Administrative controls for reducing
 

worker noise exposures
 

E.R. Bauer and D.R. Babich 

Mining engineers, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Research
 

Laboratory, Hearing Loss Prevention Branch, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 

Abstract 

Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) continues to be a concern of the mining industry. A new noise standard 

(30 CFR, Part 62) is aimed at reducing NIHL in mining through engineering and administrative noise 

controls. However, the difficulty and expense of implementing engineering controls can make administrative 

controls an attractive alternative for reducing worker noise exposure. Over the last three years, the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has conducted worker noise exposure surveys in 

underground and surface coal mines and in coal preparation plants. The surveys revealed numerous possible 

administrative controls and an approach to implementation and analysis. The surveys have shown that worker 

dosimetry, time-motion studies and equipment noise profiling are important aspects of effectively utilizing 

administrative controls. A description of the approach for selecting, implementing and evaluating administrative controls and a list of possible administrative controls are reported. 

Introduction 

Prolonged exposure to noise can cause permanent damage to 

the auditory nerve and/or its sensory components. This damage, known as noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL), is irreversible and makes it difficult to hear and understand speech. 

NIHL is now the most common occupational disease in the 

United States, with 30 million workers exposed to excessive 

noise levels (NIOSH, 1996a). The problem is particularly 

severe in mining, with studies indicating that by age 50, 70% 

to 90% of miners have NIHL to the extent that it can be 

classified as a hearing disability (years of mining experience 

not considered in the analysis) (NIOSH, 1996b, 1997). In 

addition to government researchers, academics have reported 

that the “policies and practices for preventing occupational 

hearing loss among miners are inadequate...there are deficiencies in nearly every sector: surveillance of exposure or of 

outcome, analysis and intervention” (Weeks, 1995). 

The Federal Coal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969 

established requirements for protecting coal miners from 

excessive noise. Subsequently, the Federal Mine Safety and 

Health Act of 1977 broadened the scope to include all miners, 

regardless of mineral type (the Acts are detailed in 30 CFR, 

1997). Since the passage of these Acts, there has been some 

progress in controlling mining noise. However, data from 

more than 60,000 full-shift noise surveys conducted by the 

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) show that 

the percentage of coal miners with noise exposures exceeding 

federal regulations, unadjusted for the wearing of hearing 

protection, was 26.5% and 21.6% for surface and underground coal mining, respectively (Seiler et al., 1994). 

Despite the extensive work done in the 1970s and 1980s, 

NIHL is still a pervasive problem (Federal Register, 1996). 

Therefore, MSHA has published new Health Standards for 

Occupational Noise Exposure (Federal Register, 1999). The 

new noise standard became effective Sept. 13, 2000. One of 

the changes was the adoption of a provision similar to 

OSHA’s Hearing Conservation Amendment, where a miner 

must be enrolled in a hearing-conservation program (HCP) if 

his full-shift noise exposure is at or above the action level of 

85 dBA TWA8 or 50% dose. MSHA projected in a 1994 

survey that if an OSHA-like hearing conservation program 

were adopted, 78% of the coal miners surveyed would be 

required to be in a hearing-conservation program (Seiler and 

Giardino, 1994). Other requirements of the new regulations 

are a permissible exposure level (PEL) of 90 dBA TWA8, no 

credit for the use of personal hearing protection, and the 

primacy of engineering and administrative controls for noise 

exposure reduction. 

Administrative controls for reducing worker noise exposure have not been widely implemented in the mining industry 

for many reasons, including a lack of trained workers for 

efficient job rotation, union contract issues and safety concerns. An understanding of implementation procedures and 

evaluation methods will hopefully lead to increased acceptance and implementation of administrative controls and, 

consequently, a reduction of worker noise exposure. 
Figure 1 — Worker dose monitoring using a dosimeter. 

Figure 2 — Example of noise measurement at a worker 

location. 

Noise exposure reduction approaches 

Several approaches can be taken to reduce noise exposure of 

workers in the mining industry. Past practice has been to 

simply require workers to wear hearing protection. However, 

this may offer only a short-term and sometimes ineffective 

solution because of a variety of factors, including increased 

difficulty of hearing danger signals and warnings, the inconvenience or discomfort of wearing hearing protection, the 

potential for poorly fitting hearing protection and incorrect 

hearing protection selection for the noise levels present. 

