[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50610-50618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19691]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket No. H-011G]
RIN No. 1218-AB89
Hearing Conservation Program for Construction Workers
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR); request for
information and comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is considering rulemaking to revise the construction
noise standards to include a hearing conservation component for the
construction industry that provides a similar level of protection to
that afforded to workers in general industry. OSHA is not, at this
time, requesting information regarding the appropriateness of the
permissible exposure limit (PEL) or exchange rate. This document asks
the public to comment on whether specific provisions of OSHA's general
industry hearing conservation amendment should be applied to the
construction industry or if alternative strategies would be easier to
implement and more cost effective.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates:
Hard Copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
November 4, 2002.
Facsimile and electronic transmission: Your comments must be sent
by November 4, 2002. (Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION provided
below for additional information on submitting comments.)
ADDRESSES: Regular mail, express delivery, hand-delivery, and messenger
service: You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. H-011G, Room N-2625, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C.,
20210. OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours of operation
are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST .
[[Page 50611]]
Facsimile: If your comments, including any attachments, are 10
pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202)
693-1648. You must include the docket number of this notice, Docket No.
H-011G, in your comments.
Electronic: You may submit comments through the Internet at http://ecomments.osha.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries, contact Ms. Bonnie Friedman, OSHA, Office of Information and
Consumer Affairs, N-3647,200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999. For technical inquiries, contact Mr.
Neil Davis, Directorate for Health Standards Programs, OSHA, N-3718,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693-2281. For additional copies of this Federal Register document,
contact OSHA, Office of Publications, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
3101, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20210; telephone
(202) 693-1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register document, as
well as news releases and other relevant documents, are available at
OSHA's web page on the Internet at http://www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments
and Submissions
You may submit comments in response to this notice by (1) hard
copy, or (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically
through the OSHA Webpage. Please note that you cannot attach materials,
such as studies or journal articles, to electronic comments. If you
have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the
OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must
clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and
docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of
security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the
receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket
Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures
concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery
and messenger service.
All comments and submissions will be available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. Comments and
submissions posted on OSHA's Webpage are available at www.osha.gov.
OSHA cautions you about submitting personal information such as social
security numbers and birth dates. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-2350 for information about materials not available through
the OSHA Webpage and for assistance in using the Webpage to locate
docket submissions.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Occupational Noise Exposure Standards in Construction
B. Occupational Noise Exposure Standard for General Industry
C. Recommendations of NIOSH and Other Groups
D. Noise Induced Hearing Loss
E. Noise Exposure In Construction
II. Request for Information, Data and Comments
A. Hearing Conservation Program Provisions
B. Other Hearing Conservation Issues Raised by NIOSH in its
Criteria Document
C. Noise and Safety on the Construction Site
D. Noise Exposure Control
III. Authority
I. Background
The Federal Government has recognized the hazardous conditions
caused by noise on construction projects for many years. OSHA's current
noise standard for construction stems from the occupational noise
standard originally published in 1969 by the Bureau of Labor Standards
under the authority of the Construction Safety Act (40 U.S.C. 333).
OSHA adopted the construction noise standard in 1971 (36 FR 7340, 4/27/
71) and later recodified it at 29 CFR 1926.52. Another section of the
construction standard (29 CFR 1926.101) contains a provision requiring
employers to provide hearing protection devices when needed. Both
sections 1926.52 and 1926.101 apply to employers engaged in
construction and renovation work when high noise levels are present.
A. Occupational Noise Exposure Standards in Construction
Paragraph (a) of section 1926.52 requires protection against the
effects of noise exposure when 8-hour time-weighted average sound
levels exceed a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 90 decibels (dBA)
measured on the A scale of a sound level meter set at slow response.
The exposure level is raised 5 dB for every halving of exposure
duration as shown in Table D-2 of the standard.
Table D-2.--Permissible Noise Exposures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound
level DBA
Duration per day, hours slow
response
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................................................ 90
6............................................................ 92
4............................................................ 95
3............................................................ 97
2............................................................ 100
1\1/2\....................................................... 102
1............................................................ 105
\1/2\........................................................ 110
\1/4\ or less................................................ 115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 29 CFR 1926.52(b) states that when employees are
subjected to noise doses exceeding those shown in Table D-2, feasible
administrative or engineering controls must be used to lower employee
noise exposure. If such controls fail to reduce sound to the levels
shown in the table, personal protective equipment must be provided and
used to reduce noise exposure to within those levels.
Paragraph (c) defines continuous noise as noise levels where the
maxima occur at intervals of 1 second or less, and paragraph (d)(1)
requires that a ``continuing, effective hearing conservation program''
be administered whenever levels exceed those in the table. However, no
details are given about the components of such a program. Paragraph
(d)(2) gives instruction on how to calculate an employee's noise
exposure when the employee is exposed to two or more periods of noise
at different levels, and paragraph (e) states that exposure to
impulsive or impact noise should not exceed a peak sound pressure level
of 140 dB.
The requirements of 29 CFR 1926.101 are: (a) Hearing protection
devices shall be provided and used wherever it is not feasible to
reduce the noise exposure (level times duration) to within the
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) specified in Table D-2 (see above);
(b) hearing protection devices inserted in the ear shall be fitted by
competent persons; and (c) plain cotton is not an acceptable protective
device.
