Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules 29679

1The Access Board is an independent Federal

agency established by section 502 of the

Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792) whose primary

mission is to promote accessibility for individuals

with disabilities. The Access Board consists of 25

members. Thirteen are appointed by the President

from among the public, a majority of who are

required to be individuals with disabilities. The

other twelve are heads of the following Federal

agencies or their designees whose positions are

Executive Level IV or above: The departments of

Health and Human Services, Education,

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,

Labor, Interior, Defense, Justice, Veterans Affairs,

and Commerce; General Services Administration;

and United States Postal Service.

channel 13, that the Belt Line Railroad

Bridge is closing for river traffic. In each

of these three announcements, the

bridge/train controller will request all

concerned river traffic to please

acknowledge on marine channel 13.

(5) The bridge shall only be operated

from the remote site if closed circuit

visual and radar information shows

there are no vessels in the area and no

opposing radio communications have

been received.

(6) While the Belt Line Bridge is

moving from the full open position to

the full closed position, the bridge/train

controller will maintain constant

surveillance of the navigational channel

to ensure no conflict with maritime

traffic exists. In the event of failure of

a camera or the radar system, or loss of

marine-radio communications, the

bridge shall not be operated by the offsite bridge/train controller from the

remote location.

(7) If the off-site bridge/train

controller’s visibility of the navigational

channel is less than 3⁄4 of a mile, the

bridge shall not be operated from the

remote location.

(8) When the draw cannot be operated

form the remote site, a bridgetender

must be called to operate the bridge in

the traditional on-site manner.

(9) The Belt Line mid-channel lights

will change from green to red anytime

the bridge is not in the full open

position.

(10) During the downward and

upward span movement, a warning

alarm will sound until the bridge is

seated and locked down or in the full

open position.

(11) When the bridge has returned to

its full up position, the mid-channel

light will turn from red to green, and the

controller will announce over marine

radio channel 13, ‘‘Security, security,

security, the Belt Line bridge is open for

river traffic.’’ Operational information

will be provided 24 hours a day on

marine channel 13 and via telephone

(757) 543–1996 or (757) 545–2941.

* * * * *

Dated: May 20, 1998.

Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,

Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander,

Fifth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 98–14394 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–M

ARCHITECTURAL AND

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Chapter XI

[Docket No. 98–4]

Petition for Rulemaking; Request for

Information on Acoustics

AGENCY: Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board.

ACTION: Request for information.

SUMMARY: The Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board has received a petition for

rulemaking from a parent of a child with

a hearing loss requesting that the ADA

Accessibility Guidelines be amended to

include new provisions for acoustical

accessibility in schools for children who

are hard of hearing. Several acoustics

professionals, parents of children with

hearing impairments, individuals who

are hard of hearing, and a consortium of

organizations representing them have

also urged the Board to consider

research and rulemaking on the

acoustical performance of buildings and

facilities, in particular school

classrooms and related student

facilities. The Board seeks comment on

the issues outlined in this request for

information. After evaluating responses

to this request for information, the

Board will determine a course of action.

Alternatives under consideration

include research, rulemaking, and

technical assistance on acoustical

issues.

DATES: Comments should be received by

July 31, 1998. Late comments will be

considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Office of Technical and Information

Services, Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board, 1331 F Street NW., suite 1000,

Washington, DC 20004–1111. E-mail

comments should be sent to

acoustic@access-board.gov. Comments

sent by e-mail will be considered only

if they include the full name and

address of the sender in the text. The

petition and comments are available for

inspection at the above address from

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on regular

business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois

Thibault, Office of Technical and

Information Services, Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board, 1331 F Street NW., suite 1000,

Washington, DC 20004–1111.

Telephone number (202) 272–5434

extension 32 (voice); (202) 272–5449

(TTY). These are not toll-free numbers.

Electronic mail address:

thibault@access-board.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Copies and Electronic

Access

Single copies of this publication may

be obtained at no cost by calling the

Access Board’s automated publications

order line (202) 272–5434, by pressing

1 on the telephone keypad, then 1 again,

and requesting publication C–11.

