5) Association (Exh. 327-124) and the by a performance standard that does not requested addition of a requirement Alliance of Metal Working Industries contain detailed compliance stating that the program be under the (Exh. 327-72, p. 4) noted that the requirements but rather leaves supervision of an audiologist, alternative provisions suggest that only implementation to physicians and other otolaryngologist, or physician. employees who have experienced a experts in the field” (46 FR 42631). Other comments were concerned that significant threshold shift be instructed Many comments have been received exceptions for temporary employees in the use of, and required to wear, regarding the adequacy of the employee would not be provided (Exh. 327-90, p. 6; hearing protectors. They suggested that protection that might be provided by Exh. 327-110, pp. 1-2). The National the three-paragraph alternative be implementation of these alternative Screw Machine Products Association modified to require that employers provisions. Many commenters asserted, (Exh. 327-124) and Lewis Goodfriend instruct all employees to wear hearing in general terms, that the alternatives and Associates (Exh. 327-23, p. 5) protection where noise levels exceed would be as protective as the provisions suggested adding a provision that those shown in Table G-16a. Shell Oil contained in the January and August employers require hearing protection (Exh. 327-102, pp. 13-14) pointed out, documents (Exh. 327-20; Exh. 327-26; when noise exposures exceed a given “The * * * alternative fails to provide Exh. 327-27; Exh. 327-28; Exh. 327-34; level. Lewis Goodfriend and Associates for employee education and training, Exh. 327-51; Exh. 327-55; Exh. 327-62; (Exh. 327-23, pp. 4-5) also indicated that except for employees who have already Exh. 327-67; Exh. 327-89; Exh. 327-93; any alternative should clearly require suffered a hearing loss. To prevent Exh. 327-101; Exh. 327-129; Exh. 327- the employer to provide the employees hearing loss, employees must know 145; Exh. 329-5; Exh. 329-10; Exh. 329- with hearing protectors and should when and how to wear hearing 19; Exh. 329-42; Tr. Vol. Ill, pp. 179-180, “state how effective the hearing protectors, and what is gained by their March 25,1982). These participants protection devices should be.” The use.” generally favored the simplicity and DuPont Company (Exh. 327-91, pp. 52- The DuPont (Exh. 327-91, p. 53) and flexibility of the alternative provisions. 54) also recommended many additions General Motors companies (Exh. 327-99) The Chocolate Manufacturers to the alternative provisions, including added definitions of significant Association (Exh. 327-112, p. 7) thought the addition of a definition of significant threshold shift in their suggested that the three-paragraph alternative threshold shift. performance alternatives. The Motor would increase compliance, and OSHA also received a large number of Vehicle Manufacturers Association therefore worker protection, because it comments asserting that the alternative (Exh. 327-103, p. 9) contended that the would be better understood by provisions would not provide employee alternative’s lack of a definition of employers and employees and would be protection equivalent to that offered by significant threshold shift is a “serious easier for small businesses to comply the August amendment (Exh. 327-22; omission.” The American Textile with. On the other hand, other Exh. 327-35; Exh. 327-59; Exh. 327-68; Manufacturers Institute (Exh. 327-106, p. commenters felt that the alternative Exh. 327-76; Exh. 327-78; Exh. 327-82; 1) asserted that referral criteria are standard would be more difficult for Exh. 327-84; Exh. 327-87; Exh. 327-94; needed for evaluation of workers who Exh. 327-102; Exh. 327-119; Exh. 327- develop medical abnormalities. In M See Appendix A. 148; Exh. 331-17; Exh. 345; Tr. Vol. IV, addition, commenters called attention to 61 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) pp. 242, March 26,1982). The American what they felt was ambiguous language Specification for Audiometers, S3.6-1969, and the Institute’s Specification for Audiometrie Test Textile Manufacturer’s Institute (Exh. in the three-paragraph alternative. For Rooms, ANSI S3.1-1977. Audiometers" shall be 327-106, p. 1), although generally in example, the National Soft Drink calibrated annually to ensure the standard is met. favor of a performance-oriented Association (Exh. 327-90, p. 6) pointed ANSI S3.1-1977 must be followed for testing standard, stated that the three- out that the language “hearing acuity performed at frequencies of 1,000 Hz and above; for testing below 1,000 Hz, ANSI S3.1-1960 may be paragraph alternative “certainly would * * * diminished more than normal” is used. not provide needed protection to ambiguous. 9774 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March a, 1983 / Rales and Regulations

A few commenters suggested that the allow employers to comply in the before a hearing loss occurs is a serious three-paragraph alternative would result manner that best fits the circumstances oversight of the 3-paragraph alternative. in fewer enforcement problems than of the company. These considerations The absence of such a provision runs would a more specification-oriented must be balanced against the need to be counter to the Agency’s emphasis on standard. The Chamber of Commerce able to enforce the standard vigorously preventive measures in occupational (Exh. 329-10, p. 6), for example, stated against any recalcitrant employer who safety and health. “The alternative would afford more fails to provide employees with Similarly^ to help avoid hearing loss flexibility for compliance officers * * *; meaningful protection. Although the OSHA’s amendment requires that by being freed from enforcing overly Agency supports the use of performance hearing protectors be properly fitted. specific requirements * * * [compliance language whenever possible, and has The amount of protection offered by officers] could perform less intensive but used the performance approach in hearing protectors is greatly dependent more expeditious and results-oriented several sections of this revised on proper fit. Further, hearing protectors inspections." Others, however, viewed amendment, the alternative provisions themselves vary considerably in the such lack of specificity with alarm. The do not provide the degree of degree of attenuation offered. Without Portland Cement Association, for specification needed to ensure employee an assessment of the protection actually example, (Exh. 327-113, p. 3) stated, protection against occupational hearing offered by hearing protectors in specific “The less specific a standard is, the loss. The Agency position on this matter noise environments, employers may more room there is for subjectivity on is generally corroborated by the believe that sufficient protection is being the part of the inspector * * *. Unduly American Textile Manufacturers provided when in fact it is inadequate. vague standards can open the way for Institute: OSHA feels that the failure to require fitting and attenuation evaluations of abuses and arbitrary action, without any “ATMI supports performance standards positive effect on hearing conservation” with minimum specification and any such hearing protectors would seriously (see also Exh. 327-78, p. 19). Similarly, standard in the area of hearing conservation reduce the degree of protection provided Standard Oil of Indiana (Exh. 327-87, p. would have to include the following to employees. 5) asserted, “the problem with * * * the elements; required monitoring of noise Further, OSHA believes there are proposed alternative is that there is no exposures, feasible engineering controls, ^ serious questions regarding the adequate protective devices, periodic Agency’s ability to enforce the 3- way to measure compliance because audiometric evaluation and referral criteria many of the terms are vague. paragraph alternative. Some have for evaluation of workers developing, suggested that OSHA enforcement Consequently, each compliance officer abnormalities. Obviously, the proposal becomes an interpreter of the law and [three-paragraph alternative] in the notice would be improved since it would have uniform enforcement is lost.”' Others does not meet those criteria. In striking to focus on results, i.e., whether simply stated that the 3-paragraph contrast, the regulation made effective in the protection is being provided rather than alternative is absolutely unenforceable August 21 notice meets those criteria and in on the specifics of program (Exh. 327-78, p. 17; Tr. Vol. Ill, p. 52-65, our judgment, would be adequate” (Exh. 327- implementation (Exh. 327-99, pp. 4-5; March 25,1982). 106, p .l)- Exh. 329-10, p. 6). Consequently, others Organization Resources Counselors For example, a specific index of noted that OSHA compliance officers (Exh. 327-98, p. 21) noted that hearing damage serious enough to would have to be given special training implementing the alternative provisions trigger follow-up action is needed to in evaluating audiometric data bases could be difficult for employers without provide guidance to employers. Without (Exh. 327-98, pp. 21-22; see also Exh. strong technical capability. R. C. a standardized definition of STS, OSHA 327-89, p. 9). However, no commenter Cnftordson of Industrial Health, Inc. believes there would be great variability suggested how OSHA compliance (Exh. 327-82, p. 6) pointed out that in the protective actions taken (see Exh. personnel would determine at what hearing conservation programs should 327-78, p. 19}. Approximately forty point a given hearing conservation be supervised by professionals. This definitions of STS have been suggested program was protective enough to be requirement was not included in the to OSHA (see discussion in audiometry considered “in compliance.” In addition, three-paragraph alternative. In a similar section above), indicating the range of many of the phrases used in the three- vein, Pelton/BIum, Inc. (Exh. 329-12) opinion on the correct interpretation of paragraph alternative, such as “more commented, “It has been our experience this important term. Therefore, the than normal’* and “noisy areas” are that most small and medium sized Agency considers that the alternative subject to many interpretations and companies do not necessarily have the provisions’ lack of a definition of STS would therefore be difficult to enforce in knowledge to carry out a hearing would result in less than uniform practice. Moreover, if the Agency were conservation program when it is stated protection for noise-exposed employees. to revise the three paragraph alternative [as] in the 3 paragraph alternative OSHA also finds the 3-paragraph by adding the various specific provisions. The Amendment as * * * in alternative’s lack of minimum requirements that many of the August * * * would allow even the requirements for audiometer calibration participants felt were necessary to individual that is not knowledgeable to a serious problem. Calibration protect employees adequately, the begin to see how a program * * * requirements are essential to ensure the alternative would become as long and works.” validity and comparability of tests. If as specific as die revised amendment OSHA has carefully reviewed the audiometers are not properly calibrated, published today; comments in the record regarding the employers may expend substantial For the reasons discussed above, efficacy of the three paragraph resources with little assurance that test OSHA has concluded that the 3- alternative provisions. Ideally, an results can be compared from one year paragrpah alternative would not be as occupational safety and health standard to the next, and without assurance that protective as the hearing conservation should be specific enough to give employees are receiving adequate amendment published in August. In employers adequate notice of what is protection. particular, the failure of the alternative expected of them and to allow for OSHA believes that the lack of a provisions to provide guidance to uniform enforcement from one employer requirement that employees be employers in the areas of pre- to another, and be flexible enough to instructed in hearing protector use impairment hearing protection use, the Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9775