Studies have shown that despite the availability of and presumed use of hearing protection, mine workers continue to 

experience NIHL. The continuance of NIHL among mine 

workers may be attributable to improper fit or usage of hearing 

protection, lack of knowledge concerning NIHL, training 

inadequacies, worker indifference, non-work activities, etc. 

In addition, recently enacted Part 62 noise regulations have 

eliminated the adjustment for the use of any hearing protector, 

requiring mine operators to implement all feasible engineering and administrative controls to reduce noise exposures. 

This first approach is to attack the source of the noise through 

redesign or modification of the machinery, equipment or 

surrounding work area. Engineering controls, when feasible 

and properly applied, is the approach of choice. However, the 

cost and implementation process are considerations. 

The approach that is the topic of this paper is the use of 

administrative controls to reduce worker noise exposures. 

This term is used throughout MSHA’s Health Standards for 

Occupational Noise Exposure, Final Rule (Federal Register, 

1999). Administrative controls involve limiting the time that 

workers are exposed to noise through job rotation, task modifications and increased noise hazard awareness. Through 

NIOSH’s investigation of worker exposures and noise source 

identification, various administrative controls were identified 

that might be used to reduce the noise exposure of mine 

workers. For instance, one study of a longwall stage loader 

operator revealed that he spent a considerable portion of his 

shift positioned at the belt tailpiece, which is one of the 

noisiest locations along the stage loader. By simply repositioning and standing back in the crosscut away from the stage 

loader and tailpiece when possible, his noise exposure would 

have been reduced by as much as 70%. The research also led 

to an approach for implementing and assessing the effectiveness of administrative controls. 

Engineering and administrative controls — 

definitions 

30 CFR, Part 62.130 (a) Permissible exposure level spells out 

the responsibilities of mine operators pertaining to the exposure of miners and the use of engineering and administrative 

controls to limit the exposures (Federal Register, 1999). To 

reflect these new standards, MSHA’s policy now equally 

weighs engineering and administrative controls. Prior to the 

new regulations, all engineering controls had to be implemented before administrative controls could be put to use. 

A clear understanding of what constitutes an engineering 

or administrative control is necessary before attempting to 

develop, implement and/or analyze noise control techniques. 

There are many situations that can make classification of a 

control difficult. This is especially true when the control itself 

requires an engineering modification, but the requirement to 

use the control is administrative. One example is a control/ 

quiet booth. From a technical standpoint, the booth is an 

engineering control, but requiring the worker to spend part of 

his shift in the booth is an administrative control. Although 

overlap exists, in this study every attempt has been made to 

characterize each noise control as administrative or engineering based on the following definitions: 

•	 Engineering controls are defined as: “Methods that 

reduce noise exposure by decreasing the amount of 

noise reaching the employee through engineering design approaches. Engineering controls isolate the noise 

from the worker through noise reduction” (adapted 

from NIOSH, 1996a). 

•	 Administrative controls are defined as: “Methods that 

reduce exposure by limiting the time a worker is exposed to noise through administrative approaches. Administrative controls isolate the worker from the noise 

by reducing exposure” (adapted from NIOSH, 1996a). 
Implementation and evaluation 

method 

The implementation and evaluation of an 

administrative control requires a thorough understanding of a worker’s noise 

exposure, tasks and possible noise sources. 

This is accomplished through full-shift 

worker exposure monitoring using a timeresolved noise dosimeter (Fig. 1), task 

observations (time-motion studies) to 

determine the amount of time the worker 

spends at various tasks and/or locations, 

then combining the dosimetry and task 

observations to estimate exposures for 

individual tasks/locations. It is essential 

that the task observations be as accurate 

and complete as possible. They can be 

conducted as a paper exercise or by using 

a personal digital assistant (PDA) and 

appropriate mobile data acquisition software. It is also necessary to collect representative noise level readings for each 

task/location (Fig. 2). 