Persons using a TTY should call (202)

272–5449. Please record a name,

address, telephone number and request

publication C–11. This document is

available in alternate formats upon

request. Persons who want a copy in an

alternate format should specify the type

of format (cassette tape, Braille, large

print, or computer disk). The petition

and this request for information are also

posted on the Board’s Internet site at

http://www.access-board.gov/rules/

acoustic.htm.

Background

The Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board 1 (Access

Board) is responsible for developing

accessibility guidelines under the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

(ADA) to ensure that new construction

and alterations of facilities covered by

the law are readily accessible to and

usable by individuals with disabilities.

The Access Board initially issued the

Americans with Disabilities Act

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) in

1991. The guidelines contain scoping

provisions and technical specifications

for designing elements and spaces that

typically comprise a building and its

site so that individuals with disabilities

will have ready access to and use of a

facility.

Although ADAAG contains a number

of provisions for access to

communications, including

requirements for text telephones,

assistive listening systems, and visible

alarms, it does not include provisions

for the acoustical design or performance

of spaces within buildings and facilities.
29680 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules

2Under the ADA, the Departments of Justice and

Transportation are responsible for issuing

regulations to implement titles II and III of the Act.

The regulations must include accessibility

standards for newly constructed and altered

facilities. The standards must be consistent with the

accessibility guidelines issued by the Access Board.

The Department of Justice and the Department of

Transportation regulations currently include

ADAAG 1–10.

The Department of Justice (DOJ)

regulations implementing titles II and III

of the ADA contain additional

requirements for communications with

individuals with disabilities and for

auxiliary aids and devices to aid in

communication.2

On April 6, 1997, the Access Board

received a petition for rulemaking from

a parent of a child with a severe to

profound hearing loss requesting that

the Board address ‘‘architectural

acoustics in schools’’ and develop ‘‘new

rules’’ for children who are hard-ofhearing. The petition argues that

children who have hearing and other

disabilities, including learning, auditory

processing, speech and language, and

developmental disabilities, face

numerous communications barriers in

schools because of poor acoustics and

that these barriers may prevent them

from receiving a meaningful education.

The petition requests that the Board

develop ‘‘acoustical guidelines * * *

[to] ensure adequately low noise and

reverberation so that the speech-to-noise

ratio and speech-to-reverberation ratio

allow satisfactory communication and

learning.’’

A consortium of organizations

representing persons with disabilities

(Alexander Graham Bell Association for

the Deaf, Inc., the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association (ASHA),

Auditory-Verbal International, Inc., the

National Center for Law and Deafness,

the National Cued Speech Association,

and Self Help for Hard of Hearing

People (SHHH)) submitted comments to

the Board in previous rulemakings

asserting that a poor acoustical

environment is as significant a barrier to

individuals with hearing, speech, and

language impairments as stairs are to

persons who use wheelchairs.

The consortium’s comments included

a position paper on acoustics in

educational settings developed by

ASHA in 1994. The paper cited data on

the increasing prevalence of hearing

loss, particularly among children and

young adults, and reported on research

that identified children with mild

hearing losses as more at risk for general

psychosocial dysfunction and lags in

academic progress than were children

with normal hearing. Other cited studies

showed the relationship between poor

room acoustics and low speech

comprehension in children with

hearing, learning, and developmental

disabilities. Reverberant classrooms

with high ambient noise levels were

identified as significant contributors to

communications difficulties. The

position paper included a number of

recommendations for the acoustical

performance of classrooms to improve

conditions for listening, hearing, and

understanding speech.

Other commenters to ADAAG

rulemakings noted that the acoustics of

many restaurants adversely affected the

ability of individuals who are hard of

hearing to communicate with

companions and with service staff. In

response, the Access Board contracted

with Batelle, a research organization in

Columbus, OH, to study improved

speech communication for persons with

hearing impairments in dining areas. A

literature study, post-occupancy

evaluations of several facilities, and

recommendations were developed by

Batelle engineers and reviewed by an

eight-member advisory panel. The

authors identified background noise

levels and reverberation as the

acoustical characteristics most subject to

design and construction manipulation

and most significant for adequate

speech communication. Several panel

members suggested that other facility

types, particularly schools, could

benefit from the application of such

acoustical requirements.

