[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29679-29686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14442]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Chapter XI

[Docket No. 98-4]


Petition for Rulemaking; Request for Information on Acoustics

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Request for information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
has received a petition for rulemaking from a parent of a child with a 
hearing loss requesting that the ADA Accessibility Guidelines be 
amended to include new provisions for acoustical accessibility in 
schools for children who are hard of hearing. Several acoustics 
professionals, parents of children with hearing impairments, 
individuals who are hard of hearing, and a consortium of organizations 
representing them have also urged the Board to consider research and 
rulemaking on the acoustical performance of buildings and facilities, 
in particular school classrooms and related student facilities. The 
Board seeks comment on the issues outlined in this request for 
information. After evaluating responses to this request for 
information, the Board will determine a course of action. Alternatives 
under consideration include research, rulemaking, and technical 
assistance on acoustical issues.

DATES: Comments should be received by July 31, 1998. Late comments will 
be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Office of Technical and 
Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-
1111. E-mail comments should be sent to [email protected]. 
Comments sent by e-mail will be considered only if they include the 
full name and address of the sender in the text. The petition and 
comments are available for inspection at the above address from 9:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on regular business days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Thibault, Office of Technical and 
Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-
1111. Telephone number (202) 272-5434 extension 32 (voice); (202) 272-
5449 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers. Electronic mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Copies and Electronic Access

    Single copies of this publication may be obtained at no cost by 
calling the Access Board's automated publications order line (202) 272-
5434, by pressing 1 on the telephone keypad, then 1 again, and 
requesting publication C-11. Persons using a TTY should call (202) 272-
5449. Please record a name, address, telephone number and request 
publication C-11. This document is available in alternate formats upon 
request. Persons who want a copy in an alternate format should specify 
the type of format (cassette tape, Braille, large print, or computer 
disk). The petition and this request for information are also posted on 
the Board's Internet site at http://www.access-board.gov/rules/
acoustic.htm.

Background

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
1 (Access Board) is responsible for developing accessibility 
guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to 
ensure that new construction and alterations of facilities covered by 
the law are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities. The Access Board initially issued the Americans with 
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) in 1991. The 
guidelines contain scoping provisions and technical specifications for 
designing elements and spaces that typically comprise a building and 
its site so that individuals with disabilities will have ready access 
to and use of a facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Access Board is an independent Federal agency 
established by section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792) 
whose primary mission is to promote accessibility for individuals 
with disabilities. The Access Board consists of 25 members. Thirteen 
are appointed by the President from among the public, a majority of 
who are required to be individuals with disabilities. The other 
twelve are heads of the following Federal agencies or their 
designees whose positions are Executive Level IV or above: The 
departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Interior, Defense, Justice, 
Veterans Affairs, and Commerce; General Services Administration; and 
United States Postal Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although ADAAG contains a number of provisions for access to 
communications, including requirements for text telephones, assistive 
listening systems, and visible alarms, it does not include provisions 
for the acoustical design or performance of spaces within buildings and 
facilities.

[[Page 29680]]

The Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations implementing titles II and 
III of the ADA contain additional requirements for communications with 
individuals with disabilities and for auxiliary aids and devices to aid 
in communication.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under the ADA, the Departments of Justice and Transportation 
are responsible for issuing regulations to implement titles II and 
III of the Act. The regulations must include accessibility standards 
for newly constructed and altered facilities. The standards must be 
consistent with the accessibility guidelines issued by the Access 
Board. The Department of Justice and the Department of 
Transportation regulations currently include ADAAG 1-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 6, 1997, the Access Board received a petition for 
rulemaking from a parent of a child with a severe to profound hearing 
loss requesting that the Board address ``architectural acoustics in 
schools'' and develop ``new rules'' for children who are hard-of-
hearing. The petition argues that children who have hearing and other 
disabilities, including learning, auditory processing, speech and 
language, and developmental disabilities, face numerous communications 
barriers in schools because of poor acoustics and that these barriers 
may prevent them from receiving a meaningful education. The petition 
requests that the Board develop ``acoustical guidelines * * * [to] 
ensure adequately low noise and reverberation so that the speech-to-
noise ratio and speech-to-reverberation ratio allow satisfactory 
communication and learning.''
    A consortium of organizations representing persons with 
disabilities (Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf, Inc., the 
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), Auditory-Verbal 
International, Inc., the National Center for Law and Deafness, the 
National Cued Speech Association, and Self Help for Hard of Hearing 
People (SHHH)) submitted comments to the Board in previous rulemakings 
asserting that a poor acoustical environment is as significant a 
barrier to individuals with hearing, speech, and language impairments 
as stairs are to persons who use wheelchairs.
    The consortium's comments included a position paper on acoustics in 
educational settings developed by ASHA in 1994. The paper cited data on 
the increasing prevalence of hearing loss, particularly among children 
and young adults, and reported on research that identified children 
with mild hearing losses as more at risk for general psychosocial 
dysfunction and lags in academic progress than were children with 
normal hearing. Other cited studies showed the relationship between 
poor room acoustics and low speech comprehension in children with 
hearing, learning, and developmental disabilities. Reverberant 
classrooms with high ambient noise levels were identified as 
significant contributors to communications difficulties. The position 
paper included a number of recommendations for the acoustical 
performance of classrooms to improve conditions for listening, hearing, 
and understanding speech.
    Other commenters to ADAAG rulemakings noted that the acoustics of 
many restaurants adversely affected the ability of individuals who are 
hard of hearing to communicate with companions and with service staff. 
In response, the Access Board contracted with Batelle, a research 
organization in Columbus, OH, to study improved speech communication 
for persons with hearing impairments in dining areas. A literature 
study, post-occupancy evaluations of several facilities, and 
recommendations were developed by Batelle engineers and reviewed by an 
eight-member advisory panel. The authors identified background noise 
levels and reverberation as the acoustical characteristics most subject 
to design and construction manipulation and most significant for 
adequate speech communication. Several panel members suggested that 
other facility types, particularly schools, could benefit from the 
application of such acoustical requirements.

Hearing Loss and Other Disabilities

    Government health statistics document that more Americans report a 
hearing loss than any other disability, and the incidence of hearing 
loss has increased significantly in the last 25 years. A recent 
assessment by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
found that 13% of a representative sample of children between the ages 
of 6 and 19 had a high frequency hearing loss and 7% a low frequency 
hearing loss of 16 dB or more, a level at which perceiving and 
understanding words would be affected.
    Increasing numbers of young children experience mild temporary and 
recurring hearing loss caused by otitis media, an inflammation of the 
middle ear that is the most frequent medical diagnosis for children. 
Research also shows that children with learning, speech, and 
developmental disabilities have a higher incidence of abnormal hearing 
and of repeated instances of ear problems. ``Hearing Loss: The Journal 
of Self Help for Hard of Hearing People'' reported in 1997 that one-
fourth to one-third of the students in typical kindergarten and first-
grade classrooms will not hear normally on a given day.

Speech Communication

    Effective speech reception--understanding, not just hearing--is the 
primary educational issue for people with auditory disabilities. A 
Cornell University study published in the journal ``Environment and 
Behavior'' indicates that excessive classroom noise impedes the 
acquisition of language and cognitive skills by all children. The 
acquisition of language is necessary for brain and intellectual 
development. Research with children who are deaf has shown that the 
mastery of a system of communication is essential to future learning 
and that failure to acquire effective language skills by the age of six 
cannot be fully remediated.
    Language acquisition is dependent in large part upon exposure to an 
organized system of communication, such as a signed, voiced, or tactile 
language. For children who will use voice communication, the 
intelligibility of the spoken language is a critical factor. Speech 
intelligibility is a measure of the proportion of the spoken message 
that gets through to the listener, and is affected by signal volume, 
the distance between the speaker and listener, and the acoustic 
characteristics of the room, including background noise levels and 
reverberation time.
    A large body of clinical and scientific research supports the 
particular need for good acoustics in teaching environments. The 
Acoustical Society of America (ASA) has established a Classroom 
Acoustics Subcommittee of its Architectural Acoustics Committee that 
has held four symposia on classroom acoustics issues. At an ASA 
conference held in June 1997, researchers presented evidence that 
excessive noise levels impair a young child's speech perception, 
reading and spelling ability, behavior, attention, and overall academic 
performance.
    Because the ability to understand speech does not mature in 
children before the age of 15, children are less effective listeners 
generally than are adults. Additionally, children have less experience 
in deriving meaning from context. A representative sample of children 
without hearing loss or other audiological disability, even when tested 
in above-average listening environments, could make out only 71% of a 
teacher's words. Those in the worst environments ``got'' only 30% of 
the message directed at them.
    The listening abilities of children with hearing impairments, 
particularly those with mild to moderate hearing loss, are even more 
affected by poor acoustics than are those of children whose hearing 
falls within normal