The exposure for a certain task or 

location can be determined in several 

ways. One method is to produce a cumulative dose plot from 

the dosimeter data, annotate the plot with the time-sequenced 

task observations and estimate worker dose from the plot for 

the tasks of interest (Fig. 3). When representative noise levels 

are available, the exposure can be calculated using 

 C C C D = 100 1 + 2 + n

 (1) T1 T 2 T n 

where 

D is the noise dose (%), 

Cn is the exposure time at a particular sound level (hours)

and 

Tn is the reference duration of exposure at the measured

sound level (hours). 

The reference duration (Tn) can be found in the appendix to

Part 62, Table 62-1 (Federal Register, 1999). For example, at 

a sound level of 95 dBA, Tn = 4.0 hrs. If exposure time is 4 hrs,

the calculated dose would be D = 100 (C1/T1) = 100 (4/4) = 

100%. If the duration of exposure is reduced through an 

administrative control to 1 hr, the calculated dose would be D 

= 100 (1/4) = 25%, assuming that the remaining 3 hours are at 

a location where the employee is exposed to less than 

90 dBA. 

The selection of administrative controls should be based on 

the periods of exposure that result in the largest dose, either 

because the duration time is long or the sound level is high, or 

a combination of the two. These periods of high noise exposure can be ascertained from the cumulative dose plot (Fig. 3), 

a simple plot of LAVG noise levels (Fig. 4) or by employing 

the calculation method listed above for each task. 

Figure 3 — Cumulative dose plot for roof bolter operator.

Figure 4 — LAVG plot for roof bolter operator. 

After implementing the control, the worker’s exposure 

must be remeasured and task observed to see if the worker 

followed the administrative control as prescribed and if the 

control reduced the worker’s dose. Then, the reduction in 

exposure can be calculated by the above method, or a simple 

estimate of the success of the control can be made by calculating an overall (full-shift) percent dose reduction by 

Dose 1 - Dose

S = p ×100 (2) Dose1 

where 

S is the reduction in dose (success of control) (%), 

DoseI

 is the initial (pre-implementation) full-shift dose (%) 

and 

DoseP is the post-implementation full-shift dose (%). 

MSHA considers a 3 dBA reduction in a miner’s noise 

exposure as feasible. Ultimately, an effective administrative 

control is one that reduces a worker’s full-shift dose to less 

than 100%, or a TWA8 of 90 dBA or less. 
 

 

 

 

Figure 5 — Cumulative dose plot for froth cell operator. 

Administrative control example 

To illustrate the noise exposure reduction potential of an 

administrative control, the following example of a froth cell 

operator working in a coal preparation plant is presented. A 

cumulative dose plot of his full-shift exposure is shown in Fig. 

5 and illustrates that the operator spends a considerable 

portion of his shift on Floor 2, mostly cleaning (hosing with 

water) around the froth cells, where sound levels ranged from 

92 to 101 dBA. Table 1 lists the calculated exposures for each 

of the floors and the general locations where he was observed 

working. 

The following example illustrates how the calculated dose 

was determined using Eq (1). On Floor 4, the worker was 

observed numerous times at three general locations: near the 

secondary froth cells (91 dBA); walking across Floor 4 (avg. 95 

dBA) and waiting near the elevator (93 dBA). Eq. (1) becomes 

0 42 . 0 0248 . 0 021 . D = 100 + + = 7 02 .% 

7 4 53 .

Note that the full-shift task/location-based calculated dose 

was less than the actual dose recorded by the dosimeter, i.e., 

180% vs. 206%. This is likely due to small errors in recording 

the times at each location because the froth cell operator 

continually changed locations and the variable sound levels at 

each location. Ultimately, the dosimeter more closely tracked 

the exposure level and time, although the manual calculation 

method gave a reasonable estimate of worker exposure. 

In response to the above data, a logical administrative 

control would be to limit the froth cell operator’s time on Floor 

2, because this is the floor where he received the majority of 

the exposure. To simplify the analysis, a Leq average sound 

level of 97 dBA was used for all of Floor 2. Table 2 lists the 

expected exposure reductions if the administrative control of 

limiting the worker’s time on Floor 2 were implemented. 

Table 2 illustrates that the worker would need to limit his time 

on Floor 2 to under one hour to reduce his exposure to less than 

the MSHA PEL of 100%, while not increasing the time spent 

in other locations that have Leq sound 

levels greater than 90 dBA. In this case, 

this would be difficult to achieve because 

all floors have noise levels above 90 

dBA, except the control room or lunch 

room; thus if the worker spent less time 

on Floor 2 but more time on the other 

floors, his exposure might not change 

significantly. 