Hearing Loss and Other Disabilities

Government health statistics

document that more Americans report a

hearing loss than any other disability,

and the incidence of hearing loss has

increased significantly in the last 25

years. A recent assessment by the

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) found that 13% of a

representative sample of children

between the ages of 6 and 19 had a high

frequency hearing loss and 7% a low

frequency hearing loss of 16 dB or more,

a level at which perceiving and

understanding words would be affected.

Increasing numbers of young children

experience mild temporary and

recurring hearing loss caused by otitis

media, an inflammation of the middle

ear that is the most frequent medical

diagnosis for children. Research also

shows that children with learning,

speech, and developmental disabilities

have a higher incidence of abnormal

hearing and of repeated instances of ear

problems. ‘‘Hearing Loss: The Journal of

Self Help for Hard of Hearing People’’

reported in 1997 that one-fourth to onethird of the students in typical

kindergarten and first-grade classrooms

will not hear normally on a given day.

Speech Communication

Effective speech reception—

understanding, not just hearing—is the

primary educational issue for people

with auditory disabilities. A Cornell

University study published in the

journal ‘‘Environment and Behavior’’

indicates that excessive classroom noise

impedes the acquisition of language and

cognitive skills by all children. The

acquisition of language is necessary for

brain and intellectual development.

Research with children who are deaf has

shown that the mastery of a system of

communication is essential to future

learning and that failure to acquire

effective language skills by the age of six

cannot be fully remediated.

Language acquisition is dependent in

large part upon exposure to an

organized system of communication,

such as a signed, voiced, or tactile

language. For children who will use

voice communication, the intelligibility

of the spoken language is a critical

factor. Speech intelligibility is a

measure of the proportion of the spoken

message that gets through to the listener,

and is affected by signal volume, the

distance between the speaker and

listener, and the acoustic characteristics

of the room, including background noise

levels and reverberation time.

A large body of clinical and scientific

research supports the particular need for

good acoustics in teaching

environments. The Acoustical Society of

America (ASA) has established a

Classroom Acoustics Subcommittee of

its Architectural Acoustics Committee

that has held four symposia on

classroom acoustics issues. At an ASA

conference held in June 1997,

researchers presented evidence that

excessive noise levels impair a young

child’s speech perception, reading and

spelling ability, behavior, attention, and

overall academic performance.

Because the ability to understand

speech does not mature in children

before the age of 15, children are less

effective listeners generally than are

adults. Additionally, children have less

experience in deriving meaning from

context. A representative sample of

children without hearing loss or other

audiological disability, even when

tested in above-average listening

environments, could make out only

71% of a teacher’s words. Those in the

worst environments ‘‘got’’ only 30% of

the message directed at them.

The listening abilities of children

with hearing impairments, particularly

those with mild to moderate hearing

loss, are even more affected by poor

acoustics than are those of children

whose hearing falls within normal
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules 29681

ranges. A 1997 study of children with

minimal sensorineural hearing loss

showed lower scores for basic skills and

communications testing and a high

rate—37%—of retention in grade. In

addition, these students functioned

below normally hearing children in

evaluations of behavior, energy, stress,

social support, and self-esteem. Other

studies have shown that children with

learning and developmental disabilities

perform less effectively in noisy spaces.

In their chapter on ‘‘Speech

Perception in Specific Populations’’

(from the book ‘‘Sound-Field FM

Amplification’’), Drs. Carl Crandell,

Joseph Smaldino, and Carol Flexer have

identified at-risk populations as young

students generally (less than 13–15

years of age); children who have a

history of otitis media, children for

whom English is a second language, and

children with auditory disabilities,

including those with hearing loss,

central auditory processing deficits,

learning disabilities, developmental

delay, and attention, speech, and

language disorders.

Acoustical Performance of Rooms and

Spaces

In analyzing how effectively an

individual can hear and understand in

a given space, an acoustician or

audiologist will consider three criteria:

Distance from the sound source (the

‘signal’), the level of background sound

(noise), and the effects of reverberation.

