Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb353 Hearing Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing protection for venue workers draws mixed response; DOL points to existing public‑sector rule
Summary
A bill to strengthen noise protections for venue and hospitality workers prompted business and audiology groups to warn enforcement would be costly and impractical, while the Department of Labor pointed to an existing public‑sector noise rule it enforces.
Representative Mark McKenzie introduced HB 353, a proposal framed by the sponsor as an effort to reduce work‑related hearing loss among people who work in loud venues, such as music venues or nightclubs. McKenzie said the bill's intent is to protect workers who cannot leave loud workplaces and to prompt a review of the state's public‑sector noise protections.
"Anything over 85 decibels you have to begin the process of backing down the amount of time that you actually can be exposed to it," McKenzie told the committee and urged members to try the NIOSH sound‑measurement app to see venue levels.
Business advocates, led by Mike Summers of the New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association, testified that a statutory mandate would be hard for hospitality businesses to implement and enforce. Summers said the bill's undefined terms ("music venues") risk sweeping in ordinary restaurants and event facilities, and that continuous one‑hour averaging or mandatory ear protection would disrupt service and worker‑customer communication. "Either way, it ends up being a burden on the businesses," Summers told the committee.
Caroline Drury, president of the New Hampshire Academy of Audiology, told members that accurate enforcement would require time‑weighted sound measurement, worker audiometric baseline testing, and often custom hearing protection — all costly and difficult to sustain in high‑turnover hospitality jobs. "It's a very dynamic environment ... a very difficult thing to enforce," she said.
The department's general counsel, John Garrigan, confirmed the agency already enforces a public‑employer noise rule (Lab rule 140341) with an exposure chart that ranges from 90 dBA for an eight‑hour workday up to higher levels for shorter exposures. Garrigan said the department is reviewing its rules and is willing to work with the sponsor on technical changes. "That rule ... has an acceptable chart of acceptable noise exposure," he told the committee.
Members sought clarifying details about public‑sector versus private‑sector jurisdiction (OSHA covers much of the private sector) and about how any standard could be enforced against transient venue workforces such as musicians or short‑term servers. No committee action was taken; the sponsor said he would work with the department on rule revisions and indicated the bill could be retained for further work rather than advanced immediately.