B. Occupational Noise Exposure Standard for General Industry
Workers in general industry are covered by the Agency's
Occupational Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95), which sets maximum noise
exposure levels and certain other requirements that are similar to
those found in 29 CFR 1926.52 and 1926.101. However, the general
industry noise standard provides more protection for general
[[Page 50612]]
industry workers than the construction standards provide for
construction workers, due to the provisions of OSHA's 1983 Hearing
Conservation Amendment (HCA), which added a requirement for employers
to implement a hearing conservation program if employee noise exposures
exceed a time-weighted average level (TWA) of 85 dBA over an 8-hour
workday, using an exchange rate of 5 dB for each doubling or halving of
exposure time. The HCA program (29 CFR 1910.95(c) through (o))
includes, among other things:
Baseline and annual audiometric testing,
Monitoring of noise exposure levels,
Requirements to provide effective hearing protection
devices (HPDs),
Training and education, and
The maintenance of employee exposure and hearing loss
records.
OSHA requests information and data on whether the general industry
requirements should be applied to construction work and, if so, how
these requirements should be adapted for the construction industry.
C. Recommendations of NIOSH and Other Groups
In 1998, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) published ``Criteria for a Recommended Standard; Occupational
Exposure to Noise; Revised Criteria'', in which NIOSH recommended a
maximum 8-hour TWA of 85 dBA and a 3-dB exchange rate (Ex. 2-1). NIOSH
originally recommended an 8-hour TWA of 85 dBA and a 5-dB exchange rate
in 1972. The revised 1998 NIOSH Criteria document also recommends
specific requirements that they believe should be included in hearing
conservation programs, such as noise exposure assessment; engineering
and administrative controls and work practices; hearing protectors;
medical surveillance; hazard communication; training; program
evaluation; and recordkeeping. Some of the NIOSH recommendations are
discussed in later sections along with questions about how an OSHA
standard on noise in construction might implement the NIOSH
recommendations. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists also recommended an 85 dBA 8-hour TWA with a 3 dB exchange
rate in 1994. (ACGIH, Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure
Indices for 1994, Ex. 2-14)
In recent years, several groups have expressed a renewed interest
in the issue of hearing loss in construction workers. For example, the
Laborers Health and Safety Fund of North America is sponsoring a
Construction Noise Control Partnership made up of interested parties
from labor, industry, academia, and government to discuss noise and
hearing conservation issues. The Laborers Health and Safety Fund has
also co-sponsored several conferences to discuss the best practices for
preventing hearing loss in the construction industry.
D. Noise Induced Hearing Loss
In the preamble to the HCA, first issued on January 16, 1981 (46 FR
4078), OSHA described the risk of ``material impairment'' of health
resulting from a working lifetime of noise exposure based on data
developed by three organizations: The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and NIOSH. The risk estimates are presented in Table 1 as reprinted in
the 1998 NIOSH criteria document (Ex. 2-1).
Table 1.--Estimated Excess Risk of Incurring Material Hearing Impairment
\1\ as a Function of Average Daily Noise Exposure Over a 40-year Working
Lifetime \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
daily noise Excess
Reporting organization exposure organization
(dBA) Risk (%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------\3\----
ISO.......................................... 90 21
85 10
80 0
EPA.......................................... 90 22
85 12
80 5
NIOSH........................................ 90 29
85 15
80 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of comparison in this table, material hearing
impairment is defined as an average of the Hearing Threshold Levels
(HTLs) for both ears at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz that exceeds 25 dB.
\2\ Adapted from 39 FR 43802.
\3\ Percentage with material hearing impairment in an occupational-noise-
exposed population after subtracting the percentage who would normally
incur such impairment from other causes in an unexposed population,
i.e., the percentage of the risk attributable to noise exposure at
work.
This table shows that about one in four workers will experience
impaired hearing when exposed to average daily noise levels of 90 dBA
over a 40-year working lifetime. The risk is lower but still about one
in eight workers at 85 dBA over 40-year working lifetime. As a result
of this residual risk, OSHA established an ``action level'' of 85 dBA
for an 8-hour TWA in its general industry noise standard (even at 80
dBA, EPA and NIOSH report a small risk of hearing impairment). When
employees are occupationally exposed at or above the action level, the
general industry noise standard requires employers to take certain
steps to prevent noise-exposed workers from developing hearing loss.
The steps required by the HCA include: Noise exposure monitoring,
audiometric testing, the provision of hearing protectors, and
recordkeeping.
Noise-induced hearing loss can be a serious disability. Once noise
exposure damages the sensory-neural mechanism of the inner ear, the
hearing loss is permanent (permanent threshold shift). The likelihood
of permanent hearing loss increases with prolonged exposure. Noise-
induced hearing loss can cause difficulty in hearing and understanding
critical verbal instruction and warning sounds at work. It can also
cause problems in hearing and perceiving spoken communication, thus
interfering with normal social interaction outside the workplace.
Exposure to other agents can adversely affect the auditory system
and may worsen noise-induced hearing loss (Ex. 2-1). These agents
include some organic solvents, physical agents, such as whole-body
vibration, and gases, such as carbon monoxide. Excessive noise may also
accelerate age-related hearing loss in exposed workers, causing more
serious auditory impairment than might have otherwise occurred.
E. Noise Exposure In Construction
Many construction jobs, such as concrete work, site excavation,
highway construction, and carpentry involve high levels of noise. Major
noise sources include heavy equipment, such as loaders, dozers, and
cranes, as well as tools like jackhammers and chipping guns. Excessive
noise at construction sites not only causes hearing loss, but can
create a safety hazard by masking the sounds of oncoming vehicles (Ex.
2-2). Hearing loss and the use of hearing protectors by those with pre-
existing hearing loss may further interfere with the workers' ability
to hear and perceive the sounds of danger. Although these difficulties
occur in many occupational settings, they are a particular problem in
construction, where a variety of moving vehicles, back-up alarms, and
other signals and activities may occur simultaneously.
There is a large body of literature describing occupational hearing
loss from noise exposure (see, e.g., Exs. 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6).