By controlling background noise levels

and room reverberation time, designers

can provide good speech intelligibility,

measured by the signal-to-noise ratio.

The signal-to-noise ratio is the

relationship between the loudness of the

message and the background sound it

must overcome to be heard and

understood. A significantly positive

signal-to-noise ratio is necessary for

maximum performance where room

sound levels are high; children with

hearing impairments require a higher

signal-to-noise ratio than do children

with normal hearing.

Distance from the source has a

significant effect on signal-to-noise

ratio, since the loudness of a direct

sound falls off in proportion to the

distance between the speaker and

listener. Children with hearing

impairments and other disabilities

affecting listening need to maintain a

consistent and close relationship with

the sound source. Speech intelligibility

can be enhanced by delivery and

performance styles, by the use of

reflective surfaces at the speaking

location, and by amplification.

Background noise—whether from

heating, ventilating, and air

conditioning (HVAC) systems, other

noise generated within the space, or

outside noise—also interferes with

effective listening because it competes

with the spoken message. High

background noise values across the

frequencies of speech (500 to 2000 Hz)

require louder speech signals to

overcome. Background noise (or

ambient sound) design criteria are

typically expressed as a range between

two noise criteria (NC) curves, which

plot sound levels across 8 standard

frequencies. Sound levels in existing

spaces can be tested at these frequencies

using a sound meter. The NC rating for

a room is typically between 5 to 10

points below the dBA reading. Design

engineers can specify HVAC equipment

with low noise ratings and limit sound

generated by system operation in a

variety of ways. Rooms and spaces can

be protected from unwanted exterior

sound by mass, insulation, and isolation

in wall and slab construction and by

minimizing (or sound protecting)

openings.

Reverberation—reflected sound that

persists within a room or space—also

masks the sound of the spoken message

and increases background sound levels.

The longer the reverberation time, the

greater the effect. Reverberation is

expressed in seconds (R60), measured as

the time it takes for sound to decay 60

dB after the source has stopped

producing it. Reverberation is a function

of the physical properties of the room

and can be calculated if the volume,

surface area, and surface absorbencies of

a space are known. Reverberation can be

controlled by a manipulation of the

absorbency of surfaces within a space

and the proportions and volume of the

space.

When reverberation time and

background noise are controlled, speech

effort and sound levels decline, leading

to a reduction in room noise. It has been

estimated that over 90% of those who

have a hearing loss have usable residual

hearing and would benefit from an

enhanced speech environment. Where

classrooms and child care centers do not

provide acceptable listening conditions,

even amplification will not achieve

maximum effect in improving speech

communication. Poor acoustics can also

compromise the effectiveness of

personal hearing aids and devices and

limit the usefulness of auxiliary aids

and services. Good acoustics can

enhance the usefulness of such aids and

improve listener reception of

unamplified speech, as may occur in

group interchange. Because most mild

hearing losses in children are not

diagnosed, children with such losses

(15–25 dB), including those with

temporary hearing loss due to otitis

media, will not generally be using

amplification devices.

Many groups concerned with the

acoustics of educational environments

recommended that new implementing

regulations for the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

currently being developed by the U.S.

Department of Education, require that

services for covered students be

delivered in an acoustically appropriate

environment. Two cases have been

reported to the Board in which IDEA or

Rehabilitation Act decisions directed

that the room acoustics in existing

school classrooms be improved to

accommodate children with hearing

loss. Requirements that students with

disabilities be educated in the least

restrictive environment mean that every

classroom is likely to have a youngster

with a diagnosed auditory disability in

attendance; additionally, during the

course of a school year, many children

will be temporarily affected by mild and

possibly recurring hearing loss

associated with otitis media and other

illnesses.

Classroom Acoustics

Studies of classrooms around the

country and test data submitted by

parents and acoustical consultants

indicate that classrooms and day care

facilities are not being designed to

provide adequate speech intelligibility

even for children without auditory

impairments. Research on seven childcare facilities in Canada documented

noise conditions in four centers that

exceeded the 75 dB limit considered

safe for day-long exposure for adults by

the World Health Organization. Open

plan centers had particularly excessive

noise levels and were reported to have

more health problems among children

and staff as well as other disadvantages.

