RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON A REEXAMINATION OF RISK ESTIMATES FROM THE NIOSH OCCUPATIONAL NOISE AND HEARING SURVEY [J. ACOUST. SOC. AM. 103, 2734 (1998)]

Concern is raised by Dobie [J. Acoust. Sec. Am. 103, 2734 (1998)] rega rding a recent analysis [Prince et nl., J. Acoust. Sec. Am. 101, 950-9 63 (1997)] of the NIOSH Occupational Noise and Hearing Survey data. Sp ecifically, issues are raised concerning (1) definition of hearing han dicap, (2) the use of frequency-specific articulation index (AI) weigh ts applied to the binaural pure-tone average of 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz, an d (3) conclusions regarding significant excess risk based on this defi nition. We have reviewed the development of the definitions of hearing handicap and provide additional support for the use of a hearing hand icap definition based on the binaural pure-tone average of 1, 2, 3, an d 4 kHz and the weighting of specific frequencies. Furthermore, our de finition of noise-induced hearing handicap is similar to one of severa l proposed by the International Standards Organization (ISO-1999, 1990 ) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI S3.44, 1996). Ad ditional analyses show that there is significant evidence of excess ri sk at daily exposure levels below 85 dB using any of the pure-tone ave rage and/or weighting strategies we have examined. Hence we have provi ded additional support for our conclusions regarding exposure-response curves and we have reaffirmed that our methods are appropriate for th e scape of our analysis.