[[Page 29681]]

ranges. A 1997 study of children with minimal sensorineural hearing 
loss showed lower scores for basic skills and communications testing 
and a high rate--37%--of retention in grade. In addition, these 
students functioned below normally hearing children in evaluations of 
behavior, energy, stress, social support, and self-esteem. Other 
studies have shown that children with learning and developmental 
disabilities perform less effectively in noisy spaces.
    In their chapter on ``Speech Perception in Specific Populations'' 
(from the book ``Sound-Field FM Amplification''), Drs. Carl Crandell, 
Joseph Smaldino, and Carol Flexer have identified at-risk populations 
as young students generally (less than 13-15 years of age); children 
who have a history of otitis media, children for whom English is a 
second language, and children with auditory disabilities, including 
those with hearing loss, central auditory processing deficits, learning 
disabilities, developmental delay, and attention, speech, and language 
disorders.

Acoustical Performance of Rooms and Spaces

    In analyzing how effectively an individual can hear and understand 
in a given space, an acoustician or audiologist will consider three 
criteria: Distance from the sound source (the `signal'), the level of 
background sound (noise), and the effects of reverberation. By 
controlling background noise levels and room reverberation time, 
designers can provide good speech intelligibility, measured by the 
signal-to-noise ratio. The signal-to-noise ratio is the relationship 
between the loudness of the message and the background sound it must 
overcome to be heard and understood. A significantly positive signal-
to-noise ratio is necessary for maximum performance where room sound 
levels are high; children with hearing impairments require a higher 
signal-to-noise ratio than do children with normal hearing.
    Distance from the source has a significant effect on signal-to-
noise ratio, since the loudness of a direct sound falls off in 
proportion to the distance between the speaker and listener. Children 
with hearing impairments and other disabilities affecting listening 
need to maintain a consistent and close relationship with the sound 
source. Speech intelligibility can be enhanced by delivery and 
performance styles, by the use of reflective surfaces at the speaking 
location, and by amplification.
    Background noise--whether from heating, ventilating, and air 
conditioning (HVAC) systems, other noise generated within the space, or 
outside noise--also interferes with effective listening because it 
competes with the spoken message. High background noise values across 
the frequencies of speech (500 to 2000 Hz) require louder speech 
signals to overcome. Background noise (or ambient sound) design 
criteria are typically expressed as a range between two noise criteria 
(NC) curves, which plot sound levels across 8 standard frequencies. 
Sound levels in existing spaces can be tested at these frequencies 
using a sound meter. The NC rating for a room is typically between 5 to 
10 points below the dBA reading. Design engineers can specify HVAC 
equipment with low noise ratings and limit sound generated by system 
operation in a variety of ways. Rooms and spaces can be protected from 
unwanted exterior sound by mass, insulation, and isolation in wall and 
slab construction and by minimizing (or sound protecting) openings.
    Reverberation--reflected sound that persists within a room or 
space--also masks the sound of the spoken message and increases 
background sound levels. The longer the reverberation time, the greater 
the effect. Reverberation is expressed in seconds (R60), measured as 
the time it takes for sound to decay 60 dB after the source has stopped 
producing it. Reverberation is a function of the physical properties of 
the room and can be calculated if the volume, surface area, and surface 
absorbencies of a space are known. Reverberation can be controlled by a 
manipulation of the absorbency of surfaces within a space and the 
proportions and volume of the space.
    When reverberation time and background noise are controlled, speech 
effort and sound levels decline, leading to a reduction in room noise. 
It has been estimated that over 90% of those who have a hearing loss 
have usable residual hearing and would benefit from an enhanced speech 
environment. Where classrooms and child care centers do not provide 
acceptable listening conditions, even amplification will not achieve 
maximum effect in improving speech communication. Poor acoustics can 
also compromise the effectiveness of personal hearing aids and devices 
and limit the usefulness of auxiliary aids and services. Good acoustics 
can enhance the usefulness of such aids and improve listener reception 
of unamplified speech, as may occur in group interchange. Because most 
mild hearing losses in children are not diagnosed, children with such 
losses (15-25 dB), including those with temporary hearing loss due to 
otitis media, will not generally be using amplification devices.
    Many groups concerned with the acoustics of educational 
environments recommended that new implementing regulations for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), currently being 
developed by the U.S. Department of Education, require that services 
for covered students be delivered in an acoustically appropriate 
environment. Two cases have been reported to the Board in which IDEA or 
Rehabilitation Act decisions directed that the room acoustics in 
existing school classrooms be improved to accommodate children with 
hearing loss. Requirements that students with disabilities be educated 
in the least restrictive environment mean that every classroom is 
likely to have a youngster with a diagnosed auditory disability in 
attendance; additionally, during the course of a school year, many 
children will be temporarily affected by mild and possibly recurring 
hearing loss associated with otitis media and other illnesses.