OSHA
[[Page 50613]]
commissioned several studies during 1997-1999 to provide recent
information targeted specifically to the construction population. One,
by Alice H. Suter, Ph.D., is entitled ``Construction Noise: Exposure,
Effects, and the Potential for Remediation'' (Ex. 2-2). Three by Dale
Hattis, Ph.D., of the Center for Technology, Environment, and
Development, Clark University, are: ``Preliminary Analysis of OSHA
Inspection Data for Noise Exposures in Construction'' (1997) (Ex. 2-3);
``Occupational Noise Sources and Exposures in Construction
Industries,'' Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 4:1417-1441(1998)
(Ex. 2-4); and ``Expected Hearing Loss and Disability from Noise
Exposures in Construction'' (co-author, Anna Makri) (1999) (Ex. 2-5).
Dr. Suter also wrote a monograph in 1992 on the effects of noise on
workers' ability to communicate entitled ``Communication and Job
Performance in Noise: A Review,'' ASHA Monographs No. 28 (American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville, Maryland) (Ex. 2-6).
These studies show that as many as 750,000 U.S. construction
workers are currently exposed to hazardous noise levels (defined as a
time weighted average of 85 dBA or above for 8 hours) on the job and
that regular hearing protector use in the construction industry
averages only about 15 to 33 percent among these noise-exposed workers
(Exs. 2-2, 2-5). Hattis and Makri quantified the extent of hearing loss
disability expected to occur among construction workers. Their measure
of disability was based on the United Kingdom's ``% disability
method'', which expresses the magnitude and duration of hearing loss
disability in units of %-disability life-years, where one %-disability
life-year is equal to the loss of one percent of overall hearing
ability for one year (Ex. 2-5). Among the entire population of 5
million construction workers, Hattis and Makri estimated that between
25 million and 65 million %-disability life-years would accumulate each
year taking into account age-related hearing loss, prevailing noise
exposures, and current practice with regard to use of hearing
protection (Ex. 2-5, pp. 49-52). To place the Hattis and Makri
estimates of hearing disability in perspective, assume that the average
age of the 750,000 most highly exposed workers is 38 and that workers
are employed in the construction industry an average of 13 years (based
on 1997 data for British Columbia workers, see Table 21 of Ex. 2-5).
Assuming also that the average life span is 75 years, the estimated 25
million to 65 million %-disability life-years that are predicted to
accumulate each year among the 750,000 most highly exposed construction
workers means that construction workers exposed at or above 85 dB are
predicted to lose, on average, between 12 and 30 percent of their
hearing over their employment in the construction industry, and that
the disability will persist for the remaining 37 years of life.\1\ The
authors conclude in their summary section that ``it is clear that
construction worker noise-induced hearing loss is a significant
national problem'' (Ex. 2-5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The derivation of the 13 (it is actually closer to 12) to 30
percent hearing loss for the average worker was calculated as
follows. The Hattis and Makri population estimate of 25 million to
65 million % disability life-years accumulated each year was divided
by the estimated 750,000 workers currently at and above 85 dBa eight
hour TWA. This gives, on average, between 33.3 and 86.6% disability
life-years accumulated each year by an individual worker over his
entire lifetime. The resulting annualized individual risk is then
multiplied by the average 13 years of employment to obtain the
aggregate % disability life-years experienced by the typical worker
as a result of his total exposure. if the typical worker is 38 years
old and has an average life span of 75 years, then the disability
life-years is divided by his remaining 37 years of life to obtain
the 12 to 30 percent hearing loss estimate.
(a) (25,000,000 x 13) / 750,000 x 37) = 11.7 percent
(b) (65,000,000 x 13) / (750,000 x 37) = 30.4 percent
Dr. Suter's review of the literature shows that the highest
concentrations of workers with potentially hazardous noise exposures
occur in highway and street construction, carpentry, and concrete work
(Ex. 2-2). According to a 1995 study of Canadian workers by Sinclair
and Haflidson, the average noise exposure for workers engaged in
various types of construction is 98.8 dB, based on TWA sound levels
using the 3-dB exchange rate. The average exposure would be lower if
the 5-dB exchange rate were used. Boilermakers and ironworkers are
particularly heavily exposed, largely as a result of pneumatic tool use
(Ex. 2-7).
OSHA believes that these studies show that many U.S. construction
workers suffer hearing loss from noise at their worksites. Other
information shows that hearing conservation programs can be effective
in reducing occupational hearing loss (Ex. 2-8). Therefore, OSHA is
publishing this ANPR to solicit data, comments, and information about
initiating rulemaking to revise the construction industry noise
standard to include a hearing conservation component that will protect
construction workers against further hearing loss.
II. Request for Information, Data and Comments
OSHA solicits data and information on the following issues related
to the prevention of work-related hearing loss in construction workers.
In your response to these questions, please refer to the section and
subsection headings (e.g. Section II.A.2.a. Hearing Conservation
Program Provisions--Monitoring--Area Monitoring) as well as the
specific question being referenced. Also, include relevant data and
analyses to support your response.
A. Hearing Conservation Program Provisions
OSHA seeks information on whether and how the provisions of the
general industry Hearing Conservation Amendment (paragraphs (c) through
(o) of 29 CFR 1910.95) could be applied to the construction industry.
Do the general industry requirements need to be altered to reflect the
unique characteristics of the construction industry? For example, what
methods have construction employers adopted to obtain baseline and
periodic audiograms and to keep the records of these tests up-to-date
and accessible? What approaches have employers found useful in
achieving effective hearing protection device use in this industry?