Acoustical treatment that reduced

reverberation time in the noisiest setting

from 1.6 seconds to .6 seconds resulted

in a 5 dB decrease in sound level and

staff assessments of substantial

improvement in comfort. A 1994 survey

of school facility conditions conducted

by the General Accounting Office (GAO)

reported that poor acoustics were

ranked by administrators as the most

significant problem affecting the

learning environment. Twenty-eight

percent of responding schools identified

acoustics for noise control as being

unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory.

Eleven million children were estimated

to be affected. Of these, CDC estimates

suggest, more than a million and a half

children may have a temporary or

permanent hearing loss.
29682 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Acoustical Design Standards and

Guidelines

Reverberation and background noise

limits are common elements in existing

acoustical standards, recommendations,

and good-practice guidelines for

classroom design and construction.

Audiometry rooms and educational

classrooms designed specifically for

persons with auditory impairments have

short reverberation times and very low

background noise levels. Similar

requirements are applied to rooms such

as broadcast and recording studios,

including teleconferencing facilities,

where speech communication is the

primary function, and in sound testing

facilities such as anechoic chambers.

Low background noise and short

reverberation times contribute to

positive sound-to-noise ratios, maximal

sound transmission indices, and high

speech intelligibility values.

Achievements in the design of concert

hall acoustics and specialized

environments for materials testing and

measurement demonstrate that good

hearing environments can be

accomplished with current design,

modeling, construction, and testing

procedures. It appears that a consensus

on the general scope and content of

acoustical performance criteria for

classrooms is developing among

audiologists, acousticians, and

consumers and that existing acoustical

guidelines for educational and other

facilities may be adaptable for

incorporation into ADAAG.

While some factors—for instance, a

rise in exterior noise levels due to a

change in nearby noise sources—are

beyond the control of the design

professional, ‘bad’ acoustics are largely

architectural problems, solvable by

architectural means. Architects and

other design professionals routinely

practice simple acoustical design

procedures in specifying floor, wall, and

ceiling finishes. Acousticians are

regularly retained for the more

demanding design and engineering of

music and performance facilities.

Several software programs are available

to model the acoustical performance of

spaces that have been designed but not

built. Criteria for the acoustical design

of spaces are widely available in

textbooks and technical publications.

Acoustical testing protocols are

developed and maintained by several

private sector organizations. The

American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) issues standards

that include the acoustical performance

of equipment installed in buildings and

facilities. The American National

Standards Institute (ANSI), in

conjunction with the ASA, has

established several protocols for the

measurement of room sound levels,

including ANSI S12.2 Criteria for Room

Noise Measurement. ANSI has recently

established a committee to develop a

classroom acoustics standard. Foreign

and international standards also exist.

Model codes contain both standards and

requirements for sound-rated

construction components in multifamily housing and other occupancy

types. The developers and operators of

hotel, medical, and housing facilities

typically establish similar acoustical

standards for sound transmission

through floors, walls, structure, and

HVAC systems.

‘‘Architectural Acoustics’’, by M.

David Egan (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1988), a

standard reference work for design

professionals, recommends a

background noise level of less than 20

dB (NC–20) for critical music

performance (including broadcast and

recording studios) and audiological

spaces; a range of NC–20 to NC–30 for

less demanding, speech-focused halls

and rooms, and NC–30 to NC–35 for

classrooms. Recommended

reverberation limits range between .6

and .8 seconds. The author notes,

however, that NC curves to provide

satisfactory listening environments for

persons with hearing impairments need

to be lower by 5 (resulting in a

recommendation of NC–25 to NC–30 for

classrooms serving adults with hearing

loss). Egan recommends that

reverberation time in such rooms should

not exceed .5 seconds.

The ASA recommends an average

reverberation time in classrooms

between .6 seconds minimum and .8

seconds maximum; ambient room noise,

when measured without occupants,

between 30 dBA minimum and 35 dBA

maximum; room criteria (RC) curve—

used to measure HVAC and equipmentgenerated noise—should not exceed

RC–25, and the signal-to-noise ratio

should be able to achieve +15 dB. The

ASA has recently established a multicommittee initiative to work on the

development of guidelines for acoustics.