Classroom Acoustics

    Studies of classrooms around the country and test data submitted by 
parents and acoustical consultants indicate that classrooms and day 
care facilities are not being designed to provide adequate speech 
intelligibility even for children without auditory impairments. 
Research on seven child-care facilities in Canada documented noise 
conditions in four centers that exceeded the 75 dB limit considered 
safe for day-long exposure for adults by the World Health Organization. 
Open plan centers had particularly excessive noise levels and were 
reported to have more health problems among children and staff as well 
as other disadvantages. Acoustical treatment that reduced reverberation 
time in the noisiest setting from 1.6 seconds to .6 seconds resulted in 
a 5 dB decrease in sound level and staff assessments of substantial 
improvement in comfort. A 1994 survey of school facility conditions 
conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that poor 
acoustics were ranked by administrators as the most significant problem 
affecting the learning environment. Twenty-eight percent of responding 
schools identified acoustics for noise control as being unsatisfactory 
or very unsatisfactory. Eleven million children were estimated to be 
affected. Of these, CDC estimates suggest, more than a million and a 
half children may have a temporary or permanent hearing loss.

[[Page 29682]]

Acoustical Design Standards and Guidelines

    Reverberation and background noise limits are common elements in 
existing acoustical standards, recommendations, and good-practice 
guidelines for classroom design and construction. Audiometry rooms and 
educational classrooms designed specifically for persons with auditory 
impairments have short reverberation times and very low background 
noise levels. Similar requirements are applied to rooms such as 
broadcast and recording studios, including teleconferencing facilities, 
where speech communication is the primary function, and in sound 
testing facilities such as anechoic chambers. Low background noise and 
short reverberation times contribute to positive sound-to-noise ratios, 
maximal sound transmission indices, and high speech intelligibility 
values.
    Achievements in the design of concert hall acoustics and 
specialized environments for materials testing and measurement 
demonstrate that good hearing environments can be accomplished with 
current design, modeling, construction, and testing procedures. It 
appears that a consensus on the general scope and content of acoustical 
performance criteria for classrooms is developing among audiologists, 
acousticians, and consumers and that existing acoustical guidelines for 
educational and other facilities may be adaptable for incorporation 
into ADAAG.
    While some factors--for instance, a rise in exterior noise levels 
due to a change in nearby noise sources--are beyond the control of the 
design professional, `bad' acoustics are largely architectural 
problems, solvable by architectural means. Architects and other design 
professionals routinely practice simple acoustical design procedures in 
specifying floor, wall, and ceiling finishes. Acousticians are 
regularly retained for the more demanding design and engineering of 
music and performance facilities. Several software programs are 
available to model the acoustical performance of spaces that have been 
designed but not built. Criteria for the acoustical design of spaces 
are widely available in textbooks and technical publications.
    Acoustical testing protocols are developed and maintained by 
several private sector organizations. The American Society of Heating, 
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) issues standards 
that include the acoustical performance of equipment installed in 
buildings and facilities. The American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), in conjunction with the ASA, has established several protocols 
for the measurement of room sound levels, including ANSI S12.2 Criteria 
for Room Noise Measurement. ANSI has recently established a committee 
to develop a classroom acoustics standard. Foreign and international 
standards also exist. Model codes contain both standards and 
requirements for sound-rated construction components in multi-family 
housing and other occupancy types. The developers and operators of 
hotel, medical, and housing facilities typically establish similar 
acoustical standards for sound transmission through floors, walls, 
structure, and HVAC systems.
    ``Architectural Acoustics'', by M. David Egan (McGraw-Hill, Inc., 
1988), a standard reference work for design professionals, recommends a 