OSHA is particularly interested in receiving information on the results
of hearing loss prevention program evaluations in the construction
industry. The following paragraphs raise specific questions about
selected provisions of the Hearing Conservation Amendment and their
potential applicability in the construction environment.
1. Methods of Compliance
In paragraphs (c) and (d) of the general industry noise standard
(29 CFR 1910.95), OSHA requires the employer to conduct an initial
noise evaluation when exposure is expected to exceed 85 dBA. If this
requirement was applied in a construction setting, a new evaluation
might be required for each new construction site. Alternatively, in the
asbestos standard (29 CFR 1926.1101(e)) and lead standard (29 CFR
1926.62(d)(2)) for construction activities, OSHA adopted a different
approach of identifying tasks that are presumed to have high exposures
and workers engaged in these tasks are protected by a combination of
engineering and administrative controls supplemented by the use of
personal protective equipment. Which approach is more appropriate to
evaluate and control noise exposures in construction?
[[Page 50614]]
Please provide noise data from construction sites to support your
position. If a certain set of procedures or tasks were identified by
OSHA as having presumed significant noise exposure, which are the best
criteria to use: Equipment type, task type, or job title by type of
construction and phase of work? OSHA also believes that the time of
tool use or time spent at a task is an essential or required element in
any exposure calculation. Please provide your experience and data
regarding the relative efficacy of the above criteria.
The British Columbia regulation requires employers to implement a
written program that includes noise measurement, education and
training, engineered noise control, hearing protection, posting of
noise hazard areas, hearing tests, and annual program review (Ex. 2-9).
The British Columbia program presumes that employees in specific
construction occupations are routinely exposed to noise in excess of
the exposure limits. These occupations are carpenters, plumber
pipefitters, sprinkler installers, mobile equipment operators, steel
erectors, welders/fabricators, sandblasters, drillers, electricians,
concrete workers operating concrete pumps, vibrators, jack hammers or
powered finishing equipment, and drywallers shooting track or boarding
(Ex. 2-10). Are the trades identified in British Columbia as highly
exposed, and therefore presumptively covered under the HCP, reasonable
and comparable to United States conditions? Are there other occupations
that should be presumed to be noisy enough to be a part of a hearing
conservation program?
Investigators at the University of Washington are also conducting a
series of studies on Washington state construction apprentices and
journeymen. These study populations include bricklayers, carpenters,
operating engineers, ironworkers, electricians, insulation workers,
sheet metal workers, laborers and cement masons. (Ex. 2-12, 2-13) These
studies will provide additional noise-related risk data on a current
U.S. construction population. Are there any other investigations on the
effects of hearing conservation programs in other populations of U.S.
construction workers? If so, please provide study descriptions and
data.
2. Monitoring
Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of the general industry noise standard (29 CFR
1910.95) addresses noise exposure monitoring. It requires monitoring
when information indicates that any employee's exposure may equal or
exceed an 8-hour TWA of 85 dBA. Employers may design their own sampling
strategy so long as employees above this action level are included in
the program. How much noise monitoring is currently being done at
construction sites?
Many construction firms are small; approximately 85 percent of the
firms employing 50 percent of the construction workforce have less than
20 employees. (U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 1997)
Should OSHA provide specific sampling strategies for the construction
industry? Should these strategies be mandatory or recommended? When is
exposure monitoring appropriate in the construction industry? What
criteria should trigger noise exposure monitoring?
a. Area Monitoring
Paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of the general industry noise standard (29 CFR
1910.95) permits employers to use area monitoring under certain
circumstances, but where conditions such as high worker mobility,
significant variations in sound level, or a significant component of
impulse noise makes area monitoring inappropriate, representative
personal sampling must be performed. These latter conditions
characterize most construction sites. Are there any circumstances in
the construction industry where area monitoring would be appropriate?
b. Continuous, Intermittent and Impulsive Sound
Paragraph (d)(2)(i) of the general industry noise standard (29 CFR
1910.95) requires that all continuous, intermittent and impulsive sound
levels from 80 dB to 130 dB be integrated into the measurement of noise
exposure. The range of 80 to130 dB as opposed to a range of 80 to 140
dB reflected the technological limitations of sound level meters and
dosimeters at the time of the standard's promulgation. OSHA, in the
preamble of the 1981 rulemaking, stated the intent to increase the
upper limit to 140 dB, as improved dosimeters became readily available
(46 FR 4135, 1/16/81). OSHA believes that most, if not all, of today's
dosimeters and integrating sound level meters are capable of dynamic
ranges from 80 dB to 140 dB. The NIOSH revised noise criteria (Ex. 2-1)
and the ACGIH TLV for noise (Ex. 2-11) recommend the inclusion of all
continuous, intermittent, and impulsive noise from 80 to 140 DBA in the
calculation of employee exposure or dose. OSHA seeks information on the
characterization of construction workers' exposures to impulse or
impact noise, particularly in the range of 130-140 dB. Is the
integration of all noise levels between 80 dBA and 140 dB the
appropriate criteria for calculating construction workers' noise dose?
Please support your answer. What are the additional costs associated
with this requirement and how can they be minimized? Is 140 dB the
appropriate ceiling level for impulse noise?
c. Repeat Noise Monitoring
Paragraph (d)(3) of the general industry noise standard (29 CFR
1910.95) requires that monitoring be repeated whenever a change in
production, process, equipment or control increases noise exposures to
the extent that additional employees may be exposed at or above the
action level, or the attenuation provided by hearing protectors may be
rendered inadequate. OSHA is seeking information on whether it would be
practical to apply such a requirement in the construction environment.