List of administrative controls 

Based on the noise surveys conducted at 

surface and underground coal mines and 

coal preparation plants, a list of administrative controls was developed. The list 

of controls came about through discussion with mine management and workers, the research team’s observations, discussions with MSHA inspectors and from 

analysis of the noise data collected. It 

should be noted that no judgment has 

been made as to the feasibility of implementing any of these administrative controls and there are likely more administrative controls than are listed here. 

Although an economic evaluation of 

the controls was not performed, it appears that these controls may be less 

costly and require less time to implement than engineering 

controls. Their cost to implement and their effectiveness 

would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. For 

instance, when employing job rotation to reduce worker noise 

exposure, a time/exposure analysis would need to be completed. This analysis would determine the total allowable 

time for each worker at a specific task, dictating when during 

the shift that rotation should occur. Likewise, the safety 

aspects would need to be carefully considered. These include 

the ability of workers to operate other equipment or perform 

other tasks in a safe and efficient manner and any additional 

training that may be necessary before workers can switch 

positions (i.e., operate different equipment) or perform different duties. In addition, any administrative noise control 

should not subject a worker to increased exposure from other 

hazards such as dust or diesel fumes nor should it cause the 

overexposure of another worker to noise. Finally, implementing specific administrative controls is a subject for discussion 

between mine management and labor. The approach taken 

here is to simply list the administrative controls that may be 

applicable, presented by mine type, underground coal, surface coal, or coal preparation plant, and those applicable to all 

mining. 

Underground coal mines 

The administrative controls for underground coal mines were 

determined during noise surveys conducted in seven underground coal mines located in Alabama, Colorado, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The controls are listed first by their 

applicability to either continuous mining sections or longwall 

mining sections, and then by the specific categories of job 

switching/rotation, worker location, and equipment operation. 

Room and pillar continuous mining. 

Job switching/rotation: The following administrative controls address either job switching or rotation of exposed 

workers in continuous mining sections. Switch high-exposure 
occupations with low-exposure occupations as follows: 

•	 center bolter operator switch with 

center bolter helper, 

•	 roof bolter operators switch with 

utility men or shuttle car operators,
 

•	 miner-bolter operator switch with 

loading machine operator and 

•	 continuous miner operator switch 

with shuttle car operator. 

Worker location: The following administrative controls address the location 

of exposed workers in continuous mining 

sections. Relocate workers from highnoise locations to lower-noise locations 

as follows: 

•	 locate shuttle car change-out point
 

away from major noise sources,
 

such as the auxiliary fan; 

•	 shuttle car operator should avoid 

idle parking in high-noise areas
 

(e.g., pull away from feeder/breaker
 

upon completing dumping);
 

•	 keep workers from congregating near auxiliary fans; 

•	 during maintenance, have the mechanics and electricians avoid working near high-noise sources and try to
 

move work to a quiet area; 

•	 utility man on continuous miner sections should minimize time working near face and auxiliary fan; and 

•	 locate lunch areas away from load centers and other 

noisy equipment. 

Equipment operation: The following administrative controls address equipment operation of exposed workers in 

continuous mining sections. Minimize noise exposure through 

quieter operation of equipment as follows: 

•	 loading machine operator should back further away 

from the miner-bolter when not loading coal; 

•	 minimize running chain conveyors that are empty on all 

equipment (i.e., shuttle car, loading machine, continuous miner, miner-bolter and feeder-breaker); 

• instruct continuous miner operator to stand as far back
 

from the machine as possible while operating the CM by
 

remote control;
 

•	 instruct roof bolter operators to drill straight holes and 

avoid contacting metal straps with the drill steel. This 

will eliminate the high-pitched screech; 

•	 follow a cutting cycle that minimizes noise generation 

from both the continuous mining machine and the 

cutting process (i.e., reduce cutting into roof and floor 

rock, cutting directly into in-seam rock and over t

sumping); 

•	 regulate diesel engine rpm on diesel-powered shuttle 

cars during loading and dumping to minimize noise 

levels; 

•	 follow shuttle car loading and tramming procedures that 

minimize noise (e.g., time that the conveyor chain is 

running, increase distance from continuous miner and 

its boom, etc.);
 

•	 for loading machines, follow loading and tramming 

procedures that minimize noise exposure; and 

• for any mobile equipment, turn off when not in operation. 

