NIOSH has received a petition to initiate rulemaking to change the provisions of Paragraph (f) of Section 84.83 in Title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, part 84 (42 CFR 84). This paragraph requires each remaining service-life indicator or warning device to give an alarm when the apparatus’ remaining service life is reduced to within a range of 20 to 25 percent of its rated service time. The current requirement does not state that the device must initiate activation in this range; only that it needs to give an alarm in this range.

The EOSTI needs to alarm between the 2 limits. It can remain on as the air pressure drops below those pressures, or stop alarming after a brief time.

The petition requests NIOSH to modify the provision to eliminate the upper limit of this range. The purpose of this change would be to allow each respiratory protection program manager to determine the most appropriate alarm setting, with 20 percent as the retained minimum, to provide SCBA users time to exit a scene.

Background

NIOSH has received several suggestions via NIOSH Docket -034 to modify the SCBA End of Service Life Indicator Requirement in 42 CFR Part 84. These suggestions recommend a change to 42 CFR Part 84 that would eliminate an implied maximum standard for the End of Service Time Indicator (EOSTI or ‘low air alarm’) of SCBA. They would allow the program manager to decide at what point (above a minimum 25%) the alarm should sound.

Input Sought from Stakeholders

Through this announcement, NIOSH is seeking input from stakeholders to determine the following:

1. Opinions on the current EOSTI performance requirement.
2. Opinions on modifying the current EOSTI performance requirement from a range to a minimum value.
1. Should NIOSH continue to interpret the provision to require the alarm to continue uninterrupted until the minimum value (20%) is reached?
2. If the petitioned change is adopted, what tolerance should NIOSH use to evaluate acceptable EOSTI performance at a specified setting rather than within a range?
3. If the petitioned change is adopted, should NIOSH evaluate EOSTI performance at settings other than the 20% minimum? If so, at what additional values?
4. Is there a rationale to distinguish Fire Service SCBA from those used for industrial applications for the evaluation of the EOSTI?
3. Identification of alternative approaches to address EOSTI performance.
4. Other comments on the subject.

Public Comment Period

Comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. ET on January 16, 2009 in accordance with the instructions below. All material submitted to NIOSH should reference Docket Number NIOSH-034-A. All electronic comments should be formatted as Microsoft Word and make reference to docket number NIOSH-034-A.

Comments will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. ET on January 16, 2009

To submit comments regarding this draft publication, please use one of these options:

• Send NIOSH comments using this online form
  
  
• Send comments by email.
  
  
• Fax comments to the NIOSH Docket Office: 513-533-8285
  
  
• Send by Mail to:
  NIOSH Docket Office
  NIOSH Mailstop: C-34
  Robert A. Taft Lab.
  4676 Columbia Parkway
  Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

Contact Person for Technical Information

Jonathan V. Szalajda
National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL)
412-386-6627
zfx1@cdc.gov

NIOSH Draft Documents for Public Review