Saying fewer workers will be affected than some opponents may realize, NHCA noted the noise control requirement is triggered only when workers have eight-hour average exposures over 90 dBA.

NHCA Defends OSHA's Noise Exposure Change

The new enforcement policy is not yet in effect, but some groups are attacking it as an expensive, unnecessary change. The National Hearing Conservation Association supports it, however.

OSHA's proposal in October to interpret its noise exposure regulations as they are written encountered opposition almost immediately from the National Association of Manufacturers and others. This opposition caused OSHA to extend the comment period by 90 days to March 21, 2011, and announce it will conduct a stakeholders meeting sometime before that date.

Opponents object that the proposal is expensive and unnecessary. They've held the floor since OSHA announced its proposal Oct. 19, but the National Hearing Conservation Association on Dec. 20 issued the following statement defending the proposed change:

"NHCA endorses OSHA's decision to revise the current lenient enforcement policy concerning noise controls. This policy - established over 25 years ago in the absence of rulemaking or public input - does not require employers to implement feasible engineering and administrative noise controls until workers' eight-hour average exposures reach 100 dBA or greater, which is ten times more intense than the current Permissible Exposure Limit of 90 dBA. The current policy has made noise the only regulated health hazard in which OSHA has failed to acknowledge the primacy of engineering controls, and has resulted in a substantial increase in risk of hearing loss for some American workers. The alternative exposure reduction method currently allowed by OSHA for eight hour average exposures between 90 and 100 dBA is the use of earplugs or earmuffs, which have been demonstrated to provide insufficient protection for many workers, if they are used at all.

"We see OSHA's proposed change as a policy correction. That is, it does not represent the creation of a new regulation or a new policy. Rather, it represents a return to the original intent of OSHA's noise regulation, which is to institute engineering or administrative controls for employees with eight-hour average exposures over 90 dBA. OSHA's proposed definition of the word feasible (i.e., "capable of being done") will make requirements for controls consistent with OSHA's other health regulations.

"Opponents of this policy correction have raised a number of objections. In the paragraphs below, NHCA seeks to address the misperceptions on which four of these objections are based:

"The change proposed by OSHA is an attempt to alter an exposure limit outside of the rulemaking process. This proposed change will simply allow OSHA to enforce the original language and intent of the noise regulation. "It's unfortunate that there's such an outcry about this proposed change now," said Rick Neitzel, Ph.D., CIH, immediate past president of NHCA. "The real outcry should have happened 26 years ago when OSHA first established a noise control enforcement policy that was legally questionable and that effectively gutted what would otherwise have been an important occupational health protection for American workers."

"All employers whose facilities have any areas with noise levels over 90 dBA will have to implement noise controls. The need for noise controls is determined by eight-hour average exposures over 90 dBA, not noise levels over 90 dBA. This means that far fewer workers will be subject to the control requirements than if only noise levels were measured. Workplaces can have areas with noise levels over 90 dBA - even levels up to 115 dBA, depending on the length of workers' exposures - and still be in compliance with OSHA's proposed policy correction. The noise control requirement is only triggered when workers have eight-hour average exposures over 90 dBA.

"The change proposed by OSHA will have a broad and substantial economic impact that will eliminate jobs and reduce competitiveness. OSHA estimated that in 1981 about 19% of US manufacturing workers had eight hour average exposures above 90 dBA. This percentage is undoubtedly lower today because of outsourcing, automation, and other factors. Professionals in industrial hygiene and noise control engineering now estimate that about 10% of workers enrolled in hearing conservation programs are exposed to eight-hour average exposures greater than 90 dBA. These are the workers to which the new policy applies. The vast majority of US workplaces will not be affected by the proposed policy correction, though there are some industries with a higher percentage of over-exposed workers. "Those companies that are affected by the proposed change are probably experiencing ongoing problems with noise-induced hearing loss, and will benefit in the long run from exposure reduction through noise controls" said Neitzel. In addition, noise controls, which are often thought to be difficult to develop and complex to implement, can also be an inexpensive and expedient means of achieving compliance.

"The change in policy isn't needed because hearing conservation programs are working and hearing protectors are effective. Studies have shown that workers continue to lose their hearing in spite of the presence of hearing conservation programs. This is because many of these programs rely on workers' use of hearing protectors rather than noise controls. Hearing protectors are often resisted by workers, are commonly worn for insufficient durations, and fail to provide the expected noise reduction."

Download Center

  • Safety Metrics Guide

    Is your company leveraging its safety data and analytics to maintain a safe workplace? With so much data available, where do you start? This downloadable guide will give you insight on helpful key performance indicators (KPIs) you should track for your safety program.

  • Job Hazard Analysis Guide

    This guide includes details on how to conduct a thorough Job Hazard Analysis, and it's based directly on an OSHA publication for conducting JHAs. Learn how to identify potential hazards associated with each task of a job and set controls to mitigate hazard risks.

  • A Guide to Practicing “New Safety”

    Learn from safety professionals from around the world as they share their perspectives on various “new views” of safety, including Safety Differently, Safety-II, No Safety, Human and Organizational Performance (HOP), Resilience Engineering, and more in this helpful guide.

  • Lone Worker Safety Guide

    As organizations digitalize and remote operations become more commonplace, the number of lone workers is on the rise. These employees are at increased risk for unaddressed workplace accidents or emergencies. This guide was created to help employers better understand common lone worker risks and solutions for lone worker risk mitigation and incident prevention.

  • EHS Software Buyer's Guide

    Learn the keys to staying organized, staying sharp, and staying one step ahead on all things safety. This buyer’s guide is designed for you to use in your search for the safety management solution that best suits your company’s needs.

  • Vector Solutions

Featured Whitepaper

OH&S Digital Edition

  • OHS Magazine Digital Edition - June 2022

    June 2022


      Corporate Safety Culture Is Workplace Culture
      Keeping Workers Safe from Heat-Related Illnesses & Injuries
      Should Employers Consider Oral Fluid Drug Testing?
      Addressing Physical Differences
    View This Issue