Table 1 — The location, duration and calculated dose for froth cell operator on 

03/27/01 (actual dose = 206.10%) 

Number 

Range of specific Calculated 

Duration, of noise, locations, dose1,2, 

Worker location hour dBA n %
 

Floor 1	 0.70 90-96 3 18.46

Floor 2	 4.14 92-101 9 143.87

Floor 3	 0.03 97 11 0.97 

Floor 4 0.47 91-95 3 7.02 

Floor 5 0.36 90-91 2 4.86 

Elevator 0.32 83 1 0.00 

Outside (underflow) 0.28 92 1 4.53 

Outside (static thickeners) 0.34 80 1 0.00 

Lunch room 1.25 72 1 0.00 

Control room 0.27 73 1 0.00 

Total	 8.15 – – 179.71

1 See Eq. (1).

2 0% dose results from no dose being recorded because the noise

level was less than the MSHA Threshold Level of 90 dBA.
 

Table 2 — Summary of exposure reduction for froth cell

operator after administrative control

Time on Reference Calculated Percent Estimated

Floor 2 duration T1 dose2, reduction2,3, shift dose4,

hour hour % % % 

4.14 138 0 206 

3.0 100 38 168 

2.0 3.0 67 71 135 

1.0	 33 105 101 

0.0	 0 138 68

1 For an average sound level of Leq = 97 dBA. 

2 For Floor 2 exposure only. 

3 Percent reduction gained by reducing worker’s time on Floor 2 to 3, 

2, 1, and 0 hrs. 

4 Estimated total shift dose when time on Floor 2 reduced, time on all

other floors remains as listed in Table 1, and time subtracted from

Floor 2 spent in areas with noise levels below 90 dBA. 

Longwall mining. 

Job switching/rotation: The following administrative conrols address either job switching or rotation of exposed 

workers in longwall mining sections. Switch high-exposure 

occupations with low-exposure occupations as follows: 

• head and tail shearer operators switch between each 

other during the shift,
 

• shearer operators switch with shieldman and
 

• stage loader operator switch with shieldman.
 

Worker location: The following administrative controls 

address the location of exposed workers in longwall mining 
sections. Relocate workers from high-noise locations to lowernoise locations as follows: 

•	 stage loader operator should minimize time in highnoise areas (e.g., near crusher, motors and gears, head 

drive, belt tail, etc.); 

•	 do not permit longwall face crew to sit at head drive 

(crew should not congregate in high-noise areas); 

•	 stage loader operator should eat lunch away from the 

stage loader to minimize noise exposure; 

•	 locate dinner hole in quiet area away from stage loader; 

•	 shieldmen should minimize their time at the head and 

tail drives; 

•	 head drum shearer operator needs to stay a minimum of 

3 m (10 ft) outby the head drum; and 

•	 tail drum shearer operator needs to move as far as 

possible from the tail drum, probably positioning himself in the middle of the shearer. 

Equipment operation: The following administrative controls address equipment operation of exposed workers in 

longwall mining sections. Minimize noise exposure through 

quieter operation of equipment as follows: 

•	 minimize running face and stage loader conveyors when 

they are empty, 

•	 minimize worker walk-by exposure to hydraulic pump 

cars (move them into cross-cut or further down the 

track) and 

•	 minimize cutting of roof and floor rock. 

Surface coal mines 

The administrative controls applicable to surface coal mining were developed during noise surveys at ten surface mines 

located in Arizona, North Dakota, New Mexico, Texas, 

Washington and Wyoming. Primarily dealing with the operation of draglines, the surface coal mine administrative 

controls are listed by the specific categories of job switching/ 

rotation, equipment operation, and task modification. 

Job switching/rotation: The following administrative controls address either job switching or rotation of exposed 

workers in draglines. Switch high-exposure occupations with 

low-exposure occupations as follows: 

•	 dragline oiler switch with dragline operator and 

•	 dragline oiler switch with dozer operator/groundsman. 