background noise level of less than 20 dB (NC-20) for critical music 
performance (including broadcast and recording studios) and 
audiological spaces; a range of NC-20 to NC-30 for less demanding, 
speech-focused halls and rooms, and NC-30 to NC-35 for classrooms. 
Recommended reverberation limits range between .6 and .8 seconds. The 
author notes, however, that NC curves to provide satisfactory listening 
environments for persons with hearing impairments need to be lower by 5 
(resulting in a recommendation of NC-25 to NC-30 for classrooms serving 
adults with hearing loss). Egan recommends that reverberation time in 
such rooms should not exceed .5 seconds.
    The ASA recommends an average reverberation time in classrooms 
between .6 seconds minimum and .8 seconds maximum; ambient room noise, 
when measured without occupants, between 30 dBA minimum and 35 dBA 
maximum; room criteria (RC) curve--used to measure HVAC and equipment-
generated noise--should not exceed RC-25, and the signal-to-noise ratio 
should be able to achieve +15 dB. The ASA has recently established a 
multi-committee initiative to work on the development of guidelines for 
acoustics. A workshop seminar was held in Los Angeles in December 1997 
to begin the process of developing consensus recommendations.
    The ASHA recommends that noise levels in unoccupied classrooms not 
exceed 30 dBA (or a NC-20 curve) and that reverberation time not exceed 
.4 seconds across speech frequencies. Signal-to-noise ratios (measured 
at the student's ear) should exceed +15 dB.
    Dr. Crandell et al. recommend that elementary and secondary school 
classrooms for `at-risk' students should have unoccupied ambient noise 
levels that do not exceed NC-25 or a sound pressure level of 35 dBA and 
a reverberation time that does not exceed .4 seconds in the speech 
frequency range.
    Portugal's classroom noise standards, adopted in 1988, limit 
reverberation time in general classrooms to .6-.8 seconds and in 
special classrooms to .6 seconds; equipment background noise may not 
exceed 35 dBA. Wall construction between classrooms must have a sound 
transmission class (STC) rating of at least 50 dB. The Swedish Board of 
Housing, Building and Planning has adopted Building Regulations BBR 94, 
with amendments, that include detailed guidelines for protection 
against noise for several building types, including schools, by means 
of specified areas of sound absorbent surfaces within classrooms, 
acoustical isolation between classrooms, and limits on background noise 
from building systems and equipment.
    The State of Washington Department of Health rules, WAC 248-64-320 
Sound Control, include a limit (NC-35) on background noise in 
classrooms. The Los Angeles County Unified School District--the largest 
in the world in numbers of students enrolled--has recently adopted a 
similar standard for the noise output of classroom HVAC equipment. ANSI 
S12.2-1995 suggests an NC range of 25-30 for classrooms and an RC in 
the same range. A tabular comparison of values for acoustical criteria 
in classrooms is presented in Table 1.
    Other bases for prescribing and testing acoustical characteristics, 
including values for speech-to-noise ratio and the speech transmission 
index (STI), may be applied to diagnose existing acoustical conditions 
in classrooms, but do not appear useful in a new construction standard. 
The STI takes into account the effects of noise and reverberation and 
can be adjusted to obtain values for listeners with hearing 
impairments. Both rely on in-use measurements.

Cost

    High-performing acoustical environments are achieved at some 
premium in construction cost. Knowledgeable design, construction, and 
materials specification, an investment in high-quality HVAC equipment, 
and careful installation and workmanship are required to ensure that 
design values are reflected in performance. Special consideration of 
room configuration, proportion, and location may also be necessary. 
Furthermore, the measures necessary to

[[Page 29683]]

control sound in classrooms may raise other issues affecting cost. For 
instance, carpeting is recommended to add absorbency for reverberation 
control and to minimize the self-noise of student movement. However, 
carpeting may require a change in maintenance procedures. Controlling 
ambient noise in many urban schools may require that windows be kept 
closed even in pleasant weather, when HVAC systems might operate at 
lesser capacities. Students with moderate to severe hearing impairments 
may also require the use of amplification systems to increase speech 
intelligibility to effective values.