definition of a standard threshold shift, experienced professionals (Tr. Vol. V, and servicing industry from the and employee training is felt to be pp. 146-162, March 29,1982). Another requirements of this revised amendment. sufficient to support this conclusion. commenter stated: OSHA is granting this exemption Therefore, the alternative provisions "(There is] no generally accepted method because of the unique characteristics of will not be adopted. * * * available to evaluate the effectiveness this industry, which characteristics have Performance Criteria of individual hearing conservation programs. also convinced the agency to initiate * * * With computer-assisted data collection, rulemaking that addresses the unique The preamble to the August Federal and a uniform criteria [sic] for describing hazards for the gas and oil well drillers Register document discussed a study threshold shift, the analysis of audiometric and servicers.53 (see post-promulgation comment #266a) test data may prove to be a tool for the recommending that performance criteria future. However, the current methods of data Appendices Paragraph (r) be developed for determining the collection and retrieval do not make the analysis of audiometric test data a feasible The August 1981 Federal Register effectiveness of an employer’s hearing method for evaluating the effectiveness of a document continued stays on Appendix conservation program.52 That study, hearing conservation program” (Exh. 327- B (Temporal Sampling Procedures for which was prepared for the Rockefeller 103). Use with a Sound Level Meter) and Foundation, suggested that results of Other commenters agreed, stating: Appendix F (Calculations and analyses of audiometric data be the “[We] do not believe objective or Application of Age Corrections to index of such effectiveness. Comments quantitative evaluation of HCP’s could be Audiograms). As discussed in the and information were requested on the statistically significant or an adequate monitoring section above, OSHA is advisability of adopting such an indicator of program effectiveness” (Exh. revoking Appendix B. In addition, the 327-120, p. 4). approach in the hearing conservation stay on Appendix F is being lifted (see amendment. The comments and and discussion under standard threshold testimony received in response to this shift above) and that appendix is being recommendation generally agreed that “* * * The analysis of audiometric data is an incomplete approach to an effective and redesignated as Appendix B. evaluating the effectiveness of hearing enforceable HCP” (Exh. 327-141). conservation programs is desirable, but Effective Dates there was little consensus among A number or commenters stated that responsibility for determining program The hearing conservation amendment commenters regarding what was originally promulgated on January performance criteria should be used. effectiveness should be left in the hands 16.1981 (46 FR 4078) to become effective A number of commenters felt that of professional audiologists, on April 15,1981. After several audiometric data analysis would be a otolaryngologists and physicians (Exh. temporary stays, portions of the useful tool for demonstrating the 327-35, p. 5; Exh. 327-105, p. 7; Exh. 327- amendment went into effect on August effectiveness of a hearing conservation 112, p. 17; Tr. Vol. V, p. 159-160, March 22.1981 (46 FR 42622, August 21,1981). program but made no recommendations 29,1982). In addition, several stated that concerning the minimum appropriate OSHA should not attempt to specify Those provisions which went into effect on August 22,1981, and which were not criteria for judging a program (Exh. 327- mandatory criteria for evaluating substantially amended in this final rule 99; Exh. 327-113, p. 3; Exh. 327-125). hearing conservation programs (Exh. are listed in Table I below (with new Some participants stated that 327-35, p. 5; Exh. 327-77, p. 7-8; Exh. paragraph designations, where audiometric data showing an incidence 327-143, p. 2; Exh. 331-11). appropriate). In the original of significant threshold shift rates OSHA agrees with the large number promulgation, employers were allowed greater than 5 to 10 percent should of commenters who stressed the until February 22,1982, to complete indicate a problem with a given hearing importance of professional judgment in conservation program (Exh. 327-54; Exh. evaluating audiometric test data. The noise monitoring. The August 22,1981, 327-58; Tr. Vol. II, p. 128, 3/29/82; Tr. Agency believes that it would not be effective date of the amendment and the Vol. II, p. 59, March 26,1982). Others useful to draw conclusions on the start-up date for monitoring remain unchanged. recommended using analysis of effectiveness of specific hearing audiometric data as an indicator but conservation programs on the basis of Table I test data alone, because of the many ! only after the data has been adjusted for Provisions Which W ent into Effect on August variables such as age, sex, race, years or variables that may affect these results. 22,1981, and Have Not Been Amended exposure at various sound levels, and so OSHA believes that it should be left to the judgment of the professionals Paragraph (c)(1) x forth (Exh. 327-84; Exh. 327-77, pp. 7-8; Paragraph (d)(2)(i) Exh. 327-66, pp. 11-85; Exh. 327-120, p. supervising the audiometric Paragraphs (g) (1) and (2) ft examinations and analyzing the results Paragraph (g)(4) Some stated that analysis of to advise the employer concerning the Paragraph (g)(6) audiometric data by individual effectiveness of the employer’s hearing Paragraphs (g)(7)(iii) (A), (B), (C) and (D)r employers would not really indicate the conservation program. Therefore, the Paragraphs (g)(8)(ii) (A) and (B) effectiveness of a hearing conservation final standard does not contain a Paragraphs (h) (1), (3) and (4) program (Exh. 327-15; Exh. 327-147, p. 6- specific requirement for employer Paragraph (h)(5)(iii) 7). In his testimony, Dr. Crewdson, a assessment of the effectiveness of Paragraphs (i) (1) and (2) Paragraph (i)(2)(ii) physicist, suggested that the inaccuracy hearing conservation programs. and variability of individual test results At this time the Agency does not know of any specific performance 53 A combination of factors, including tremendous would make it impossible to assess variation in working conditions, high mobility of trends by simply looking at audiogram criteria which would unequivocally operations, extremely high employee turnover rates, results. He recommended evaluation of demonstrate the effectiveness of any and limited accessability of many worksites, I several years’ worth of data by hearing conservation program. convinced OSHA that the interests of both employers and employees would be better served Exemptions by developing a standard more specifically tailored ** Berger, E. H. and L H. Royster. "The Effects of to the needs of this industry (Exh. 329-34, pp 1-2; Noise Exposure On One Industrial Population,” At the present time, the agency is Exh. 329-33; Exh. 329-29, p. 2; Tr. Vol. I-B, pp. 156- October 1978. exempting the gas and oil well (killing 157,167-160; Tr. Vol. V, pp. 73-75). 9776 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Paragraphs (i) (3), (4) and (5) audiograms could be obtained (Exh. § 1910.95 Occupational noise exposure. Paragraphs (j) (1). (2) and [4} 327-88; Tr. Vol. IV, p. 202, March 26, * * '* t * Paragraph (k) 1982.) One commenter stated that an (c) Hearing conservation program. (1) Paragraph (1) extension of time to obtain baseline The employer shall administer a Paragraphs (m) [2), (3), (4} and (5) audiograms would avoid the paperwork Paragraph (n) continuing, effective hearing Appendices A, B, GVD,. E, H and I of asking for a variance (Ex. 329-3). conservation program, as described in OSHA agrees that an extension of time paragraphs (c) through (o) of this Portions of the original hearing in which to obtain employee audiograms section, whenever employee noise conservation amendment were stayed of approximately one year is exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour beyond August 22,1981, and were the appropriate under the circumstances of time-weighted average sound level subject of this rulemaking* In addition, this proceeding. A number of important (TWA) of 85 decibels measured on the A some provisions which went into effect elements of the audiometric testing scale (slow response) or, equivalently, a on August 22,1981, are also being provisions have been reconsidered and dose of fifty percent. For purposes of the modified by this final rule. The revised. Employers could not have hearing conservation program, employee provisions being issued today in final performed baseline audiograms until noise exposures shall be computed in form will be effective on April 7,1983, to these issues were resolved. Employers accordance with Appendix A and Table allow employers enough time to now need sufficient time to incorporate G-16a, and without regard to any familiarize themselves with the these requirements into their hearing attenuation provided by the use of revisions. Table H below lists the conservation programs and to purchase personal protective equipment. provisions and modified provisions (as the necessary equipment to run such a (2) For purposes of paragraphs (c) indicated) which will be effective April testing program or to make the through (n) of this section, an 8-hour 7,1983. necessary arrangements for consultants time-weighted average of 85 decibels or Table II to perform these services. In the January a dose of fifty percent shall also be 1981 amendments, OSHA allowed Provisions Which Are Effective April 7,1983 referred to as fee action level. approximately one year from the (d) Monitoring. (1) When information Paragraph (c)(2) effective date of the standard for ‘ Paragraph (d)(1) indicates that any employee’s exposure employers to obtain baseline may equal or exceed an 8-hour time- Paragraphs (d)(1) (i) and (ii) audiograms, Since a number of elements Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) weighted average of 85 decibels, the Paragraphs (d)(3) (i) and (ii) related to the baseline audiogram were employer shall develop and implement a Paragraph (e) stayed, OSHA will extend the date for monitoring program, (i) The sampling ‘ Paragraph (f) completion of baseline audiograms until strategy shall be designed to identify ‘ Paragraph (g)(3) March 1,1984, which is approximately employees for inclusion in the hearing ‘ Paragraph (g)(5)(i) one year after the publication of this conservation program and to enable the Paragraph (g)(5)(ii) document. 54 ‘ Paragraph (g)(5)(iii) proper selection of hearing protectors, Paragraph (g)(5)(iv) List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910 (ii) Where circumstances such as high ‘ Paragraph (g)(7)(i) Occupational safety and health. worker mobility, significant variations in Paragraph (g)(7)(ii) Health. sound level, or a significant component ‘ Paragraph (g)(7)(iii) of impulse noise make area monitoring ‘ Paragraph (g)(8)(i) Authority: This document was prepared generally inappropriate, the employer Paragraph (g) (8){ii) under the direction of Thome G. Auditor, shall use representative personal ‘ Paragraphs (g)(8)(ii) (C) and (DJ Assistant Secretary of Labor for Paragraph (g)(8)(iii) Occupational Safety and Health, 200 sampling to comply with the monitoring Paragraph (g)(9) Constitution Avenue, N.W., W ashinton, D.C. requirements of this paragraph unless Paragraph (g)(10) 20210. the employer can show that area ‘Paragraph (h)(2) Pursuant to sections 6(b) and 8(c) of the sampling produces equivalent results. ‘ Paragraphs (h)(5) (i) and (ii) Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (2) (i) All continuous, intermittent and Paragraph (i)(2)(i) (84 Stat. 1593,1599, 29 U.S.C. 055, 657), impulsive sound levels from 80 decibels Paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(A) Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 8-76 (41 FR to 130 decibels shall be integrated into ‘ Paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(B) 25059) and 29 CFR Part 1911, § 1910.95 of 29 ‘ Paragraph (j)(3) CFR Part 1910 is amended as set forth below. the noise measurements. ‘ Paragraph (m) (1) (Secs. 4. 6, 8. 84 Stat. 1592,1593,1599, [29 (ii) Instruments used to measure Paragraph (o) U.S.C. 653,655, 657); 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of employee noise exposure shall be ‘ Paragraph (p) Labor’s Order No. 8-76 (41 FR 25059)), calibrated to ensure measurement Appendix F (from January 16,1981) Signed at Washington, D.C. this 28th day of accuracy. Appendix G February 1983. (3) Monitoring shall be repeated ‘ An asterisk denotes those provisions Thome G. Auchter, whenever a change in production, which are amendments of provisions that Assistant Secretary of Labor. process, equipment or controls increases were effective August 22,1981. noise exposures to the extent that: Initially, employers were allowed PA R T 1910— [AM ENDED] (i) Additional employees may be until August 22,1982, to complete exposed at or above the action level; or Paragraphs (c) through (p) and baseline audiograms. OSHA received a (ii) The attenuation provided by Appendices A through I of 29 CFR number of requests for extensions of the hearing protectors being used by 1910.95 are revised to read as follows: time allowed to obtain baseline employees may be rendered inadequate audiograms. Some commenters to meet the requirements of paragraph 84 It should be noted, however, that this delayed indicated that they needed more time to effective date is not in addition to the amount of (j) of this section. comply for various practical and time employers are normally given to obtain (e) Em ployee notification. The resource reasons (Exh. 329-3; Exh. 327- baseline audiograms under paragraph (g)(5)(i). Thus, employer shall notify each employee 106). Others stated that OSHA’s final all current employees must have baseline exposed at or above an 8-hour time- audiograms taken by March 1,1984, or six months decisions on critical technical issues from the date of their first exposure at or above the weighted average of 85 decibels'of the • were necessary before baseline action level, whichever is longer. results of the monitoring. Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9777