A workshop seminar was held in Los

Angeles in December 1997 to begin the

process of developing consensus

recommendations.

The ASHA recommends that noise

levels in unoccupied classrooms not

exceed 30 dBA (or a NC–20 curve) and

that reverberation time not exceed .4

seconds across speech frequencies.

Signal-to-noise ratios (measured at the

student’s ear) should exceed +15 dB.

Dr. Crandell et al. recommend that

elementary and secondary school

classrooms for ‘at-risk’ students should

have unoccupied ambient noise levels

that do not exceed NC–25 or a sound

pressure level of 35 dBA and a

reverberation time that does not exceed

.4 seconds in the speech frequency

range.

Portugal’s classroom noise standards,

adopted in 1988, limit reverberation

time in general classrooms to .6–.8

seconds and in special classrooms to .6

seconds; equipment background noise

may not exceed 35 dBA. Wall

construction between classrooms must

have a sound transmission class (STC)

rating of at least 50 dB. The Swedish

Board of Housing, Building and

Planning has adopted Building

Regulations BBR 94, with amendments,

that include detailed guidelines for

protection against noise for several

building types, including schools, by

means of specified areas of sound

absorbent surfaces within classrooms,

acoustical isolation between classrooms,

and limits on background noise from

building systems and equipment.

The State of Washington Department

of Health rules, WAC 248–64–320

Sound Control, include a limit (NC–35)

on background noise in classrooms. The

Los Angeles County Unified School

District—the largest in the world in

numbers of students enrolled—has

recently adopted a similar standard for

the noise output of classroom HVAC

equipment. ANSI S12.2–1995 suggests

an NC range of 25–30 for classrooms

and an RC in the same range. A tabular

comparison of values for acoustical

criteria in classrooms is presented in

Table 1.

Other bases for prescribing and testing

acoustical characteristics, including

values for speech-to-noise ratio and the

speech transmission index (STI), may be

applied to diagnose existing acoustical

conditions in classrooms, but do not

appear useful in a new construction

standard. The STI takes into account the

effects of noise and reverberation and

can be adjusted to obtain values for

listeners with hearing impairments.

Both rely on in-use measurements.

Cost

High-performing acoustical

environments are achieved at some

premium in construction cost.

Knowledgeable design, construction,

and materials specification, an

investment in high-quality HVAC

equipment, and careful installation and

workmanship are required to ensure

that design values are reflected in

performance. Special consideration of

room configuration, proportion, and

location may also be necessary.

Furthermore, the measures necessary to
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules 29683

control sound in classrooms may raise

other issues affecting cost. For instance,

carpeting is recommended to add

absorbency for reverberation control and

to minimize the self-noise of student

movement. However, carpeting may

require a change in maintenance

procedures. Controlling ambient noise

in many urban schools may require that

windows be kept closed even in

pleasant weather, when HVAC systems

might operate at lesser capacities.

Students with moderate to severe

hearing impairments may also require

the use of amplification systems to

increase speech intelligibility to

effective values.

ADAAG Criteria

To be useful, acoustical

recommendations and standards should

employ design techniques, data, and

sound measurement protocols available

and familiar to architecture,

engineering, and construction

practitioners and applicable during

design phases. Like a building code,

ADAAG is intended for use in new

construction and alterations of buildings

and facilities. It contains provisions for

construction elements, items, and

finishes that are fixed to the building

structure. Furniture and equipment,

including portable communications

devices, are covered by the DOJ

regulation, not ADAAG.

The Board recognizes that

amplification technologies may be

required for effective communications

in some rooms and spaces and for some

individuals. Such solutions, including

those that use portable assistive

listening systems and sound field

technology, are beyond the scope of the

building and facility provisions in

ADAAG. However, such technologies

cannot be fully effective in noisy

environments; amplification in highly

reverberant environments will

exacerbate listening and hearing

problems. Furthermore, the

effectiveness of personal devices,

particularly hearing aids, is also

compromised in noisy environments.