Would employers know when to repeat noise exposure monitoring? Should
there be a more specific requirement, such as the NIOSH recommendation
for remonitoring every 2 years or if workers are developing significant
threshold shifts (STSs)(Ex. 2-1)? Would such a requirement be useful,
feasible, or effective in the construction industry? Are there any
alternative monitoring schemes that would be easier for construction
employers to follow that would obtain the same objective?
d. Secondary Sources of Noise Exposure
The construction noise literature and field observations indicate
that there are multiple sources of significant noise exposure during
many phases of different types of construction projects (Ex 2-12). Many
times the primary sources of exposure are tools or equipment being used
by co-workers nearby (jackhammer) or by another craft working nearby
(e.g. welder's compressor affecting electricians). Are there other
methods, besides direct employee noise monitoring on a site-by-site
basis that would characterize elevated noise exposure to other or co-
workers who are not using tools or equipment generating loud noise?
Please provide data showing the prevalence of noise exposures near or
exceeding 85 dBA (1) to coworkers or helpers doing a supporting task,
or (2) to other trades receiving secondary exposures they did not
create. Also provide, if available, information on the trades, type of
construction, tasks, tools or equipment used, and the range of exposure
levels and distances from
[[Page 50615]]
noise source. Has any exposure or prediction modeling been done in this
area? How can information concerning expected or measured secondary
exposure be incorporated into training requirements, hazard warnings
and the general phasing of work in different types of construction?
3. Employee Notification
Paragraph (e) of the general industry noise standard requires that
employers notify each employee exposed at or above an 8-hour TWA of 85
dBA of the results of the employee's noise monitoring. No time limit is
given for this notification. Is a similar notification requirement
appropriate for the construction industry? Should employers be required
to notify construction workers within a certain period, such as 1, 5,
10 or 15 days, of the results of noise exposure monitoring?
4. Audiometric Testing Program
Paragraph (g) of the general industry noise standard requires
employers to make audiometric testing available, at no cost, to all
employees who are exposed at or above the action level of 85 dBA. Is a
similar requirement appropriate and feasible for the construction
industry? How can this service be delivered in a cost-effective way to
a mobile workforce of predominantly small employers? In general
industry the trigger for audiometric testing is an employee exposure at
or above 85 dBA. Are there alternative triggers that might be more
appropriate or less burdensome to initiate audiometric testing in the
construction industry? For example, should OSHA require audiometric
testing for those in specified construction trades? Does OSHA need more
precise provisions in terms of audiometric procedures, equipment, and
sound booth requirements so as to reduce the variability between
audiograms or has this variability been anticipated in the general
industry hearing conservation standard? Please specify and support
recommended alternatives, if any.
a. Baseline Audiograms
Paragraph (g)(5) of the general industry noise standard calls for a
baseline audiogram to be performed within 6 months of an employee's
first exposure at or above the action level unless the audiometric
provider uses a mobile van, in which case the waiting period may be up
to a year. Because of the mobility of many construction workers from
employer to employer, these provisions, if adopted, would result in
some construction workers not receiving baseline audiograms even after
many years of noise exposure. OSHA seeks information on the best way to
ensure that construction workers are given a baseline audiogram prior
to exposure to harmful levels of noise. Should the maximum waiting
period for baseline audiograms be shorter or longer than 6 months? For
example, NIOSH recommends an audiogram within 30 days after hire. What
length of time with a given employer should trigger the requirement to
provide an audiometric test? Should the trigger for audiometric testing
be by exposure level, type of construction, job process, job title or
equipment type or should there be multiple triggers? Alternatively,
should baseline audiograms be considered for all workers entering
construction employment?
Paragraph (g)(5)(ii) of the general industry noise standard
requires workers whose exposures equal or exceed the action level to
use hearing protectors until a baseline audiogram is completed, if the
employer is using the one-year period allowed when mobile test vans are
used. Should a construction worker be allowed to have exposures above
the action level but less than the PEL without hearing protectors for
any amount of time before the baseline audiogram is obtained? Should
the use of hearing protectors in this circumstance be advisory rather
than mandatory if exposures are between the action level and the PEL?
Paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of the general industry noise standard
requires that a baseline test be preceded by at least 14 hours without
exposure to workplace noise. Should this requirement be extended to the
construction industry?
b. Annual Testing
Paragraph (g)(6) of the general industry noise standard requires
that employers obtain audiograms at least annually for employees
exposed at or above the action level. The NIOSH Criteria Document (Ex.
2-1) contains a similar recommendation. OSHA is requesting information
on the feasibility and desirability of annual audiograms for
construction workers. Should the frequency of audiometric testing vary
by the type of work and the degree of anticipated exposures? For
example, should audiograms be required every six months for workers
with exposures that are consistently above 100 dBA? Should audiograms
be less frequent for workers whose measured or expected exposures are
between 85 and 90 dBA? Is there a way to make sure that construction
workers who move from one site to another during the year are
identified and given annual audiometric tests?
c. Retest Audiograms
Paragraph (g)(7)(ii) of the general industry noise standard gives
employers the option to retest an employee within 30 days if an STS has
occurred and to consider the retest as the annual audiogram.
Considering the high mobility of the construction workforce and NIOSH's
recommendation for immediate retesting (Ex 2-1, pp 49-50), should there
be a requirement for an immediate retest if an STS has occurred? Is a
confirmatory retest within 30 days desirable or feasible for
construction workers? Should there be a requirement or recommendation
that the retest be preceded by 14 hours without exposure to workplace
noise and should hearing protectors be allowed to substitute for this
pre-test ``quiet''?
d. Follow-up Procedures for Audiograms Showing Hearing Loss
Paragraph (g)(8)(ii) of the general industry noise standard details
follow-up procedures triggered by an STS unless a physician determines
that the STS is neither work related nor aggravated by occupational
noise exposure. These procedures include: (A) Fitting with hearing
protectors and training in their use and care; (B) refitting and
retraining for those already wearing hearing protectors; (C) referral
for a clinical audiological or otological examination if additional
testing is necessary or if an ear pathology (medical problem) is
determined to be related to the wearing of hearing protectors; and (D)
informing the worker of a need for an otological exam if an ear
pathology is deemed unrelated to the use of hearing protectors.