ADAAG Criteria

    To be useful, acoustical recommendations and standards should 
employ design techniques, data, and sound measurement protocols 
available and familiar to architecture, engineering, and construction 
practitioners and applicable during design phases. Like a building 
code, ADAAG is intended for use in new construction and alterations of 
buildings and facilities. It contains provisions for construction 
elements, items, and finishes that are fixed to the building structure. 
Furniture and equipment, including portable communications devices, are 
covered by the DOJ regulation, not ADAAG.
    The Board recognizes that amplification technologies may be 
required for effective communications in some rooms and spaces and for 
some individuals. Such solutions, including those that use portable 
assistive listening systems and sound field technology, are beyond the 
scope of the building and facility provisions in ADAAG. However, such 
technologies cannot be fully effective in noisy environments; 
amplification in highly reverberant environments will exacerbate 
listening and hearing problems. Furthermore, the effectiveness of 
personal devices, particularly hearing aids, is also compromised in 
noisy environments. And, because the learning environment includes 
interaction with peers and other individuals in classrooms and other 
settings, instructor amplification only may not fully remove barriers 
to hearing, listening, and learning where acoustical design is flawed.
    Based upon public comments to this notice and on information 
already available and outlined in this notice, the Board will consider 
whether it is appropriate for ADAAG to include criteria for such 
acoustical performance characteristics as reverberation time and 
background noise. Several non-rulemaking options will also be 
considered, including additional research, the development of advisory 
materials, and guidance and technical assistance for design 
professionals.
    In response to the petition, the Board wishes to focus this request 
for information on the acoustical performance of classrooms and related 
spaces used by children, including day care settings for pre-primary 
ages. However, the Board will consider comments and recommendations on 
the scope and technical provisions of acoustical criteria appropriate 
for buildings and facilities and other occupancies, as well.
    The Board seeks relevant research, standards, data, test reports, 
analyses, and recommendations from acoustical engineers and 
consultants, design professionals, educators and educational 
administrators and counselors, audiologists, specialists in hearing 
impairments, parents of children with disabilities and persons with 
hearing, speech, and language disabilities, including learning and 
developmental disorders, and the organizations that represent them. 
Commenters are encouraged to address their responses to the issues 
outlined below.
    Question 1: Implementing acoustical guidelines in educational 
facilities for children may be necessary for youngsters with auditory 
and related disabilities to function effectively in school. (a) Should 
all rooms and spaces within a school setting be included in coverage? 
Some comment has identified gymnasiums, pools, and cafeterias as 
particularly problematic for students with hyperacusis, a heightened 
sensitivity to noise, and for those with learning and auditory 
processing disabilities. Such facilities are often highly reverberant 
due to their large areas of hard, sound-reflective surfaces. (b) Should 
acoustic guidelines include coverage of these spaces? Would a less 
stringent standard be appropriate in non-classroom school facilities? 
What acoustical properties are appropriate in multi-purpose spaces that 
accommodate recreation, performance, and food service activities at 
different times during a school day? (c) In view of the importance of 
early language acquisition, how should child care settings be covered? 
Are there acoustical criteria in current health and safety standards 
for child care facilities? (d) Should the Board consider the 
development of guidelines for a wider range of facility types for a 
more universal range of users? If so, what facilities might be 
included?
    Question 2: The Board has received information on several cases in 
which the acoustical environment was an issue in an Individualized 
Education Plan prepared by a school system for a child with a hearing 
impairment. Would a common standard for the acoustical design of 
educational facilities be helpful to design professionals seeking to 
provide acoustically satisfactory environments and to school systems 
seeking to comply with educational mandates for children with 
disabilities? Are current design manuals, recommendations, and other 
technical assistance on acoustical design sufficient?
    Question 3: There is considerable research that shows that 
controlling classroom noise and reverberation will benefit student 
learning. However, it is not clear at what levels effective listening 
by children with mild, moderate, severe, or profound hearing losses and 
other disabilities is compromised and whether such conditions can be 
achieved in some classroom environments, where ``self-noise'' and 
student activity also contribute to a poor listening environment. (a) 
Is there research that identifies the specific acoustic requirements 
necessary for effective listening by children with various hearing, 
speaking, and learning disabilities? What acoustical performance and 
testing standards are appropriate for classrooms in which children with 
auditory disabilities are integrated? Are there data that relate 
specific acoustical criteria to the usability of buildings and 
facilities by children with learning disabilities, developmental 
disabilities, and other disabilities that affect speech reception, 
learning, and communication? (b) What are the relative contributions of 
low reverberation values and low background noise values to effective 
communication for people with hearing loss? (c) Can the acoustical 
environment be improved sufficiently through design and construction 
measures for children with hearing and other impairments to receive 
significant communications benefit?
    Question 4: The Board also seeks information on the acoustical 
environment necessary for effective use of assistive technology, 
including hearing aids and assistive listening devices, by children 
with hearing loss. Because assistive technologies will be part of many 
student accommodations, the Board is interested in the extent to which 
poor acoustics compromise the effectiveness of technologies such as 
sound field enhancement (in which the amplified voice of a teacher 
fitted with

