Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents
• Standard Number: 1910.95(c)

(Date Unreadable)

Honorable John W. Warner
United States Senator
805 Federal Building
Norfolk, Virginia 23501

Dear Senator Warner:

Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1982, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Taylor L. Grizzard, President of the Virginia Processors Association, concerning the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) hearing conservation amendment to the occupational noise exposure standard.

In recent public hearings, OSHA received testimony from the National Broiler Council, and the Agency has also received numerous comments and letters from poultry slaughtering and processing companies. We are pleased to receive their comments and we have entered them into the public record of the noise standard and the hearing conservation amendment. OSHA staff members will take these comments into consideration as they draft the final decisions on certain elements of the standard.

With respect to the problem of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) requirement for non-absorbent (and therefore reflective) surfaces, we feel that there is no regulatory conflict in this case. The hearing conservation amendment does not require that the noise level be reduced to 85 dB, only that a hearing conservation program be implemented. We do recognize that hard surfaces produce reverberant conditions that tend to augment existing noise levels, and that this condition makes higher exposures, consequently increasing the need for poultry processors to maintain hearing conservation programs.

As you know, this administration is sensitive to the problems of business, and to those of small business in particular, and the Agency is searching for cost-effective solutions to problems that also will be protective of workers' health and safety. In light of the high cost of engin