OSHA is seeking comments and information on whether there are
follow-up actions that should be taken even when an STS has not
occurred, and specifically on the provisions of paragraph (g)(8)(ii)(C)
of 1910.95, which require referral in cases where additional testing is
necessary to obtain a valid audiogram or a medical problem is related
to the wearing of hearing protectors, and paragraph (g)(8)(ii)(D) of
1910.95, informing the worker of a need for an otological exam
regardless of whether the problem is related to the use of hearing
protectors. Are there other circumstances where follow-up actions
should be either required or recommended for construction workers, such
as counseling in the event of an STS or pathology of the ear?
[[Page 50616]]
5. Hearing Protectors
The studies by Suter (Ex. 2-2) and Hattis and Makri (Ex. 2-5)
report that currently available data (1998) on the use of hearing
protectors among U.S. construction workers show that, at best, hearing
protector use among workers routinely exposed to high noise levels is
about 33%, with a range from 1% to 50% for workers in different trades.
These authors note that this figure is likely to be an overestimate.
This was an apparent improvement from the NIOSH NOES survey, 1981-1983,
where the overall average use was 15% for workers exposed to 85 dBA or
greater (Ex. 2-2). Are other data available on current hearing
protector use in the U.S. construction industry? If yes, please provide
such data or indicate where they may be obtained.
Dr. Suter's studies point out that construction workers need to
hear warning signals and to communicate in noisy backgrounds (Exs. 2-2,
2-6 ). Operators of heavy mobile equipment and other workers who need
to communicate with them need to be able to maintain effective two-way
or multi-way communication while protecting their hearing. It is also
essential for all construction workers to be able to hear and identify
the location of warning signals, backup alarms, and spoken or shouted
communication (localization). Workers who have already incurred hearing
impairments and who must wear hearing protectors will experience
difficulty hearing in those situations. The use of hearing protectors
and the need for communication and identifying the location of co-
workers complicate efforts to prevent noise-induced hearing loss. OSHA
solicits information from employers, employees, and safety and health
professionals on their experience with regard to the ability to
communicate or other risks that may be incurred while wearing hearing
protectors. This includes information on the effectiveness of
traditional hearing protectors and particularly on the effectiveness of
newer devices (both plugs and muffs) with uniform attenuation, active
attenuators, and communication systems developed, at least in part, to
address these problems.
a. When Should Hearing Protectors Be Required?
Paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of the general industry noise standard
require that hearing protectors be made available to all employees
exposed at or above the action level of 85 dBA, but do not require
workers to wear these devices until their exposures exceed the PEL or
the worker has experienced a work-related STS. Should the requirement
be contingent upon incurring an STS or waiting for a baseline
audiogram, as in the general industry noise standard? Is there an
increased hazard for these workers that is caused by the inability to
hear warning signals at moderate noise levels, such as 80-85 dBA, when
wearing hearing protectors?
Paragraph (b)(1) of OSHA's general industry noise standard requires
that employers use feasible engineering or administrative controls
whenever employees are exposed above the 90 dBA PEL. Whenever these
controls fail to reduce sound levels to or below the PEL, employers
must issue hearing protectors to employees and employees are required
to use these devices. Similar requirements are found in 29 CFR 1926.52
and 1926.101 covering the construction industry. Whether workers must
wear their hearing protectors for the entire workshift or only when
noise levels exceed 90 dBA is not addressed. OSHA is aware of the
potential safety hazard of overprotection during periods of relative
quiet or even moderate noise levels.
The Agency is requesting information on the use of hearing
protectors in varying noise environments, especially in the
intermittent noise environments that characterize many construction
exposures. Should construction workers be required to wear hearing
protectors only in noise levels that exceed the PEL of 90 dBA, an
action level of 85 dBA, or should they be required to wear hearing
protectors in all noise environments where exposures are expected to
exceed a certain TWA? If the requirement is only for levels above the
action level, how would workers know when to put on their hearing
protectors?
b. Selection of Hearing Protectors
Paragraph (i)(3) of the general industry noise standard states that
employees must be given the opportunity to select their hearing
protectors from a variety of suitable hearing protectors provided by
the employer. This requirement has been interpreted to mean that at
least one variety of plug and one variety of muff must be available
(Ex. 2-14). Is a choice between two protectors sufficiently protective
where noise exposure is often intermittent and communication may be of
particular importance? The Agency solicits information on the
appropriate type and number of hearing protectors which should be
offered to construction workers.
c. Hearing Protector Attenuation
The general industry noise standard's paragraph (j)(1) requires
employers to use one of the evaluation methods described in Appendix B,
``Methods for Estimating the Adequacy of Hearing Protection
Attenuation'' to evaluate the amount of protection the hearing
protector is likely to provide under workplace conditions. The vast
majority of employers and hearing conservation professionals use the
Noise Reduction Rating (NRR), which, according to an EPA regulation,
must be printed on the hearing protector package. The NRR represents
the noise reduction potential of the protector under laboratory
conditions. There are, however, large differences between the hearing
protector attenuation measured in the laboratory and that found in
actual field use. Therefore, it is current OSHA policy to adjust the
NRR when the use of hearing protectors is, under certain circumstances,
permitted in lieu of engineering noise controls. Appendix B of the
general industry noise standard calls for an additional reduction in
the estimated attenuation of 7 dB when the average C-weighted noise
level in the worker's environment is not known. In addition, the OSHA
Technical Manual (Section III, Chapter 5) and OSHA's Enforcement
Directive for Noise Enforcement (CPL 2-2.35A) use a safety factor of
50%, which is applied by further dividing the NRR by 2. Thus an earplug
with an NRR of 28 dB would be considered to have useful attenuation of
only 10.5 dB when the NRR is subtracted from the average A-weighted
noise level in the worker's environment (28 - 7 = 21 / 2 = 10.5).