Worker location: The following administrative controls 

address the location of exposed workers in draglines. Relocate 

workers from high-noise locations to lower-noise locations: 

•	 limit dragline oiler and other workers’ time in dragline 

house; 

•	 limit dragline oiler time near motor/generator (MG) sets; 

•	 limit dragline oiler time in revolving frame; 

•	 limit mechanic’s time repairing equipment in dragline 

house; and 

•	 employ remote sensing of grease levels, equipment 

temperatures, etc., and cameras to remove worker from 

noisy areas. 

Task modification: The following administrative controls 

address task modification of exposed workers in draglines. 

Modify tasks such that workers are exposed to less noise as 

follows: 

• perform cleaning in house when dragline is not in 

operation; and 

•	 perform maintenance in house when dragline is not in 

operation, if possible. 

Coal preparation plants 

Based on the noise surveys conducted at nine coal preparation 

plants, a list of administrative controls was developed. The 

preparation plants were located in Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. The controls are listed 

by the specific categories of job switching/rotation, equipment operation and task modification. 

Job switching/rotation. The following administrative controls address either job switching or rotation of exposed 

workers in coal preparation plants. Switch high-exposure 

occupations with low-exposure occupations as follows: 

•	 plant operator switch with control room operator, 

•	 inside mechanics switch with outside mechanics, 

•	 high-noise floor workers switch with low-noise floor 

workers and 

•	 in-plant workers switch with outside-plant workers. 

Worker location: The following administrative controls 

address the location of exposed workers in coal preparation 

plants. Relocate workers from high-noise locations to lowernoise locations as follows: 

•	 limit plant worker time on noisy floors; 

•	 limit plant worker time in or next to noisy equipment 

such as screens, crushers, centrifuges and dryers; 

•	 relocate work stations/controls to quieter locations; 

•	 employ remote sensing of plant operating levels and 

cameras around equipment operation to move worker to 

quiet area; 

•	 move pulp density measuring to quiet location; and 

•	 relocate tool boxes, cabinets and supplies to quiet area. 

Task modification: The following administrative controls 

address task modification of exposed workers in coal preparation plants. Modify tasks such that workers are exposed to 

less noise as follows: 

•	 operate noisy equipment/processes (welding, grinding, 

etc.) when fewer workers will be exposed; and 

•	 perform maintenance on noisy equipment when plant is 

down, if possible. 

All mining 

The following list of administrative controls appears to be 

applicable to coal mining in general and other mining types 

as well. 

Provide noise source awareness training as follows: 

•	 provide training in noise-source awareness to foreman 

and mechanics, 

•	 teach/emphasize noise awareness to all workers; 

•	 training in awareness and consequences of NIHL and 

recognizing high-noise areas, 

•	 label high-noise areas with signs to identify the danger, 

•	 post signs and warning lights/alarms in high-noise areas 

and 

•	 supervisory enforcement of noise reduction requirements and discipline for those who fail to comply. 
Minimize noise exposures as follows:	 

•	 keep workers from congregating at high-noise areas; 

•	 minimize exposure of foremen to high-noise sources 

during the shift; 

•	 switch/rotate workers from high-noise to low-noise 

exposure jobs/occupations; 

•	 designate low-noise walkways; 

•	 eliminate tasks that are unnecessarily noisy; 

•	 provide training to complete tasks more quickly and 

efficiently; 

•	 modify work activities to shorten time or decrease noise 

level; 

•	 relocate work stations/controls to quieter locations; 

•	 employ remote sensing and cameras in noisy areas to 

allow worker to move to quiet area; 

•	 require workers to use quiet rooms/areas/booths during 

break times; 

•	 require workers to maintain quiet rooms (e.g., closed 

doors and windows, caulking and weather-stripping); 

and 

•	 operate noisy equipment or complete noisy tasks during 

periods when fewer workers will be exposed. 

Controls that may be both administrative and 

engineering in nature 

The following list of controls may be both administrative and 

engineering-related in nature in that the control is engineering 

while the requirement to use it is administrative: 

•	 buy the quietest equipment available; 

•	 properly maintain all equipment to help reduce excessive noise resulting from lack of oil or grease, parts 

wearing out, and maintain and grease rollers, bearings, 

hubs, etc.; 

•	 provide sound-treated booths and require the worker to 

use them periodically; 

•	 locate noise sources away from normal travelways; and 

•	 counsel/instruct miners on proper use, operation and 

maintenance of equipment with noise control devices/ 

features. 