(fj Observation of monitoring. The levels of non-occupational noise (C) The employee shall be referred for employer shall provide affected exposure during the 14-hour period a clinical audiological evaluation or an employees or their representatives with immediately preceding the audiometric otological examination, as appropriate, an opportunity to observe any noise examination. if additional testing is necessary or if the measurements conducted pursuant to (6) Annual audiogram. At least employer suspects that a medical this section. annually after obtaining the baseline pathology of the ear is caused or (g) Audiometric testing program. (11 audiogram, the employer shall obtain a aggravated by the wearing of hearing The employer shall establish and new audiogram for each employee protectors. maintain an audiometric testing program exposed at or above an 8-hour time- (D) The employee is informed of the as provided in this paragraph by making weighted average of 85 decibels. need for an otological examination if a audiometric testing available to all (7) Evaluation of audiogram, (i) Each medical pathology of the ear that is employees whose exposures equal or employee’s annual audiogram shall be unrelated to the use of hearing exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average compared to that employee’s baseline protectors is suspected. 4 of 85 decibels. audiogram to determine if the audiogram (iii) If subsequent audiometric testing (2) The program shall be provided at is valid and if a standard threshold shift of an employee whose exposure to noise no cost to employees. as defined in paragraph (g)(10) of this is less than an 8-hour TWA of 90 (3) Audiometric tests shall be section has occurred. This comparison decibels indicates that a standard performed by a licensed or certified may be done by a technician. threshold shift is not persistent, the audiologist, otolaryngologist, or other (ii) If the annual audiogram shows employer: physician, or by a technician who is that an employee has suffered a certified by the Council of Accreditation (A) Shall inform the employee of the standard threshold shift, the employer new audiometric interpretation; and in Occupational Hearing Conservation, may obtain a retest within 30 days and or who has satisfactorily demonstrated (B) May discontinue the required use consider the results of the retest as the of hearing protectors for that employee. competence in administering annual audiogram. (9) Revised baseline. An annual audiometric examinations, obtaining (iii) The audiologist, otolaryngologist, valid audiograms, and properly using, audiogram may be substituted for the or physician shall review problem maintaining and checking calibration baseline audiogram when, in the audiograms and shall determine and proper functioning of the judgment of the audiologist, whether there is a need for further audiometers being used. A technician otolaryngologist or physician who is evaluation. The employer shall provide who operates microprocessor evaluating the audiogram: to the person performing this evaluation audiometers does not need to be the following information: (1) The standard threshold shift certified. A technician who performs (A) A copy of the requirements for revealed by the audiogram is persistent; audiometric tests must be responsible to hearing conservation as set forth in or an audiologist, otolaryngologist or paragraphs (c) through (n) of this (ii) The hearing threshold shown in physician. the annual audiogram indicates (4) All audiograms obtained pursuant section; (B) The baseline audiogram and most significant improvement over the to this section shall meet the baseline audiogram. requirements of Appendix C: recent audiogram of the employee to be evaluated; (10) Standard threshold shift. (1) As * Audiometric Measuring Instruments. used in this section, a standard (5) Baseline audiogram, (i) Within 6 (C) Measurements of background threshold shift is a change in hearing months of an employee’s first exposure sound prssure levels in the audiometric threshold relative to the baseline at or above the action level, the test room as required in Appendix D: audiogram of an average of 10 dB or employer shall establish a valid baseline Audiometric Test Rooms. more at 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz in either audiogram against which subsequent (D) Records of audiometer ear. audiograms can be compared. calibrations required by paragraph (h)(5) (ii) Mobile test van exception. Where of this section. (11) In determining whether a standard mobile test vans are used to meet the (8) Follow-up procedures, (i) If a threshold shift has occurred, allowance audiometric testing obligation, the * comparison of the annual audiogram to may be made for the contribution of employer shall obtain a valid baseline the baseline audiogram indicates a aging (presbycusis) to the change in audiogram within 1 year of an standard threshold shift as defined in hearing level by correcting the annual employee’s first exposure at or above paragraph (g)(10) of this section has audiogram according to the procedure the action level. Where baseline occurred, the employee shall be described in Appendix F: Calculation audiograms are obtained more than 6 informed of this fact in writing, within 21 and Application of Age Correction to months after the employee’s first days of the determination. Audiograms. exposure at or above the action level, (ii) Unless a physician determines that (h) Audiometric test requirements. (1) employees shall wearing hearing the standard threshold shift is not work Audiometric tests shall be pure tone, air protectors for any period exceeding six related or aggravated by occupational conduction, hearing threshold months after first exposure until the noise exposure, the employer shall examinations, with test frequencies baseline audiogram is obtained. ensure that the following steps are taken including as a minimum 500,1000, 2000, (iii) Testing to establish a baseline when a standard threshold shift occurs: 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. Tests at each audiogram shall be preceded by at least (A) Employees not using hearing frequency shall be taken separately for 14 hours without exposure to workplace protectors shall be fitted with hearing each ear. noise. Hearing protectors may be used protectors, trained in their use and care, (2) Audiometric tests shall be as a substitute for the requirement that and required to use them. conducted with audiometers (including baseline audiograms be preceded by 14 (B) Employees already using hearing microprocessor audiometers) that meet hours without exposure to workplace protectors shall be refitted and retained the specifications of, and are maintained noise. in the use of hearing protectors and and used in accordance with, American (iv) The employer «hall notify provided with hearing protectors National Standard Specification for employees of the need to avoid high offering greater attenuation if necessary. Audiometers, S3.6-1969, 9778 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Pulsed-tone and self-recording use of all hearing protectors. (3) The employer shall provide, upon audiometers, if used, shall meet the (j) Hearing protector attenuation. (1) request, all materials related to the requirements specified in Appendix C: The employer shall evaluate hearing employer’s training and education Audiometric M easuring Instruments. protector attenuation for the specific program pertaining to this standard to (4) Audiometric examinations shall be noise environments in which the the Assistant Secretary and the Director administered in a room meeting the protector will be used. The employer (m) Recordkeeping.—(1) Exposure requirements listed in Appendix D: shall use one of the evaluation methods measurements. The employer shall Audiometric Test Rooms. described in Appendix B: Methods for maintain an accurate record of all (5) Audiometer calibration, (i) The Estimating the A dequacy o f Hearing employee exposure measurements functional operation of the audiometer Protection Attenuation. required by paragraph (d) of this shall be checked before each day’s use (2) Hearing protectors must attenuate section. by testing a person with known, stable employee exposure at Jeast to an 8-hour (2) Audiometric tests, (i) The employer hearing thresholds, and by listening to time-weighted average of 90 decibels as shall retain all employee audiometric required by paragraph (b) of this the audiometer’s output to make sure test records obtained pursuant to section. that the output is free from distorted or paragraph (g)>of this section: (3) For employees who have unwanted sounds. Deviations

