										March 1, 2007

Kenneth Feith

Office of Air & Radiation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC   20004-2403

Dear Mr. Feith,

We enjoyed the opportunity to join you at the recent EPA Advisory
Meeting in January to discuss upcoming changes to EPA’s hearing
protector regulations (40 CFR Part 211, Subpart B).  The discussion was
valuable and timely, and we applaud EPA’s desire to “do it right,
considering the updated regulations will likely be around a long
time,” as you stated.  As the world leader in the design, manufacture
and sale of personal protective equipment, Bacou-Dalloz (makers of the
Howard Leight and Bilsom line of hearing protection) eagerly supports
EPA’s efforts to update the testing and labeling regulations for
protectors.  In response to your request for constructive contributions
in drafting proposed rulemaking, we offer the following comments.

Objectives of New Regulation

We join with EPA in seeking new testing and labeling regulations with
the following objectives:

▪  A user-friendly primary label, possibly utilizing a two-number
range that expresses the 20th and 80th percentile of attenuation among
users

▪  A secondary label that can be easily accessed by users for
additional information.  That secondary information may be accessible to
end users on a website, or by phone/fax.

▪  The new rating should require no de-rating by OSHA

▪  The new rating should be designed in its primary form to be
subtracted from A-weighted noise levels.  In a secondary form, users may
be able to subtract a modified rating from C-weighted noise levels.

▪  The new rating should be able to accommodate non-standard hearing
protectors, such as active noise reduction or level-dependent
protectors, perhaps indicated by special icons on the label



▪ Periodic retesting of hearing protectors by manufacturers

▪ A reasonable phase-in period for manufacturers to retest and deplete
existing packaging inventory

▪ A compliance audit provision for any claimed discrepancies in
published attenuation

Laboratory Test Method

The Howard Leight Acoustical Test Lab in San Diego participated in the
recent NIOSH Interlaboratory Study, and is an active participant in ANSI
WG11.  While there is no consensus “best practice” as
慦⁲獡琠獥⁴敭桴摯‬敷戠汥敩敶挠牥慴湩琠獥⁴敭桴
摯⁳敢瑴牥猠牥敶琠敨攠摮甭敳獲琠慨⁮瑯敨獲‮ഠ

▪ Ideally, the method best suited to evaluate HPDs will have low
between-subject and between-lab variability.  Among the two methods
proposed in ANSI S12.6-1997, Method A exhibits lower between-subject
variability, while Method B exhibits lower between-lab variability. 
Another option to consider is the ISO 4869-1 test method, bringing the
U.S. more in line with accepted international practice.

▪  The use of naïve test subjects (as required in Method B)
artificially deflates attenuation, using contrived subject pools to
drive the NRR to a ‘worst-case’ real-world value.  We concur with
EPA, that the Agency has no obligation to seek a rating number that
reflects these kinds of worst-case numbers, and that the Agency cannot
take responsibility for the level of protection achieved by uninformed
users who fit the HPD poorly.  We consider it unconscionable to use a
naïve deviant population, as defined in Method B, to determine the
performance ratings of HPDs for regulatory purposes.  

▪  As manufacturers of personal protective equipment, we are concerned
at the abdication of responsibility presumed by a naïve subject fit
test method.  Adopting a Method B-based rating number on our packaging
would imply endorsement of irresponsible usage, essentially telling our
end-users, “We don’t believe you will use our product properly, and
we condone the fact that you will not use it properly.”  We support a
testing method that utilizes a supervised fit (similar to Method A or
the ISO 4869-1 standard).  This supervised fit method replicates the
best practice mandated by safety regulations worldwide.

RATING METHOD AND LABEL

▪ We concur that a two-number rating range can accurately display the
attenuation capabilities of HPDs, so long as the explanatory information
is understandable to end-users.  Such a range will correctly divert
attention away from insignificant one- or two-decibel differences
between HPDs, and focus attention on obtaining a proper fit.  

▪ While standard passive HPDs constitute the vast majority of the
market, end-users would be well-served by icons on the primary label to
indicate special-use HPDs.  Three special-use categories to consider are
the following:

Special Use	Examples of HPD	Possible Icon	Explanatory

ž

 

½

ž

Ÿ

 

½

¾

\

^

ed for use to optimize speech communication in noise



A possible mock-up of a primary label containing the attenuation range
and sample icon is shown below:

 

		Fig. 1.  Mock-up of possible new EPA label for hearing protectors.

▪ Secondary label may include other useful information:  how to check
the fit of HPD, intended usage, octave band mean attenuation and
standard deviation, helpful information in applying the rating numbers,
and encouragement to train users in proper fit.

▪ Efforts to statistically manipulate the rating of HPDs to more
closely match real-world usage is counter-productive, and not in the
best interest of the Agency, nor the end-user.  If there are problems in
the proper fit and use of personal protective equipment, we strongly
support improved end-user training and motivation, rather than
statistical “dumbing-down” of the rating number to improve
real-world performance.  In this point, we concur with the statement in
the Introduction to ANSI S12.6-1997 (section 0.3):  “It makes no sense
to excessively derate hearing protector performance to estimate
worst-case attenuation values, since worst-case values are much more
heavily influenced by factors other than the hearing protectors
themselves.”  We believe user training and motivation are
overwhelmingly two of those factors.

▪ We support the proposal by EPA/NIOSH to use an on-line NRR
Calculator to capture attenuation data and recommended usage from each
manufacturer, effectively creating a Hearing Protector Data Sheet,
similar in function to an MSDS.  Users could then access the EPA-hosted
website to review or download any of these PDF data sheets.  This
captured data would constitute EPA’s official file of approved HPDs in
the U.S. market, thus preserving the integrity of quality products
available to end-users.

We laud EPA’s initiative in tackling this long-overdue update to
hearing protector regulations, and we look forward to being active
participants in the Agency’s efforts in promulgating and supporting a
world-class regulation that contributes to the prevention of
noise-induced hearing loss.

Sincerely,

	Mark Hampton		Steve Gilder			Brad Witt

	Sr. Vice President		Director of R&D		Audiology Manager

	Head Protection			Howard Leight Industries	Howard Leight Industries

	Bacou-Dalloz

BACOU-DALLOZ : 7828 Waterville Road - San Diego, CA 92154 - USA





