A plan for hearing conservation.

very good summary of a hearing conservation programme. I wonder, though, if I could supplement the information given by Mr Ganday by pointing out that the U.K. Health and Safety Commission have published proposals for Noise Regulations to be enacted under the Health and Safety at Work Act? (Health and Safety Commission, 1981). Although the deadline for commenting upon these prop0 sals, April 30th, has passed, I feel that industrialists should acquaint themselves with the trend of legislation in the United Kingdom, as such knowledge could affect decisions on the purchase of certain plant, or design of new installations. In essence, the new regulations will not permit exposure of employees to noise levels m excess of 90 dB(A) Leq; noise control must be effected or hearing protection issued. Additionally monitoring audiometry, and the measure of employee noise dose using personal dosemeters, must be undertaken at the higher noise levels. The introduction of mandatory audiometry, as is also required in the proposed Dutch legislation to which Mr Ganday refers, is a new feature to British legislation. Having completed studies within industry, I am in agreement with the author of your April article in believing that industrial monitoring audiometry is of great value to the employee and the employer alike. It is apparent that monitoring audiometry increases the use of hearing protection (Karmy and Martin, 1980), and also provides a useful check that the hearing conservation programme is achieving its stated aim; that is, the prevention of noise-induced hearing loss in the workforce. Monitoring audiometry also yields an additional benefit in that the medical department of a ’caring’ company will have an ongoing record of the hearing acuity of an individual which should be as