otherwise imposed or to detract from T abl e G-16a—Continued Tabl e A-1.—Conver sion From “Per cent any existing obligations. Noise Exposur e” or “Dose” to "8-Hour Refer- (0) Paragraphs (c) T ime-Weighted Average Sound Lev el ” Exemptions. A-weighted sound level, L (decibel) ence duration, (TWA) through (n) of this section shall not T (hour) apply to employers engaged in oil and Dose or percent noise exposure TWA gas well drilling and servicing 107...... 0.76 108...... 0.66 operations. 109...... 0.57 10...... ;...... ™.™...... „...... 73.4 (p) Startup date. Baseline audiograms 110...... 0.5 15...... ;...... 26.3 111...... 0.44 20...... 78.4 required by paragraph (g) of this section 112...... 0.38 25— ...... 80.0 shall be completed by March 1,1984. 113...... 0.33 30...... 81.3 114...... 35...... 82.4 * * * yk k 0.29 115...... 0.25 40...... '...... 83.4 116...... 022 45...... „ ...... 84.2 Appendix A: Noise Exposure Computation 117...... 0 19 50...... „...... „...... 85.0 118...... 0.16 55...... 85.7 This Appendix is Mandatory 119...... 60...... 86.3 120...... 0.125 65...... „...... 86.9 I. Computation of Employee Noise 121...... 0.11 70______...______:...... 87.4 Exposure 122...... 75.. _...... :...... 87.9 (1) Noise dose is computed using Table G - 123...... 0.082 80...... v...... 88.4 81-™ ...... 88.5 16a as follows: 124...... 0.072 125...... 0.063 82...... „...... 88.6 (1) W hen the sound level, L, is constant 126...... 83.™...... 88.7 0.054 84 ...... 88.7 over the entire work shift, the noise dose, D, 127...... 0.047 85 ..'...... 88.8 128...... in percent, is given by: D=100 C/T where C 0.041 86 ...... I ...... is the total length of the work day, in hours, 129 0.036 87 .. 89.0 130 ...... 0.031 and T is the reference duration corresponding 88 ...... 89.1 89.. - ...... 89.2 to the measured sound level, L, as given in 90 ...... 89.2 Table G-16a or by the formula shown as a In the above table the reference 91 ...... 89.3 footnote to that table. 92. ™.:...... 89.4 (ii) When the workshift noise exposure is duration, T, is computed by 93. ™------89.5 94...... 89.6 composed of two or more periods of noise at 95...... 89.6 different levels, the total noise dose over the 8 96. ™...... „...... „...... 89.7 work day is given by: T = ------97. ™...... 89.8 2

