Opinion ID: 4565392
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Federal Railroad Administration regulations

Text: To elucidate the parties’ dispute and their arguments, more detail is necessary on the 2012 revisions to the Federal Railroad Administration regulations. Under the hearing acu‐ ity regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 242.117(i), all railroads must test the hearing of their conductors. Each conductor must pass a hear‐ ing test showing he or she “does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels with or without the use of a hearing aid.” Id. Under the hearing protection regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 227.115, railroads must establish a hearing conservation pol‐ icy with programs to protect the hearing of vulnerable em‐ ployees. Subsection (d) of that regulation sets the default rule, requiring employees wear hearing protection if they are ex‐ posed to a time‐weighted average of 90 decibels or higher. Subsection (c), with an 85‐decibel standard, applies only if no audio test has been performed on an employee, or if that em‐ ployee has experienced hearing loss while employed with the railroad. The hearing protection regulation sets a floor, not a ceiling. 49 C.F.R. § 227.1 (“This part prescribes minimum Federal health and safety noise standards for locomotive cab occu‐ pants. This part does not restrict a railroad … from adopting and enforcing additional or more stringent requirements.”). Union Pacific set a stricter standard in its hearing conserva‐ tion policy. All of its employees must wear hearing protection if they “may be subjected to noise exposures equal to or No. 19‐2780 5 exceeding an 8‐hour time weighted average sound level of 85 decibels” or if they work “in identified hearing protection ar‐ eas” or within 150 feet of a locomotive. The railroad also re‐ quired all employees subject to its policy to wear a device with a published noise reduction rating. To measure decibel levels, railroads are required to conduct either “area sampling,” which takes several noise measurements at diﬀerent locations within a workplace, or “representative personal sampling,” which measures the ex‐ posures of employees who operate similar equipment under similar conditions. 49 C.F.R. § 227.103(b). The latter, which Union Pacific employed, must be used where there are “cir‐ cumstances such as high worker mobility, significant varia‐ tions in sound level, or a significant component of impulse noise.” Id. If the hearing protection regulation (§ 227.115(c) or (d)) ap‐ plies, the employer “must select one of … three methods by which to estimate the adequacy of hearing protector attenua‐ tion.” 49 C.F.R. Pt. 227 App. B. One of these methods requires the employee to wear a device with a published noise reduc‐ tion rating, which is a unit of measure to assess the eﬀective‐ ness of hearing protection devices to decrease sound exposure within a working environment.