NIOSH (Ex. 2-1) recommends de-rating (subtracting values from) the
NRR, but conditions the amount of de-rating upon the type of hearing
protector: 25% for earmuffs, 50% for slow-recovery foam earplugs, and
70% for all other plugs and semi-inserts. NIOSH further recommends that
once manufacturers test and label their products using the new
``subject-fit'' method incorporated in ANSI S12.6-1997, the subject-fit
noise reduction rating (NRR(SF)) should be used.
Should OSHA continue to recommend the use of the NRR for estimating
the attenuation provided by hearing protectors for construction
workers? Should a standard for construction recommend or require a 50%
de-rating to account for the difference between laboratory and field
performance? Should OSHA continue to require the 7-dB subtraction for
spectral uncertainty? Should OSHA adopt the NIOSH device-dependent de-
rating
[[Page 50617]]
formula discussed above? Should OSHA allow or recommend the NRR(SF) or
a similar rating based on subject fit data as an alternative to the
NRR?
6. Training Program
Paragraph (k) of the general industry noise standard contains
requirements for training programs, which must be repeated annually for
each employee in the hearing conservation program. These programs must
include: Information on the effects of noise on hearing; the type of
task or equipment that can cause loud noise and maximum usage time
without hearing protection, the purpose of hearing protectors; the
advantages, disadvantages, and attenuation of various types of hearing
protectors; instructions on selection, fitting, use, and care of
hearing protectors; and the purpose of audiometric test procedures. Are
these training requirements appropriate for the construction industry?
In general industry the trigger for training is an employee exposure at
or above 85 dBA. Are there alternative triggers that might be more
appropriate and less burdensome in the construction industry?
OSHA is aware that some hearing conservation training programs in
general industry use written materials or videos without face-to-face
training. The Agency seeks information on the success of such programs.
Is there a need for face-to-face training in the construction industry?
Why? Also, are there exemplary training programs that are construction
or trade specific that should be brought to OSHA's attention? Briefly
describe these programs.
7. Recordkeeping
Most construction work is characterized by relatively short job
tenures with a given employer (median of 3 to 5 years), temporary or
seasonal employment, and employment in very small firms. These features
may make periodic audiometric testing and recordkeeping more difficult
than in the general industry environment. OSHA is aware of two possible
approaches to this logistical problem in construction: (1) Centralized
(possibly web based) recordkeeping systems and (2) portable smart cards
carried by workers (currently being used in British Columbia). Workers
could also take their records manually from one employer to the next.
This might work for employment of one or two years, but would be
cumbersome and inefficient over a working lifetime. OSHA seeks
information on successful approaches for maintaining and transferring
medical records used in the construction industry, whether maintained
by the company, state, union, trade association, or other groups. What
problems have surfaced in these efforts? What costs are incurred and
how are the delivery of services structured between the involved
parties? In any shared record system, how is the privacy of the
employee's medical data protected? For what duration should employers
be required to retain records?
B. Other Hearing Conservation Issues Raised by NIOSH in its Criteria
Document
Most of the issues raised by NIOSH in their 1998 criteria for a
recommended noise standard have been discussed throughout this
document. However, NIOSH made additional recommendations, three of
which are discussed below.
1. Hazard Communication
a. Warning Signs
The general industry noise standard does not contain a provision
for warning signs and regulated areas, although the NIOSH criteria
document recommends a requirement stating that warning signs shall be
clearly visible at the entrance to or at the periphery of areas where
noise exposures routinely equal or exceed a TWA of 85 dBA (Ex. 2-1).
Should a hearing conservation rule for construction have such a
requirement? If so, should the requirement be for areas where noise
levels or noise exposures (TWAs) equal or exceed a certain level? How
should these areas be selected? Should OSHA give specific guidance on
how to post these areas? Could the posting of warning signs serve as an
alternative to noise monitoring under the assumption that the assigned
site or project is above the hearing conservation action level?
b. Noise Labeling of Equipment and Tools
Another form of hazard communication is the labeling of equipment
for noise levels at a set distance. Suter's report describes a program
for labeling products used in construction that has been adopted by the
European Economic Community (Ex. 2-2). The European construction noise
directive requires manufacturers to display labels showing either the
sound power level or sound pressure level at the operator's position.
Suter points out that in the United States an ANSI standard is being
developed for the purpose of labeling machinery and equipment. OSHA
requests data and information, including the outcomes, of any noise
labeling programs in the U.S. or abroad, as well as information about
the progress of the ANSI working group, S12 WG38. Have employers used
noise labels on equipment or tools to communicate risk of hearing loss?
2. Program Evaluation Criteria
The general industry noise standard does not include criteria for
evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs. However,
the NIOSH criteria document does contain a section on this topic and
there is a draft ANSI standard, S12.13-1991 (currently in the process
of revision), that addresses the evaluation of audiometric testing
programs. NIOSH recommends a two-step process: (1) The evaluation of an
individual worker's hearing loss prevention program at the time of the
annual audiometric test, and (2) Annual evaluation on a programmatic
level.