Hearing protection 

When noise control measures are not feasible, do not reduce 

exposures below the PEL or until such time as they are 

installed or implemented, hearing protection devices (HPDs) 

are the only way to prevent hazardous levels of noise from 

damaging the inner ear. Making sure HPDs are worn effectively requires continuing attention on the part of supervisors 

and mine management, as well as noise-exposed employees 

(NIOSH, 1996a). From the list of HPD-related concerns 

presented in NIOSH (1996a, pp. 70-71), a selective representation is listed: 

•	 provide regular maintenance or replacement of hardhat-mounted muffs; 

• make sure hard-hat-mounted muffs are properly fitted 

and used; 

•	 provide training in proper wearing and fit, and in recognizing when hearing protection needs to be replaced; 

•	 regularly replace other muff types and plugs; 

•	 consider developing a policy on when to wear hearing 

protection (such as upon leaving the mantrip, leaving 

the dinner hole, entering plant, or whenever sound 

levels exceed 85 dBA); 

•	 provide employees the opportunity to select from a 

variety of HPDs; and 

•	 regularly evaluate effectiveness of hearing protection 

program. 

Summary 

The use of administrative controls to reduce worker noise 

exposure, and subsequently NIHL, can play a key part in 

complying with the new MSHA noise standards, 30 CFR, Part 

62. The successful use of administrative controls can be 

greatly enhanced by employing the implementation and evaluation procedure detailed in this report. This includes conducting full-shift dosimetry, task observations, and sound level 

determination of worker tasks and locations. 

It should be noted that the list of administrative controls 

provided here is not all-inclusive. Also, the controls have not 

been proven as to their economic feasibility, and they provide 

only a starting point for considering appropriate administrative controls on a case-by-case basis. 

References 

30 CFR, 1997, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “Governing noise exposure 

in mining,” 30 CFR, Subchapter O, Part 70, Subpart F, “Noise standards for 

underground coal mines,” Subchapter O, Part 71, Subpart D: “Noise 

standards for surface work areas of underground coal mines and surface 

coal mines,” Subchapter O, Part 55, Section 55.5, “Metal and nonmetal 

open pit mines,” Section 56.5: “Sand, gravel, and crushed stone operations,” and 57.5: “Metal and nonmetal underground mines. 

Federal Register, 1996, “Health standards for occupational noise exposure in 

coal, metal, and nonmetal mines: proposed rule,” Department of Labor, 

Mine Safety and Health Administration, 30 CFR Parts 56, 57, 62, 70, and 

71, Vol. 61, No. 243, Tuesday December 17, pp. 66348-66469. 

Federal Register, 1999, “Health standards for occupational noise exposure; 

final rule,” Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 30 

CFR Parts 56 and 57 et al., Vol. 64, No. 176, September 13, pp. 49548­

49634. 

NIOSH, 1996a, “Preventing occupational hearing loss - a practical guide,” 

Franks, J., Stephenson, M.R., and Merry, C.J., eds., National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96-110, 91 pp. 

NIOSH, 1996b, “Analysis of audiograms for a large cohort of noise-exposed 

miners,” Franks, J., National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, Internal Report, 7 pp. 

NIOSH, 1997, “Prevalence of hearing loss for noise-exposed metal/nonmetal 

miners,” Franks, J., National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

Cincinnati, Ohio, Internal Report, 5 pp. 

Seiler, J.P., Valoski, M.P., and Crivaro, M.A., 1994, “Noise Exposure in U.S. 

Coal Mines,” U.S. Dept. of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, 

Informational Report IR 1214. 

Seiler, J.P., and Giardino, D.A., 1994, “The effect of threshold on noise 

dosimeter measurements and interpretation of their results,” U.S. Dept. of 

Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, Informational Report IR 

1224. 

Weeks, J.L., 1995, “Policies and practices for preventing occupational hearing 

loss among miners are inadequate,” Proceedings of Hearing Conference 

III/XX, Cincinnati, Ohio, March, pp. 16-19.