Tabl e A-1.— Conver sion From “Per cent Protection Agency (EPA). According to estimated A-weighted TWA under the Noise Exposur e” or “Dose” to “8-Hour EPA regulation, the NRR must be shown ear protector. T ime-Weighted Average Sound Lev el ” on the hearing protector package. The (iii) When using a sound level meter (TWA)— Continued NRR is then related to an individual set to the A-weighting network: worker’s noise environment in order to (A) Obtain the employee’s A-weighted Dose or percent noisB exposure TW A ~ assess the adequacy of the attenuation TWA. 380...... 99.6 of a given hearing protector. This (B) Subtract 7 dB from the NRR, and 3 9 0 ...... 99.8 Appendix describes four methods of subtract the remainder from the A- 400...... <1...... 100.0 using the NRR to determine whether a 410...... 100.2 weighted TWA to obtain the estimated 420...... ;...... ___ ...._____ 100.4 particular hearing protector provides A-weighted TWA under the ear 430u^...... i...... ™«.««.«~ 100.5 adequate protection within a given 44 0 ...... 100.7 protector. 450...... ;...... '...... 100.8 exposure environment. Selection among (iv) When using a sound level meter 460...... - ...... - 101.0 the four procedures is dependent upon 470...... - ...... 101.2 set on the C-weighting network: 48 0 ...... the employer’s101.3 noise measuring - (A) Obtain a representative sample of 49 0 ...... 101.5 instruments. 50 0 ...... - ...... 101.6 the C-weighted sound levels in the 510... ______101.8 Instead of using the NRR, employers employee’s environment. 520...... - ______101.9 may evaluate the adequacy of hearing (B) Subtract the NRR from the C- 530.. .; «. 102.0 protector attenuation by using one of the 540...... - ...... —• 102.2 weighted average sound level to obtain 550..... - 102.3 three methods developed by the the estimated A-weighted TWA under 560...... - ...... ™ 102.4 National Institute for Occupational 57 0 ...... «...... 102.6 the ear protector. 580...... Safety102.7 and Health (NIOSH), which are 590...... «... 102.8 described in the “List of Personal (v) When using area monitoring procedures and a sound level meter set to the A-weighing 60 0 ...... Hearing 102.9Protectors and Attenuation 610...... 103.0 network. 620 ...... Data,” 103.2 HEW Publication No. 76-120, (A) Obtain a representative sound level for 630...... 103.3 6 4 0 ...... «...______™ 103.4 1975, pages 21-37. These methods are the area in question. 650...... 103.5 known as NIOSH methods #1, #2 and (B) Subtract 7 dB from the NRR and 660...... «...... 103.6 #3. The NRR described below is a subtract the remainder from the A-weighted 670...™ ...... '...... «__ ... 103.7 68 0 ...... «...... — 103.8 simplification of NIOSH method #2. The sound level fpr that area. 690______...... 103.9 most complex method is NIOSH method (vi) When using area monitoring 700...... «...... «...... 104.0 #1, which is probably the most accurate procedures and a sound level meter set to the 710...... 104.1 C-weighting network: 720______«... 104.2 method since it uses the largest amount (A) Obtain a representative sound level for 73 0 ...... ______104.3 of spectral information from the 740______„.._.«...... 104.4 the area in question. 750...... i______«______104.5 individual employee’s noise (B) Subtract the NRR from the C-weighted 76 0 ...... ;______104.6 environment, As in the case of the NRR 770...... ______104.7 sound level for that area. 780...... 104.8 method described below, if one of the 790...... 104.9 NIOSH methods is used, the selected Appendix C: Audiometric Measuring 800...... 105.0 Instruments 810.______«...______105.1 method must be applied to an 820...... I_____ 105.2 individual’s noise environment to assess This Appendix is Mandatory 830...... 105.3 8 4 0 ...... «______«...««. 105.4 the adequacy of the attenuation. 8 5 0 ...... _...... __ _ 105.4' Employers should be careful to take a 1. In the event that pulsed-tone 860...... «...... - ____ .««,.«« 105.5 sufficient number of measurements in audiometers are used, they shall have a 87 0 ______...»«...... 105.6 tone on-time of at least 200 milliseconds. 880...... *______105.7 order to achieve a representative sample 890...... ____i___ 105.8 for each time segment. 2. Self-recording audiometers shall 900 ...... I______105.8 comply with the following requirements; 910...... 105.9 Note.—The employer must remember that 920...... «______106.0 calculated attenuation values reflect realistic (A) The chart upon which the 93 0 ______106.1 audiogram is traced shall have lines at 94 0 ...... ;_____ ..... 106.2 values only to the extent that the protectors 95 0 ...... «______106.2 are properly fitted and worn. positions corresponding to all multiples 960...... «______« 106.3 of 10 dB hearing level within the 970...... «______1Ô6.4 When using the NRR to assess hearing 980«:...... !______106.5 intensity range spanned by the 9 9 0 ...... «______106.5 protector adequacy, one of the following audiometer. The lines shall be equally 999...... «______106.6 methods must be used: spaced and shall be separated by at (i) When using a dosimeter that is least K inch. Additional increments are capable of C-weighted measurements: optional. The audiogram pen tracings Appendix B: Methods for Estimating the (A) Obtain the employee’s C-weighted shall not exceed 2 dB in width. Adequacy of Hearing Protector dose for the entire workshift, and (B) It shall be possible to set the stylus Attenuation convert to TWA (see Appendix A, II). manually at the 10-dB increment lines This Appendix is Mandatory (B) Subtract the NRR from the C- for calibration purposes. weighted TWA to obtain the estimated For employees who have experienced (C) The slewing rate for the A-weighted TWA under the ear a significant threshold shift, hearing audiometer attenuator shall not be more protector. protector attenuation must be sufficient than 6 dB/sec except that an initial (ii) When using a dosimeter that is not to reduce employee exposure to a TWA slewing rate greater than 6 dB/sec is of 85 dB. Employers must select one of capable of C-weighted measurements, permitted at the beginning of each new the following methods by which to the following method may be used: test frequency, but only until the second estimate the adequacy of hearing (A) Convert the A-weighted dose to subject response. protector attenuation. TWA (see Appendix A). (D) The audiometer shall remain at The most convenient method is the (B) Subtract 7 dB from the NRR. each required test frequency for 30 Noise Reduction Rating (NRR) (C) Subtract the remainder from the seconds (± 3 seconds). The audiogram developed by the Environmental A-weighted TWA to obtain the shall be clearly marked at each change Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9781 of frequency and the actual frequency D. At each frequency the readout on aging to the change in hearing level by change of the audiometer shall not the sound level meter should correspond adjusting the most recent audiogram. If deviate from the frequency boundaries to the levels in Table E -l or Table E-2, the employer chooses to adjust the marked on the audiogram by more than as appropriate, for the type of earphone, audiogram, the employer shall follow ± 3 seconds. in the column entitled “sound level the procedure described below. This (E) It must be possible at each test meter reading.” procedure and the age correction tables frequency to place a horizontal line (2) Linearity C heck were developed by the National segment parallel to the time axis on the Institute for Occupational Safety and audiogram, such that the audiometrie A. With the earphone in place, set the frequency to 1000 Hz and the HTL dial Health in the criteria document entitled tracing crosses the line segment at least “Criteria for a Recommended Standard six times at that test frequency. At each on the audiometer to 70 dB. B. Measure the sound levels in the . . . Occupational Exposure to Noise,” test frequency the threshold shall be the ((HSM)-llOOl). average of the midpoints of the tracing coupler at each 10-dB decrement from 70 excursions. dB to 10 dB, noting the sound level meter For each audiometric test frequency; reading at each setting. (i) Determine from Tables F -l or F-2 Appendix D: Audiometrie Test Rooms C. For each 10-dB decrement on the the age correction values for the This Appendix is Mandatory audiometer the sound level meter should employee by: indicate a corresponding 10 dB decrease. (A) Finding the age at which the most Rooms used for audiometrie testing D. This measurement may be made recent audiogram was taken and shall not have background sound electrically with a voltmeter connected recording the corresponding values of pressure levels exceeding those in Table to the earphone terminals. D-l when measured by equipment age corrections at 1000 Hz through 6000 conforming at least to the Type 2 (3) Tolerances Hz; requirements of American National When any of the measured sound (B) Finding the age at which the Standard Specification for Sound Level levels deviate from the levels in Table baseline audiogram was taken and Meters, Sl.4-1971 (R1976), and to the E -l or Table E-2 by ± 3 dB at any test recording the corresponding values of Class II requirements of American frequency between 500 and 3000 Hz, 4 age corrections at 1000 Hz through 6000 National Standard Specification for dB at 4000 Hz, or 5 dB at 6000 Hz, an Hz. Octave, Half-Octave, and Third-Octave exhaustive calibration is advised. An (ii) Subtract the values found in step - Band Filter Sets, Sl.11-1971 (R1976). exhaustive calibration is required if the (i) (A) from the value found in step (i)(B). deviations are greater than 10 dB at any (iii) The differences calculated in step Tabl e D-1.— Maximum Allowable Octave- test frequency. (ii) represented that portion of the Band Sound Pressure Lev el s for Audio­ T abl e E-1.— Ref er ence T hr eshol d Lev el s change in hearing that may be due to metr ic Test Rooms for Tel ephonics— TDH-39 Ear phones aging. Octave-band center Example: Employee is a 32-year-old male. Reference frequency (Hz)...... L.. 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 The audiometric history for his right ear is Sound pressure level threshold Sound level for level shown in decibels below. (dB)------..------40 40 47 57 62 Frequency, Hz TDH-39 meter ear- reading, phones, dB dB Appendix E: Acoustic Calibration of Audiometrìe test frequency (Hz) Audiometers 500...... 11.5 81.5 Employee’s age ------1000...... 777 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 This Appendix is Mandatory 2000...... 979 3000...... 1Q 80 26...... 10 5 5 10 5 4000...... Audiometer calibration shall be 79.5 *27------..— ...... 0 0 0 5 5 6000...... ______15.5 85.5 28 ...... 0 0 0 10 5 checked acoustically, at least annually, 29 ...... 5 0 5 15 5 according to the procedures described in 30 ...... 0 5 10 20 10 Tabl e E-2.— Ref er ence T hr eshol d Lev el s this Appendix. The equipment necessary 31 ...... £...... 5 10 20 15 15 for Tel ephonics— TDH-49 Ear phones *32...... „..I 5 10 10 25 20 to perform these measurements is a sound level meter, octave-band filter set, Refer- ence and a National Bureau of Standards 9A Sound The audiogram at age 27 is considered threshold level coupler. In making these measurements, Frequency, Hz level for the baseline since it shows the best TDH-49 meter the accuracy of the calibrating ear- reading, hearing threshold levels. Asterisks have equipment shall be sufficient to phones, dB dB been used to identify the baseline and determine that the audiometer is within most recent audiogram. A threshold shift the tolerances permitted by American 500------.... 13.5 83.5 of 20 dB exists at 4000 Hz between the Standard Specification for Audiometers, 1000.»...... « ¿.___..;____ 7.5 77.5 2000— ...... 11 81.0 audiograms taken at ages 27 and 32. S3.6-1969. 3000...... 9.5 79.5 (The threshold shift is computed by 4000..'.______10.5 80.5 (1) Sound Pressure Output Check 6000___ 13.5 83.5 subtracting the hearing threshold at age 27, which was 5, from the hearing A. Place the earphone coupler over threshold at age 32, which is 25). A the microphone of the sound level metier Appendix F: Calculations and and place the earphone on the coupler. retest audiogram has confirmed this Application of Age Corrections to shift. The contribution of aging to this B. Set the audiometer’s hearing Audiograms threshold level (HTL) dial to 70 dB. change in hearing may be estimated in the following manner: C. Measure the sound pressure level This Appendix Is Non-Mandatory of the tones that each test frequency In determining whether a standard Go to Table F -l and find the age from 500 Hz through 6000 Hz for each threshold shift has occurred, allowance correction values (in dB) for 4000 Hz at earphone. may be made for the contribution of age 27 and age 32. 9782 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations

Frequency (Hz) T abl e F-2.— Age Correction Val ues in information available regarding noise ecibel s for emal es 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 D F —Continued emitted from specific machines. In addition, actual workplace noise Audiometrie Test Frequencies (Hz) Age 32______6 5 7 10 14 Years ------measurements can suggest whether or Age 27______5 4 6 7 11 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 not a monitoring program should be Difference____ 1 1 1 3 3 initiated. 22...... 744 4 6 23...... - 75447 How is noise measured? 1 24...... 75447Basically, there are two different The difference represents the amount 25______„ 65447 of hearing loss that may be attributed to 26______65548instruments to measure noise exposures: aging in the time period between the 27______85558the sound level meter and the dosimeter. 28...... 8 5558 baseline audiogram and the most recent 29______85559A sound level meter is a device that audiogram. In this example, the 30...... ______8 6559measures the intensity of sound at a 31...... 86659 difference at 4000 Hz is 3 dB. This value 32______966610given moment. Since sound level meters is subtracted from the hearing level at 33...... 9 66610provide a measure of sound intensity at 34..™...... 966610only one point in time, it is generally 4000 Hz, which in the most recent 35______9 67711 audiogram is 25, yielding 22 after 36______9 7 7711necessary to take a number of adjustment. Then the hearing threshold 37_____ ™ 977712 measurements at different times during 38...... _ 10 77712 in the baseline audiogram at 4000 Hz (5) 39______10 7 8 8 12 the day to estimate noise exposure over is subtracted from the adjusted annual 40.™ __ 10 7 8813a workday. If noise levels fluctuate, the 41...... 10 88813amount of time noise remains at each of audiogram hearing threshold at 4000 Hz 42...... 10 89913 (22). Thus the age-corrected threshold 43______11 8 9 9 14 the various measured levels must be 44...... 11 8 9914determined. shift would be 17 dB (as opposed to a 45...... 11 8 10 10 15 threshold shift of 20 dB without age 46-...... — ...... 11 9 10 10 15 To estimate employee noise exposures correction). 47.______11 9 10 11 16 with a sound level meter it is also 48______12 9111116 49...... 12 9 11 11 16 generally necessary to take several Tabl e F-1 .— Age Correction Val ues in 50______„ 12 10 11 12 17 measurements at different locations Dec ibel s for Mal es 51...... 12 10 12 12 17 52...... - ______12 10 12 13 18 within the workplace. After appropriate 53______13 10 13 13 18 sound level meter readings are obtained, Audiometrie Test Frequencies (Hz) 54___ 13 11 13 14 19 people sometimes draw “maps” of the Years ------55. 13 11 14 14 19 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 56...... 13 11 14 15 20 sound levels within different areas of 57— ...... 13 11 15 15 20 the workplace. By using a sound level 20 or younger..... 5345858...... I™ 14 12 15 16 21 21...... 5 345 8 59______14 12 16 16 21 “map” and information on employee 22______5345860 or older______14 12 16 17 22 locations throughout the day, estimates 23...... 5 3469 24______,rrr- 53569 of individual exposure levels can be 25...... 535710 developed. This measurement method is 26------5 457toAppendix G: Monitoring Noise Levels generally referred to as noise 27______5 467 11 area 28...... 6 46811 Non-Mandátory Informational Appendix monitoring. 29------6468 12 A dosimeter is like a sound level 30...... 6 46912 This appendix provides information to 31..... „...... 6 4 7 913help employers comply with the noise meter except that it stores sound level 32...... 657 10 14 measurements and integrates these 33.. - ...... 6 5 7 10 14 monitoring obligations that are part of 34 ______6581115the hearing conservation amendment. measurements over time, providing an 35...... 758 11 15 What is the purpose of noise average noise exposure reading for a 36...... 7591216 37...... 7691217monitoring? given period of time, such as an 8-hour 38...... 7691317 This revised amendment requires that workday. With a dosimeter, a 3»...... 7 610/ 14 18 microphone is attached to the 40-...... 761014 19 employees be placed in a hearing 41______761014 20 conservation program if they are employee's clothing and the exposure 42...... 8 7111620exposed to average noise levels of 85 dB measurement is simply read at the end 43...... 8 7121621 44...... 8 71217 22 or greater during an 8 hour workday. In of the desired time period. A reader may 45...... 8 7 13 18 23 order to determine if exposures are at or be used to read-out the dosimeter's 46...... 8 8131924 47..„...... 8814 19 24 above this level, it may be necessary to measurements. Since the dosimeter is 48------9814 20 25 measure or monitor the actual noise worn by the employee, it measures noise 49...... 991521 26 levels in those locations in which the 50______9910 22 27 levels in the workplace and to estimate 51------9 91623 28 the noise exposure or “dose” received employee travels. A sound level meter 52-...... 9101724 29 can also be positioned within the 53...... 9 10 18 25 30 by employees during the workday. 54...... 10 10 18 26 31 When is it necessary to implement a immediate vicinity of the exposed 55...... 10 11 t9 27 32 noise monitoring program? worker to obtain an individual exposure 58...... » 10 11 20 28 34 57____ ...... _____ 10 11 21 29 35 It is not necessary for every employer estimate. Such procedures are generally 58...... — 10 12 22 31 36 to measure workplace noise. Noise referred to as personal noise monitoring. 59___r...... It 12 22 32 37 60 or older_____ 11 13 23 33 38 monitoring or measuring must be Area monitoring can be used to conducted only when exposures are at estimate noise exposure when the noise or above 85 dB. Factors which suggest levels are relatively constant and T abl e F-2.— Age Correction Val ues in that noise exposures in the workplace employees are not mobile. In Decibel s for Femal es may be at this level include employee workplaces where employees move complaints about the loudness of noise, about in different areas or where the Audiometrie Test Frequencies (Hz) reare indications that employees are losing noise intensity, tends to fluctuate over 1000 2000 3000 4000 6000 their hearing, or noisy conditions which time, noise exposure is generally more make normal conversation difficult. The accurately estimated by the personal 20 or younger__ 7439 6 21.™...... 7 443 6 employer should also consider any monitoring approach. Federai Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, ; March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9783