[[Page 29684]]

a microphone can be distributed to speakers placed around the perimeter 
of a classroom) and direct broadcast to children with hearing loss 
through personal assistive listening devices. At what thresholds of 
background sound and reverberation will children with various degrees 
of hearing loss be able to participate in meaningful classroom 
listening if aided by amplification technology?
    Question 5: The GAO report on school conditions highlighted the 
multimedia classroom as the educational facility of the future. The 
Board is interested in understanding the nature and characteristics of 
such a classroom, particularly the extent to which it may be 
interactive, with small group listening and discussion, multiple inputs 
from speakers and media devices, frequent changes in speaker-listener 
relationships, and other audio source conditions that may not be fully 
adaptable to amplification technologies.
    Question 6: The Board recognizes that decisions made by building 
design professionals during the design phases of a project affect the 
ultimate acoustical performance of a room or space. Determinations of 
building siting, overall facility planning, and individual room volume 
and proportion, floor, wall and ceiling assembly construction and 
finishes, equipment specification, and HVAC system design all 
contribute to the acoustic functioning of a room or space. However, 
most recommendations for acoustical performance measure the results of 
such design decisions, setting limits on reverberation and background 
noise. (a) Can good speech listening conditions be achieved by setting 
standards for reverberation time and background noise only? (b) Should 
other design variables, for example, room configuration or proportion, 
ceiling height, or size, be considered? The Swedish guidelines specify 
wall and ceiling construction types and values in addition to limiting 
background noise. Are these a useful model for possible guidelines? (c) 
How might considerations of speech intelligibility, speech transmission 
indices, and other measures that rely on in-use testing be incorporated 
in acoustical design? What are the margins of error in acoustical 
equipment, testing, simulation, and construction? (d) What are 
effective means of acoustically retrofitting an existing classroom or 
other space that performs poorly for speech perception? How successful 
can such corrective action be in correcting perceived hearing and 
listening problems?
    Question 7: What is the square foot cost for new classroom 
construction today? What additional square foot cost would be necessary 
to meet average industry recommendations for reverberation time (R 
.6--.8 seconds) and background noise (NC 35-40) for classrooms? What 
would be the added cost, per square foot, of achieving values within 
the ranges suggested by ASA (R .4--.6 seconds; NC 25-30)? What are the 
relative costs of meeting reverberation limits as opposed to background 
sound limits? What data are available on the costs of alterations to 
existing environments to improve acoustical conditions?
    Question 8: The Board also seeks information on the non-capital 
costs and savings associated with constructing and maintaining 
acoustically-appropriate classrooms and related educational facilities. 
What are the cost implications of such design and finishes decisions 
and operating procedures as room location and configuration, window 
operability, and carpeting? What savings might accrue from the 
elimination of some special education environments?
    Question 9: How can compliance with acoustical design criteria be 
assessed prior to facility occupancy and use? How can time and physical 
variations in equipment manufacture, construction, and outside noise 
conditions be accommodated in a guideline? What testing and compliance 
practices have been used where standards are already in place?
    Question 10: Many teachers and administrators have had experience 
with open classrooms, in which several teaching groups may work 
concurrently in a single large space, and with enclosed classrooms of 
smaller size. (a) The Board is particularly interested in comments 
offering a comparison of the effects on students and teachers, in 
particular those with disabilities, of classroom acoustics in such 
situations. (b) Do noisy classrooms exacerbate teacher stress? Are 
there data available on the effects of classroom noise on teacher 
health, comfort, or performance? (c) Do schools and systems have 
information on student behavior and performance after acoustical 
improvements, including the partitioning of open classrooms into more 
discrete units, have been made?
    Question 11: What approaches other than regulation under the ADA 
might be successful in achieving good acoustical design? What 
organizations and interests should be consulted in the Board's 
consideration of acoustical issues?

    Dated: May 26, 1998.
Thurman M. Davis, Sr.,
Chair, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

    Table 1 on recommended/required acoustical criteria for classrooms 
follows:

BILLING CODE 8150-01-P 

[[Page 29685]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JN98.057

 

[[Page 29686]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01JN98.058



[FR Doc. 98-14442 Filed 5-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-C