OSHA seeks information on methods to evaluate the success of
hearing conservation programs in construction. If the occurrence of an
STS is used as the measure of hearing loss, what rates of STSs are seen
in effective programs, i.e., when does an employer know that the
program is working? What other benchmarks can be used to evaluate a
successful program in construction? OSHA also seeks information on the
advisability of using the provisions of the draft ANSI standard,
S12.13, for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservation
programs through the examination of audiometric data. Is this method
practical and does it produce useful results? Is there a simple self-
evaluation tool that can be used by small employers?
3. ANSI Standards
NIOSH also recommended that any new hearing conservation
requirements should incorporate the current ANSI standards intended to
improve performance and calibration criteria for audiometric testing,
audiometric booths and vans, dosimeters, and sound level instruments.
Table 2 below briefly summarizes the relevant ANSI standards. Should
OSHA adopt the most recent ANSI standards? Please provide data and
documentation supporting your position. Are any of these ANSI standards
not applicable to the construction industry?
[[Page 50618]]
Table 2.--ANSI Standards Relevant to Audiometric Testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type or activity Current ANSI standards Select requirement changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiometers.......................................... ANSI S3.6-1996............................. Tighter tolerances and criteria, multiple changes.
Audiometric test booths and vans..................... ANSI S3.1-1999............................. Less background noise permitted.
Noise Calibration, Calibrators....................... ANSI S1.40-1984............................ Tighter tolerances possible.
Integrating/Average Sound Level Meters............... ANSI S1.43-1997............................ Broader performance range, 80-140 dB, TWA measures
steady intermittent and impulsive sounds.
Noise Dosimeters..................................... ANSI S1.25-1991............................ Same as above, 80-140 Db.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Noise and Safety on the Construction Site
Suter's work discusses the possible link between noise, hearing
loss, and the occurrence of accidents in the construction industry, as
well as studies of this problem in other industries (ship building,
general industry) (Exs. 2-2; 2-6). OSHA seeks information and data on
construction worker accidents associated with or caused by excessive
construction project noise or noise-induced hearing loss, including
individual accident investigation reports, and research results. The
Agency also seeks information on the availability of warning signals,
such as reverse alarms on heavy vehicles that are specially designed to
be audible in the noise environments typical of construction sites or
by workers with noise-induced hearing loss. Are there alternatives to
reverse alarms (visual as well as acoustical) that have proven to be
effective?
D. Noise Exposure Control
While OSHA is not considering changes to its requirements for
controlling workplace noise levels at this time, the Agency is
interested in obtaining information concerning the methods employers
have used to successfully control or reduce noise levels on
construction projects. This data may be used for several purposes,
including:
Identifying and establishing best practices
Updating OSHA and NIOSH training materials
Identifying effective engineering and administrative
controls
1. Engineering and Administrative Controls
In construction, as in general industry, the preferred methods of
abating the noise hazard are the use of engineering and administrative
controls. OSHA solicits noise exposure data and noise abatement
information from the manufacturers of equipment and tools used in the
construction industry that emit high levels of noise and thus expose
the operators and those working nearby to potentially hazardous noise
levels. The Agency is particularly interested in noise exposure and
noise abatement information on two major sources of construction noise:
(1) Heavy equipment, such as loaders, dozers, asphalt spreaders, power
shovels, crawler and other kinds of cranes, and (2) graders, and
pneumatic tools, such as jackhammers and chipping guns.
What are the noise exposures of operators of heavy equipment and
those who work nearby? What progress has been made over the last two
decades to control the noise of heavy construction equipment? Are
quieter tools powered by means other than pneumatic power available for
the kinds of construction jobs traditionally done by pneumatic tools?
Are these tools as efficient and cost-effective as the pneumatic
versions? Please provide data on the availability of quieter equipment
and tools, price quotes, productivity information, and any other data
that would be helpful in determining the relative cost-effectiveness of
purchasing quieter equipment. What types of engineering and
administrative controls have proved most effective? How have these
controls affected operations on construction sites?
2. Machine Design, Retrofit, and Substitutions
OSHA seeks information on quieter tools, equipment, or processes
for the construction industry that have been developed either in the
U.S. or abroad that could be substituted for existing noisy tools,
equipment, and processes. The Agency also requests information from
equipment manufacturers, noise control engineers, and others involved
in the purchase, use, or modification of equipment or parts of
equipment used in construction on those features of machine design and
retrofit (including installation of mufflers, power rating of the
engine, presence of enclosed, sound-insulated cabs) affecting the noise
exposure of workers operating the equipment or working in the vicinity
of such equipment. Please provide specific information on the types and
noise emission levels (both sound power and sound pressure levels, if
available), as well as information on the cost-effectiveness of various
types of ``quiet'' construction equipment now being marketed and used
in the construction industry. In commercial, road and bridge and
residential construction, control of which types of equipment would
have the greatest impact in reducing the number of people exposed and
the intensity of exposure? Has any study or modeling been done in this
area?
3. Administrative Controls
Administrative controls include changes in the work schedule or the
provision of quiet areas to allow workers to recover from TTS. To what
degree are administrative controls feasible or desirable in the
construction industry? What administrative controls are used for noise
control in the construction industry? How are such controls
implemented? What are the costs? Are there any data on the
effectiveness of administrative controls in the construction industry?
Do certain construction operations preclude the use of administrative
controls? If so, which are they, and why do they make the use of such
controls difficult or impossible?
III. Authority
This document was prepared under the direction of John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20210. It is
issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); section 107 of the
Construction Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (Construction Safety
Act) (40 U.S.C. 333); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 6-96 (65 FR
50017); and 29 CFR Part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, July 31, 2002.
John L. Henshaw,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 02-19691 Filed 8-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P