In situations where personal machinery or production processes that “Engineers-Acoustical.” In addition to monitoring is appropriate, proper may result in increased noise levels, providing information on obtaining positioning of the microphone is remonitoring must be conducted to noise monitoring equipment, many necessary to obtain accurate determine whether additional companies and individuals included measurements. With a dosimeter, the employees need to be included in the under such listings can provide microphone is generally located on the hearing conservation program. Many professional advice on how to conduct a shoulder and remains in that position for companies choose to remonitor valid noise monitoring program. Some the entire workday. With a sound level periodically (once every year or two) to audiological testing firms and industrial meter, the microphone is stationed near ensure that all exposed employees are hygiene firms also provide noise the employee’s head, and the instrument included in their hearing conservation monitoring services. Universities with is usually held by an individual who programs. audiology, industrial hygiene, or follows the employee as he or she Where can equipment and technical acoustical engineering departments may moves about. advice be obtained? also provide information or may be able Manufacturer’s instructions, contained Noise monitoring equipment may be to help employers meet their obligations in dosimeter and sound level meter either purchased or rented. Sound level under this amendment. operating manuals, should be followed meters cost about $500 to $1,000, while for calibration and maintenance. To dosimeters range in price from about Free, on-site assistance may be ensure accurate results, it is considered $750 to $1,500. Smaller companies may obtained from OSHA-supported state good professional practice to calibrate find it more economical to rent arid private consultation organizations. instruments before and after each use. equipment rather than to purchase it. These safety and health consultative How often is it necessary to monitor Names of equipment suppliers may be entities generally give priority to the noise levels? found in the telephone book (Yellow needs of small businesses. See the The amendment requires that when Pages) under headings such as: “Safety attached directory for a listing of there are significant changes in Equipment,” “Industrial Hygiene,” or organizations to contact for aid.

OSHA Onsite Consul tation Project Dir ector y

State Office and address Contact

Alabama______Alabama Consultation Program, P.O. Box 6005, University, Alabama 35486...... (205) 348-7136, Mr. William Weems, Director. Alaska...... — .....______State of Alaska, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health, 3301 Eagle St, Pouch 7 - (907) 276-5013, Mr. Stan Godsoe, Project Manager (Air Mail). 022, Anchorage, Alaska 99510. American Samoa...»...... Service not yet available. Arizona------Consultation and Training, Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health, P.O. Box 19070, (602) 255-5795, Mr. Thomas Ramaley, Manager. 1624 W. Adams, Phoenix, Ariz. 65005. Arkansas...... OS HA Consultation, Arkansas Department of Labor, 1022 High St, Little Rock, Ark. 72202______... (501) 371-2992, Mr. George Smith, Project Director. California...... CAL/OSHA Consultation Service, 2nd Floor, 525 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, Calif. (415) 557-2870, Mr. Emmett Jones, Chief. - 94102. Colorado».,— ....— ...... — Occupational Safety & Health Section, Colorado State University, Institute of Rural Environmental (303) 491-6151, Dr. Roy M. Buchan, Project Director. Health, 110 Veterinary Science Building, Fort Collins, Colo. 80523. Connecticut------Division of Occupational Safety & Health, Connecticut Department of Labor, 200 Folly Brook (203) 566-4550, Mr. Leo Alix, Director. Boulevard, Wethersfield, Conn. 06109. Delaware------... Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Industrial Affairs, 820 North French Street, 6th Floor, (302) 571-3908, Mr. Bruno Salvadori, Director. Wilmington, Del. 19801. District of Columbia...... Occupational Safety & Health Division, District of Columbia, Department Employment Services, (202) 832-1230, Mr. Lorenzo M. White, Acting Associate Office of Labor Standards, 2900 Newton Street NE., Washington, D.C. 20018. Director. Florida...... Department of Labor & Employment Security, Bureau of Industrial Safety and Health, LaFayette (904) 488-3044, Mr. John C. Glenn, Administrator. Building, Room 204, 2551 Executive Center Circle West, Tallahassee, Fla 32301. Georgia...... Economic Development Division, Technology and Development Laboratory, Engineering Experi­ (404) 894-3806, Mr. William C. Howard, Assistant to Director, ment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Ga. 30332. Mr. James Burson, Project Manager. Guam------Department of Labor, Government of Guam, 23548 Guam Main Facility, Agana Guam 96921____ ... (671) 772-6291, Joe R. San Agustin, Director. Hawaii------...... Education and Information Branch, Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Suite 910, 677 Ala (808) 548-2511, Mr. Don Alper, Manager (Air Mail). Moana Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. Idaho------— OSHA Onsite Consultation Program, Boise State University, Corhmunity and Environmental Health, (208) 385-3929, Dr. Eldon Edmundson, Director. 1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho 83725. Illinois...... — Division of Industrial Services, Dept of Commerce and Community Affairs, 310 S. Michigan (800) 972-4140/4216 (Toll-free in State). (312) 793-3270, Mr. Avenue, 10 Floor, Chicago, III. 60601. Stan Czwinski, Assistant Director. •°wa...... » Bureau of Labor, 307 E. Seventh Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319...... _____ .... (515) 281-3606, Mr. Allen J. Meier, Commissioner. Indiana...... Bureau of Safety, Education and Training, Indiana Division of Labor, 1013 State Office Building, (317) 633-5845, Mr. Harold Mills, Director. Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. Kansas.....------— Kansas Dept of Human Resources, 401 Topeka Ave., Topeka, Kans. 66603...... (913) 296-4086, Mr. Jerry Abbott, Secretary. Kentucky..— ».„.'„...... — Education and Training, Occupational Safety and Health, Kentucky Department of Labor, 127 (502) 564-6895, Mr. Larry Potter, Director. Building, 127 South, Frankfort, Ky. 40601. Louisiana...... No services available as yet (Pending FY 83). Maine.... — ------...------Division of Industrial Safety, Maine Dept, of Labor, Labor Station 45, State Office Building, (207) 289-3331, Mr. Lester Wood, Director. Augusta, Maine 04333. Maryland ...... Consultation Services, Division of Labor & Industry, 501 S t Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.. (301) 659-4210, Ms. Ileana O ’Brien, Project Manager, 7(c)(1) Agreement Massachusetts.— .— ...— Division of Industrial Safety, Massachusetts Department of Labor and Industries, 100 Cambridge (617) 727-3567, Mr. Edward Noseworthy, Project Director. Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02202. Michigan (H e a lth )------— Special Programs Section, Division of Occupational Health, Michigan Dept of Public Health, 3500 (517) 373-1410, Mr. Irving Davis, Chief. N. Logan, Lansing, Mich. 48909. Michigan (Safety)...... ------Safety Education & Training Division Bureau of Safety and Regulation, Michigan Department of (517) 322-1809, Mr. Alan Harvie, Chief. Labor, 7150 Harris Drive, Box 30015, Lansing, Michigan 48909. Minnesota------.....------— .... Training and Education Unit Department of Labor and Industry, 5th Floor, 444 Lafayette Road, St (612) 296-2973, Mr. Timothy Tierney, Project Manager. Paul, Minn. 55101. Mississippi»— ------...»...... Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Mississippi State Board of Health, P.O. Box 1700, (601) 982-6315, Mr. Henry L Laird, Director. Jackson, Mississippi 39205. Missouri...,».»»------Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, 722 Jefferson Street Jefferson City, 1-(800) 392-0208, (314) 751-3403, Ms. Paula Smith, Mr. Jim Missouri 65101. Brake. Montana,.— .— ------...... Montana Bureau of Safety & Health, Division of Workers Compensation, 815 Front Street Helena, (406) 449-3402, Mr. Ed Gatzemeier, Chief. Montana 59601. fabraska»------....— Nebraska Department of Labor, State House Station, State Capitot P.O. Box 94600, Lincoln, 475-6451 Ext 258, Mr. Joseph Carroll, Commissioner. Nebraska 68509. 9784 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 46 / Tuesday, March 8, 1983 / Rales and Regulations

