Authors. In clause 15.3 of the new project there is a list of personal safety equipment obligatory to certification including, quote: "... personal safety equipment of respiratory apparatus of filtering type with protective ratio more than 16 (penetration ratio less than 6 %) except for self-rescuers (???)". It turns so that filtering self-rescuers which human in extreme situations relies on can be not certified and released any one one likes.

MWG.It seems that currently it is possible to produce "any one one likes" self-rescuers and they are being produced but with adoption of the order it will be rather embarrassing because it states:

- obligatory and concrete requirements to PSE - cl. 5.4 of the project;

- declaration of conformity (for this case) which is as obligatory as the certificate - cl. 16 of the project;

- state control (supervision) that is assigned to the structure directly responsible for safety of people - chapter 5 of the project;

- public control (CPS) in addition and assistance to the state control; if state control willingly of unwillingly misses something and "any one one likes" self-rescuer would be manufactured - chapter 6 of the project.

We, certainly, agree with the authors of remarks that not only self-rescuers but the whole list of PSE obligatory to certification and declaration are still rather debatable. Discussing this matter, however, we would like to hear not only unappealable declarations about unavoidable deaths of users for the unknown reason but, as it is usual in scientific groups, technically and documentary proved facts. We would be appreciated if the authors of the article would give precise, clear and exact explanation of their maxim stating that the certificate "rescues" life of the consumer and the declaration, probably, "kills" him/her. It is advisable that arguments had references to documents, statistics, concrete researches and excluded declarative and emotional statements. In the meantime there is only a suggestion to make a precise copy of the European Instruction.

From our part we show using self-rescuers as an example that nothing is so ambiguous. It seems, on the one hand, that filtering self-rescuer is intended to rescue human life but on another it is often used in situations where this threat should not be, namely: SNiP 21-01-97 (with amdt. № 1) FIRE SAFETY OF BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTIONS has the requirement: "cl. 6.4. Protection of people on ways of evacuation... Evacuation ways within a room should provide safe evacuation of people using emergency exits from the room not taking into account fire extinguishing means and smoke protection". According to this document there is no sign of threat to life without self-rescuers! Certainly we understand that in this area not everything meets the requirements, we will be glad to discuss your concrete proposals and arguments about "counting degree of risk". At the same time it's hard to agree that it is necessary to develop safety equipment balancing rough violations in the area of fire and/or chemical safety. No safety equipment of respiratory apparatus would rescue a person at fire if evacuation ways are welded with metal bars as it was in the Savings Bank of Vladivostok. Such means will give people false encourage in extreme situations (deception of consumer).