And, because the learning environment

includes interaction with peers and

other individuals in classrooms and

other settings, instructor amplification

only may not fully remove barriers to

hearing, listening, and learning where

acoustical design is flawed.

Based upon public comments to this

notice and on information already

available and outlined in this notice, the

Board will consider whether it is

appropriate for ADAAG to include

criteria for such acoustical performance

characteristics as reverberation time and

background noise. Several nonrulemaking options will also be

considered, including additional

research, the development of advisory

materials, and guidance and technical

assistance for design professionals.

In response to the petition, the Board

wishes to focus this request for

information on the acoustical

performance of classrooms and related

spaces used by children, including day

care settings for pre-primary ages.

However, the Board will consider

comments and recommendations on the

scope and technical provisions of

acoustical criteria appropriate for

buildings and facilities and other

occupancies, as well.

The Board seeks relevant research,

standards, data, test reports, analyses,

and recommendations from acoustical

engineers and consultants, design

professionals, educators and

educational administrators and

counselors, audiologists, specialists in

hearing impairments, parents of

children with disabilities and persons

with hearing, speech, and language

disabilities, including learning and

developmental disorders, and the

organizations that represent them.

Commenters are encouraged to address

their responses to the issues outlined

below.

Question 1: Implementing acoustical

guidelines in educational facilities for

children may be necessary for

youngsters with auditory and related

disabilities to function effectively in

school. (a) Should all rooms and spaces

within a school setting be included in

coverage? Some comment has identified

gymnasiums, pools, and cafeterias as

particularly problematic for students

with hyperacusis, a heightened

sensitivity to noise, and for those with

learning and auditory processing

disabilities. Such facilities are often

highly reverberant due to their large

areas of hard, sound-reflective surfaces.

(b) Should acoustic guidelines include

coverage of these spaces? Would a less

stringent standard be appropriate in

non-classroom school facilities? What

acoustical properties are appropriate in

multi-purpose spaces that accommodate

recreation, performance, and food

service activities at different times

during a school day? (c) In view of the

importance of early language

acquisition, how should child care

settings be covered? Are there acoustical

criteria in current health and safety

standards for child care facilities? (d)

Should the Board consider the

development of guidelines for a wider

range of facility types for a more

universal range of users? If so, what

facilities might be included?

Question 2: The Board has received

information on several cases in which

the acoustical environment was an issue

in an Individualized Education Plan

prepared by a school system for a child

with a hearing impairment. Would a

common standard for the acoustical

design of educational facilities be

helpful to design professionals seeking

to provide acoustically satisfactory

environments and to school systems

seeking to comply with educational

mandates for children with disabilities?

Are current design manuals,

recommendations, and other technical

assistance on acoustical design

sufficient?

Question 3: There is considerable

research that shows that controlling

classroom noise and reverberation will

benefit student learning. However, it is

not clear at what levels effective

listening by children with mild,

moderate, severe, or profound hearing

losses and other disabilities is

compromised and whether such

conditions can be achieved in some

classroom environments, where ‘‘selfnoise’’ and student activity also

contribute to a poor listening

environment. (a) Is there research that

identifies the specific acoustic

requirements necessary for effective

listening by children with various

hearing, speaking, and learning

disabilities? What acoustical

performance and testing standards are

appropriate for classrooms in which

children with auditory disabilities are

integrated? Are there data that relate

specific acoustical criteria to the

usability of buildings and facilities by

children with learning disabilities,

developmental disabilities, and other

disabilities that affect speech reception,

learning, and communication? (b) What

are the relative contributions of low

reverberation values and low

background noise values to effective

communication for people with hearing

loss? (c) Can the acoustical environment

be improved sufficiently through design

and construction measures for children

with hearing and other impairments to

receive significant communications

benefit?

Question 4: The Board also seeks

information on the acoustical

environment necessary for effective use

of assistive technology, including

hearing aids and assistive listening

devices, by children with hearing loss.