OSHA O nsite C onsultation Project Dir e c t o r y — Continued

Contact State Office and address

Nevada______Department of Occupationat Safety and Health, Nevada Industrial Commission, 51 & E. Muffer (702) 886-5240, Mr. Alter* Traenkner, Director. Street, Carson City, Nev. 89714. New Hampshire...... For information contact — ...... — ...... -— -— ;------— ...... - — ...... — ...... — Office of Consultation Programs, Room N3472 200 Constitu­ tion Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210, Phone: (202) 523-8986. New Jersey...... New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry Division of Work Place Standards, CN-054, (609) 292-2313, FTS-8-477-2313,' Mr. William Clark, Assist­ Trenton, New Jersey 08625. ant Commissioner. New Mexico____- ______OSHA Consultation, Health and Environment Department, Environmental Improvement Division, (505) 842-3387, Mr. Albert M. Stevens, Project Manager. Occupational Health & Safety Section, 4215 Montgomery Boulevard, NE., Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109. New York______Division of Safety and Health, New York State Department of Labor, 2 World Trade Center, Room (212) 486-7746/7, Mr. Joseph Alieva, Project Manager, 6995, New York, New York 10047. DOSH. North Carolina...... Consultation Services, North Carolina Department of Labor, 4 West Edenton Street, Raleigh, N.C. (919) 733-4885, Mr. David Pierce, Director. 27601. North Dakota___ .....______Division of Environmental Research, Department of Health, Missouri Office Building, 1200 Missouri (701) 224-2348, Mr. Jay Crawford, Director. Avenue, Bismarck, N. Dak. 58505. Ohio...... Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Onsite Consultation, P.O. Box 825, 2323 5th (800) 282-1425 (Tolt-free in State) (614) 466-7485, Mr. Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43216. Andrew Deehret, Project Manager. Oklahoma...... OSHA Division, Oklahoma Department of Labor, State CapitoL State 116, Oklahoma City, Okla. (405) 521-'2461, Mr. Charles W. McGlon, Director. 73105. Oregon...... Consultative Section, Department of Workers’ Compensation, Accident Prevention Division, Room (503) 378-2890, Mr. Jack Buckland, Supervisor. 102, Building 1, 2110 Front Street NE., Salem, Oregon 97310. Pennsylvania______....____ For information contact...... — .— — ...... —— ------—— •—••• Office of Consultation Programs, Room N3472. 200 Constitu­ tion Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20210, Phone (202) 523-8985. Puerto Rico ™ ______Occupational Safety & Health, Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources, 505 (809) 754-2134, Mr. John Cinque, Assistant Secretary, (Air Munoz Rivera Ave., 21st Floor, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00919. Mail). Rhode Island...... _.....______Division of Occupational Health, Rhode Island Department of Health, The Cannon abiding, 206 (401) 277-2436, Mr. James E. Hickey, Chiet Health Department Building, Providence, R.L 02903. South Carolina...... Consultation and Monitoring, South Carolina Department of Labor, P.O. Box 11329, Columbia, S.C. (803) 758-8961, Mr. Robert Peck, Director, 7(c)(1), Project. 29211. South Dakota...... South Dakota Consultation Program, South Dakota State University, S.T.A.T.E.-Engineering Exten­ (605) 688-4101, Mr. James Cegtian, Director. sion, 201 Pugsley Center-SDSO, Brookings, S. Dak. 57007. » Tennessee...... OSHA Consultative Services, Tennessee Department of Labor, 2nd Boor, 501 Union Buifdlng, (615) 741-2793, Mr. L H. Craig Director. Nashville, Tennessee 37219. Texas...... Division of Occupational Safety and State Safety Engineer, Texas Department of Health and (512) 458-7287, Mr. Walter G. Marlin, P.E. Director. Resources, 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756. Trust Territories____ ...... Service not yet available. Utah...... Utah Job Safety and Health Consultation Service, Suite 4004, Crane Building, 307 West 200 (801) 533-7927/8/9, Mr. H. M. Bergeson, Project Director. South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. Vermont...... Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Vermont Department of Labor and Industry, 118 State (802) 828-2765, Ml Robert Mcteod, Project Director. , Street, Montpelier, Vi 05602. Virginia...... ______Department of Labor and Industry, P.O. Box 12064, 205 N. 4th Street, Richmond, Va. 23241------(804) 786-5875, Mr. Robert Beard, Commissioner. Virgin Islands...... Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Virgin Islands Department of Labor, Lagoon Street (809) 772-1315, Mr. Louis Uanos, Deputy Director-DOSH. Room 207, Frederiksted, Virgin Islands 00840. Washington______Department of Labor and industry, P.O. Box 207, Olympia. Wash. 98504------(206) 753-6500, Mr. James Sullivan, Assistant Director. West Virginia...... West Virginia Department of Labor, Room 45TB, State Capitol, 1900 Washington Street FTS 8-885-7890, Mr. Lawrence Barker, Commissioner. Charleston, W. Va. 25305. Wisconsin (Health)...... Section of Occupationat Health, Department of Health and Social Services, P.O. Box 309, (608) 266-0417, Ms. Patricia Natzke, Acting Chief. Madison, Wisconsin 53701. Wisconsin (Safety)...... Division of Safety and Buildings, Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, 1570 E. (414) 544-6686, Mr. Richard Michalski, Supervisor. Moreland Blvd., Waukesha, Wis. 53186. Wyoming...... Wyoming Occupational Health and Safety Department. 200 East 8th Avenue, Cheyenne, Wyo. (307) 777-7786, Mr. Donald Owsley, Health and Safety 82002. Administrator.

Appendix Hi Availability of Referenced monitoring and audiometrie testing. obtain a copy of the referenced Documents These criteria are intended to be publications for their own information. mandatory when so indicated in the The designation of the paragraph of Paragraphs (c) through (o) of 29 CFR applicable paragraphs of Section 1910.95 the standard in which the referenced 1910.95 and the accompanying and appendices. publications appear, the titles of the appendices contain provisions which It should be noted that OSHA does publications, and the availability of the incorporate publications by reference. not require that employers purchase a publications are as follows: Generally, the publications provide copy of the referenced publications. criteria for instruments to be used in Employers, however, may desire to

Paragraph designation Referenced publication Available- from—

Appendix 0 ______“List of Personal Hearing Protectors and National Technical Information Service, Port Attenuation Data,” HEW Pub. No. 76- Royal Road, Springfield, VA 2216t. 120, 1975. NTIS-PB26746T. Appendix D ______"Specification for Sound Level Meters,” American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 ST.4-1971 (R1976). Broadway, New York, NY 10016. 8 1910.95(k)(2), appendix E ____ "Specifications for Audiometers,” S3.6- American National Standards Institute, tec., 1430 1969. Broadway, New York, NY lOOtft. Appendix D ______“Specification for Octave, Half-Octave Back Numbers Department Dept STD, American and Third-Octave Band Filter Sets,” Institute of Physics, 333 E. 45th St, New York, S I. 11-1971 (R1976). NY 10017; American National Standards Insti­ tute, tec., 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 48 / Tuesday. March 8, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 9785

Audiologist—A professional, specializing in over a period of time in such a manner that The referenced publications (or a it directly, indicates a noise dose. microfiche of the publications) are the study and rehabilitation of hearing, who is certified by the American Speech- Otolaryngologist—A physician specializing in available for review at many Language-Hearing Association or licensed diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the universities and public libraries by a state board of examiners. ear, nose and throat. throughout the country. These Baseline audiogram—The audiogram against Representative exposure—Measurements of publications may also be examined at which future audiograms are compared. an employee’s noise dose or 8-hour time- the OSHA Technical Data Center, Room Criterion sound level—A sound level of 90 weighted average sound level that the y N2439, United States Department of decibels. employers deem to be representative of the Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., . Decibel (dB)—Unit of measurement of sound exposures of other employees in the Washington, D.C. 20210, (202) 523-9700 level. workplace. or at any OSHA Regional Office (see Hertz (Hz)—Unit of measurement of Sound level—Ten times the common frequency, numerically equal to cycles per telephone directories under United logarithm of the ratio of the square of the second. measured A-weighted sound pressure to States Government—Labor Medical pathology—A disorder or disease. Department). For purposes of this regulation, a condition the square of the standard reference pressure of 20 micropascals. Unit: decibels Appendix I: Definitions or disease affecting the ear, which should be treated by a physician specialist. (dB). For use with this regulation, SLOW These definitions apply to the Noise dose^—The ratio, expressed as a time response, in accordance with ANSI following terms as used in paragraphs percentage, of (1) the time integral, over a Sl.4-1971 (R1976), is required. (c) through (n) of 29 CFR 1910.95. stated time or event, of the 0.6 power of the Sound level meter—An instrument for the measured SLOW exponential time- measurement of sound level. Action level—An 8-hour time-weighted averaged, squared A-weighted sound average of 85 decibels measured on the A- Time-weighted average sound level—That pressure and (2) the product of the criterion scale, slow response, or equivalently, a sound level, which if constant over an 8- duration (8 hours) and the 0.6 power of the dose of fifty percent. hour exposure, would result in the same Audiogram—A chart, graph, or table resulting squared sound pressure corresponding to noise dose as is measured. the criterion sound level (90 dB). from an audiometric test showing an [FR Doc. 83-5702 Filed 3-3-83; 8:45 am] individual’s hearing threshold levels as a Noise dosimeter—An instrument that BILLING CODE 4510-26-M function of frequency. integrates a function of sound pressure

/