Response to “Comments on ‘A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH Occupational Noise and Hearing Survey’ ” [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. <b>103</b>, 2734 (1998)]

<jats:p>Concern is raised by Dobie [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 2734 (1998)] regarding a recent analysis [, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950–963 (1997)] of the NIOSH Occupational Noise and Hearing Survey data. Specifically, issues are raised concerning (1) definition of hearing handicap, (2) the use of frequency-specific articulation index (AI) weights applied to the binaural pure-tone average of 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz, and (3) conclusions regarding significant excess risk based on this definition. We have reviewed the development of the definitions of hearing handicap and provide additional support for the use of a hearing handicap definition based on the binaural pure-tone average of 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz and the weighting of specific frequencies. Furthermore, our definition of noise-induced hearing handicap is similar to one of several proposed by the International Standards Organization (Reference 1999Reference 1990) and the American National Standards Institute (Reference 3Reference 44Reference 1996). Additional analyses show that there is significant evidence of excess risk at daily exposure levels below 85 dB using any of the pure-tone average and/or weighting strategies we have examined. Hence we have provided additional support for our conclusions regarding exposure-response curves and we have reaffirmed that our methods are appropriate for the scope of our analysis.</jats:p>