Because assistive technologies will be

part of many student accommodations,

the Board is interested in the extent to

which poor acoustics compromise the

effectiveness of technologies such as

sound field enhancement (in which the

amplified voice of a teacher fitted with
29684 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules

a microphone can be distributed to

speakers placed around the perimeter of

a classroom) and direct broadcast to

children with hearing loss through

personal assistive listening devices. At

what thresholds of background sound

and reverberation will children with

various degrees of hearing loss be able

to participate in meaningful classroom

listening if aided by amplification

technology? Question 5: The GAO report on school

conditions highlighted the multimedia

classroom as the educational facility of

the future. The Board is interested in

understanding the nature and

characteristics of such a classroom,

particularly the extent to which it may

be interactive, with small group

listening and discussion, multiple

inputs from speakers and media

devices, frequent changes in speakerlistener relationships, and other audio

source conditions that may not be fully

adaptable to amplification technologies. Question 6: The Board recognizes that

decisions made by building design

professionals during the design phases

of a project affect the ultimate acoustical

performance of a room or space.

Determinations of building siting,

overall facility planning, and individual

room volume and proportion, floor, wall

and ceiling assembly construction and

finishes, equipment specification, and

HVAC system design all contribute to

the acoustic functioning of a room or

space. However, most recommendations

for acoustical performance measure the

results of such design decisions, setting

limits on reverberation and background

noise. (a) Can good speech listening

conditions be achieved by setting

standards for reverberation time and

background noise only? (b) Should other

design variables, for example, room

configuration or proportion, ceiling

height, or size, be considered? The

Swedish guidelines specify wall and

ceiling construction types and values in

addition to limiting background noise.

Are these a useful model for possible

guidelines? (c) How might

considerations of speech intelligibility,

speech transmission indices, and other

measures that rely on in-use testing be

incorporated in acoustical design? What

are the margins of error in acoustical

equipment, testing, simulation, and

construction? (d) What are effective

means of acoustically retrofitting an

existing classroom or other space that

performs poorly for speech perception?

How successful can such corrective

action be in correcting perceived

hearing and listening problems? Question 7: What is the square foot

cost for new classroom construction

today? What additional square foot cost

would be necessary to meet average

industry recommendations for

reverberation time (R .6—.8 seconds)

and background noise (NC 35–40) for

classrooms? What would be the added

cost, per square foot, of achieving values

within the ranges suggested by ASA (R

.4—.6 seconds; NC 25–30)? What are the

relative costs of meeting reverberation

limits as opposed to background sound

limits? What data are available on the

costs of alterations to existing

environments to improve acoustical

conditions?

Question 8: The Board also seeks

information on the non-capital costs and

savings associated with constructing

and maintaining acousticallyappropriate classrooms and related

educational facilities. What are the cost

implications of such design and finishes

decisions and operating procedures as

room location and configuration,

window operability, and carpeting?

What savings might accrue from the

elimination of some special education

environments?

Question 9: How can compliance with

acoustical design criteria be assessed

prior to facility occupancy and use?

How can time and physical variations in

equipment manufacture, construction,

and outside noise conditions be

accommodated in a guideline? What

testing and compliance practices have

been used where standards are already

in place?

Question 10: Many teachers and

administrators have had experience

with open classrooms, in which several

teaching groups may work concurrently

in a single large space, and with

enclosed classrooms of smaller size. (a)

The Board is particularly interested in

comments offering a comparison of the

effects on students and teachers, in

particular those with disabilities, of

classroom acoustics in such situations.

(b) Do noisy classrooms exacerbate

teacher stress? Are there data available

on the effects of classroom noise on

teacher health, comfort, or performance?

(c) Do schools and systems have

information on student behavior and

performance after acoustical

improvements, including the

partitioning of open classrooms into

more discrete units, have been made?

Question 11: What approaches other

than regulation under the ADA might be

successful in achieving good acoustical

design? What organizations and

interests should be consulted in the

Board’s consideration of acoustical

issues?

Dated: May 26, 1998.

Thurman M. Davis, Sr.,

Chair, Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board.

Table 1 on recommended/required

acoustical criteria for classrooms

follows:

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules 29685
29686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 104 / Monday, June 1, 1998 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 98–14442 Filed 5–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8150–01–C