The hearing conservation amendment: 25 years later

Abstract

It has been twenty-five years since the final version of the Hearing Conservation Amendment was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the U.S. Department of Labor. Since that time, some things have changed and others have stayed exactly the same. Certainly the noise-exposed workforce is more knowledgeable about the hazards of noise, and the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs) has greatly increased. There have been significant strides in the technology for measuring noise and for protecting hearing through HPDs. But there is considerable room for improvement. Some of the noise regulation's provisions are embarrassingly outdated, some are in dire need of improvement, and others, such as the requirements for engineering noise control, are not being enforced. Sadly, there seems to be little progress in reducing overall noise exposure levels. What needs to be done at this point is a major overhaul of the noise regulation: recommitment to engineering noise control; reduction of the permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 85 dBA; a shift to the 3-dBA exchange rate; and a nationwide assessment of hearing loss in American workers to determine the effectiveness of current hearing conservation measures to identify and address the weaknesses in programs and regulations.

Effects of a low intensity intervention to increase hearing protector use among noise‐exposed workers

“…Unlike workers in general industry, most farmers work in an OSHA-exempt, non-regulated workplace [Suter, 2009]. They are not protected by the OSHA Hearing Conservation Standard (i.e., noise level monitoring and a hearing conservation program for at-risk employees which includes audiometric testing, training, and provision of HPDs [Suter, 2009]. Also, because most farms in the US are small, family-run organizations, there is no labor advocacy for worker hearing health or work-based health programs [Murphy, 1992].…”

“…Also, because most farms in the US are small, family-run organizations, there is no labor advocacy for worker hearing health or work-based health programs [Murphy, 1992]. Farmers, unlike most workers, are ''on their own'' to determine when hearing protection should be worn, which types are suitable, where to purchase, and how much to pay for HPDs [Suter, 2009]. Because of this, many farmers may underestimate their exposure to noise hazards and consequences of noise exposure, and may not be knowledgeable about NIHL prevention techniques.…”

Comparison of occupational noise legislation in the Americas: An overview and analysis

“…It is important to note that the US OSHA regulation is one of the few in the world that uses a PEL of 90 dBA and the 5-dB exchange rate. [55] These are factors that bear on the prevalence of noise-induced hearing loss, making the US current occupational regulations unjustifi able and increasingly unconscionable. The result is unfortunate, given that the legislation in the USA is commonly considered as a reference for other countries, particularly those in the course of development.…”

A vision of the environmental and occupational noise pollution in Malaysia

“…[55] To further encourage the conservational capabilities, a new alliance between the government and consensus organizations, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, NIOSH, and National Hearing Conservation Association associated with individual perceptions of vulnerability, seriousness of the hearing loss threat, and OSH for the development of good hearing health and best management practices should be promoted. [56] …”