451 Error

Transcript

Report of the Committee on Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the design, performance, testing, and certification of protective clothing and protective equipment manufactured for fire and emergency services organizations and personnel, to protect against exposures encountered during emergency incident op.erations. This Committee shall also have the primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of such protective dothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel. Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-AAC) Technical Correlating Committee Richard M. Duffy, Chair Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC [L] Rep. Int'l Assn. ofFire Fighters Wayde B. Miller, Secretar3, Jacksonville Beach, FL [M] Rep. Compressed Gas Assn./Mine Safety Appliances Co. Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-HAZ) Leslie Anderson, U.S. Forest Service Technology & Development Center, MT [E] Thomas G. Augherton, Safety Equipment Inst., VA [RT] Dennis W. Browner, Scott Aviation, NC [M] Rep. Industrial Safety Equipment Assn. Robert H. Chiostergi, Southern Mills Inc., GA [M] Robert A. Freese, Globe Mfg. Co., NH [M] William L. Griiliot, Morning Pride Mfg. Co., OH [M] Rep. Fire and Emergency Mfrs. and Services Assn. Inc Virgil Hathaway, San Diego Fire Dept., CA [U] Rep. Southern Area Fire Equipment Research James s. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs, CA [RT] Cy Long, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX [E] DavidG. Matthews, United Kingdom Fire Brigades Assn., England [SE] Rep. Int'l Standards Organization m Minx, Oklahoma State Firefighters Assn., OK [C1 ob Montgomery, Celanese Corp., NC [M] Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] Robert D. Tutterow, Jr., Charlotte Fire Dept., NC [U] Rep. Fire Industry Equipment Research Organization, Bruce H. Varner, City of Carrollton Fire Dept., TX [U] Rep. Int'l Fire Service Training Assn., Harry Winer, U.S. Navy, MA [RT] Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Bryan C. Heirston, Chair Oklahoma City Fire Dept., OK [L] Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters Patrlcia A. Gleason, Secretary Safety Equipment Inst, VA [RT] Donald Abbott, Command Emergency Response Training (CERT), IN [SE] William Alexander, Bata Shoe Co., MD [M] Jeffrey B. Borko~ski, New York City Fire Dept, NY [U] Kerry Bove, Mine Safety Appliances, PA [M] Rep. Industrial Safety Equipment Assn. Wade G. DeHate, Hillsborough County Fire Rescue, FL [E] Gerald J. Diskin, Kodak Fire Dept, NY [U] Catherine R. Dodgcn, Intertek Testing Services NA Inc., NY [RT] Jan Dunbar, Sacramento Fire Dept., CA [U] Pep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Chiefs Daniel Gohlke, W. L.Gore & Assoc., MD [M] William G. Hatch, Hatch, Health and Safety Training., CA [SE] Derek Jenkins, Ontario Hydro - Nanticoke 65, Ontario, Canada [U] Glean P. Jirka, University of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst., MO [SE] hn D. Langley, Kappler Safety Group, Inc., AL [M] nneth A. Pever, Guardian Mfg. Co., OH [M] Jack IL Pryor, City of Piano Fire Dept, TX [U] Alac Ruutopold, Chemfab Corp., NH [M] Daniel P. Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Mel Sang, Norcross Safety Products, IL [M] Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] Richard W. Thomas, TRI/Environmental, Inc., "IX [RT] Robert West, Texas Instruments, TX [U] ¢iamesP. Zeigler, E. L duPont deNemours and Co., Inc., VA [M] ichael Ziski'"n, Field Safety Corp., CT [RT] ~ Alternates Janice c. Bradley, Industrial Safety Equipment Assn., VA [M] (Alt. to D. W. Browner) Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] (Air. to F. P. Taylor) Robert F. Dahl, DuPont Spruance Plant, VA [M] (Alt. to B. Montgomery) Patricla A. Freeman, Globe Mfg. Co., NH [M] (Alt. to R. A. Freese) Patricia A. Gleason, Safety Equipment Inst., VA [RT] (Alt. to T. G. Augherton) William M. Lambert, Mine Safety Appliances Co., PA [M] (Alt. to W. B. Miller) Daniel P. Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to T. L. Wollan) Trlcia Vogelpohl, Springfield, LLC, SC [M] (Alt. to R. H. Chiostergi) Alternates Steve Derynck, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (AlL to D. P. Ryan) Prakash G. Devasthall, Norcross Safety Products, IL [M] (AlL to M. Seng) John J. Fanning, New York City Fire Dept., NY [U] (Alt. to J. B. Borkowski) Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory protective equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb, and head, protection for fire fighters and other emergency services responders during incidents that involve hazardous materials operations. These operations involve the activities of rescue; hazardous material confinement, containment, and mitigation; and property conservation where exposure to substances that present an unusual danger to responders are present or could occur due to toxicity, chemical reactivity, decomposition, corrosiveness, or similar reactions. Addiuonally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of hazardous materials protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel. Nonvoting Don R. Forrest, United Firefighters of LA City, CA [L] Bryan C. Helrston, Oklahoma City Fire Dept., OK [L] Pep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters Richard Mangan, USDA Forest Service, MT [RT] James S. Nee, ARFF Working Group, PA [U] Rep. Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighdng Working Group Kirk H. Owen, Piano Fire Dept., TX [U] RED.. NFPA Fire Service Section Ray'F. Reed, Dallas Fire Dept., TX [U] StaffLiaison: Bruce W. Teele 407 NFPA 1991 m F99 ROC Guy D. Eckert, The Warrington Group Ltd., DE [M] Don 1L Forrest, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, CA [L] Mary I. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg. Co. Inc., OH [M] Cliff Haskell, IAFF Local 522, CA [L] Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters Larry Horn, City of Portland, OR, OR [U] Stephen J. King, New York City Fire Dept., NY [U] James R. Lawson, U.S. Nat'i Inst. of Standards & Technology, MD [RT] ~ i Long, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX [E] lliam T. McCutcheon, Jr., Cairns & Brother, Inc., NJ [M] Kevin J. O'Connell, Louisville Division of Fire, KY [U] Tom Pagan, Shelby Specialty Gloves, TN [M] Mel Seng, Norcross Safety Products, IL [M] Dennis IL Stout, E. D. Bullard Co., KY [M] Jeffrey O. stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] Robert D, Tutterow, J r . , Charlotte Fire Dept., NC [El Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Chiefs Woody Waiters, Minnesota State Fire EMS Center, MN [C] Rep. Nat'l Volunteer Fire Council Harry Winer, U.S. Navy, MA [RT] Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAF~FA) James s. Nee, Chair ARFF Working Group, PA [U] Rep. Aircraft Rescue & Fire Fighting Working Group Harry Winer, Secretary U.S. Navy, MA [RT] Charles L. Barber, DuPont, VA [M] Karl J. Beeman, Globe Firefighters Suits, NM [M] Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services NA Inc., NY [RT] George Freeman, Dallas Fire Dept., TX [U] William R. Hutfilz, Clark County Fire Dept., NV [U] David V, Jackson, U.S. Navy/NAVAIR, MD [E] James Jones, Mason & Hanger Corp., TX [E] George (Clio McDaniel, U.S. Marine Corps, MD [El Kenneth Ray Mobley, City of El Paso Fire Dept., TX [U] Bob Montgomery, Celanese Corp., NC [M] Louis V. Ott, Gentex Corp., PA [M] Daniel P. Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Mel Seng, Norcross Safety Products, IL [M] Scott E. Snyder, The Boeing Fire Dept., WA [U] Florencio D. Soliz, III, City of Austin Fire Dept., TX [U] Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] William J. Tibbett, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX [E] Alternates Roger L. Barker, North Carolina State University, NC [M] (AIt. to P. A. Freeman) Prakash G. Devasthali, Norcross Safety Products, IL [M] (Alt. to M. Seng) Kerry W. Gordon, Cairns & Brother, Inc., NJ [M] (Alt. to W. T. McCutcheon) William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg. Co., OH [M] (Alt. to M. I. Grilliot) James S. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Labs, CA [RT] (Alt. to D. G. Beason) Kevin S. Malley, New York City Fire Dept., NY [U] (Alt. to S. J. King) Richard A. Oleson, E. D. Bullard Co., KY [M] (Air. to D. K. Stout) Kelly Wayne Sisson, City of La Mesa Fire Dept., CA [U] (Alt. to M. Carlin) Charles C. Sorts, Spencer Safety Products Co., WA [SE] (Alt. toJ. O. Stull) Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (Alt. to C. IL Dodgen) Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to D. Aidridge) Robert Vettori, U.S. Nat'l Inst. of Standards & Technology, MD [RT] (Alt. to J. 1L Lawson) Alternates Prakash G. Devasthali, Norcross Safety Products, IL [M] (Alt. to M. Seng) Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Mfg. Co., NH [M] (Alt. to K.J. Beeman) Andrew G. Schwartz, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to F. P. Taylor) Karen E. Strnmlock, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (AIt. to C. R. Dodgen) Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory protective equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb, head, and interface protection for fire fighters or other emergency services responders during incidents that include, but are not limited to, bulk flammable gas fires, bulk flammable liquid fires, flammable metal fires, nuclear fuel fires, exotic fuels fires, that present an unusual or extraordinary danger to personnel and involve highly specialized fire fighting operations. These operations include the acuvities of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation during fires producing very high levels of conductive, convective, or radiant heat or any combination thereof. Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of specialized fire fighting applications protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel. Nonvoting Glen E. Gardner, U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Admin, DC [El Staff Liaison: Bruce W. Teele Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory protective equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb, head, and interface protection for fire fighters or other emergency services responders during incidents involving structural fire fighting operations. These operations include the activities of rescue, fire suppression, and propert~ conservation in buildings, enclosed structures, vehicles, marine vessels, or like properties that are involved in a fire or emergency situation. Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of structural fire fighting protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel. Technical Committee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SFF) Kirk H. Owen, Chair Piano Fire Dept., TX [U] Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section Patricia A. Freeman, Secretary Globe Mfg. Co., NH [M] Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel Inc., OH [M] ames M. Baker, Nat'l Safety Clean, Inc., PA [IM] onald G. Beason, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab, CA [RT] Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA [U] Michael Carlin, La Mesa Fire Dept., CA [U] Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc., Montreal, Canada [M] Dean William Cox, Fairfax Fire & Rescue Dept., VA [U] L. Charles Davis, Division of Fire and Emergency Services, KY [U] Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services NA Inc., NY [RT] These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book. This portion of the Technical Committee Report of the Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment is presented for adoption in 4 parts. 4O8 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC Part III of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical C o m m i t t e e on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1976, Standard on Protective Clothing for Proximity Fire F~ghting, 1992 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1999 November Meeting. This Report was prepared by the: * Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-AAC), . Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-HAZ), * Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SFA), • Technical Committee on Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SFF). This document when adopted will be retired as NFPA 1976, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Proximity Fire Fighting. Part I of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical C o m m i t t e e on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing a n d Equipment, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies, 1994 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1999 November Meeting. Part III of this Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical C o m m i t t e e o n Specialized Fire Fighting Applications P r o t e c t i v e Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 19 voting members; of whom 14 voted affirmatively and 5 ballots were not returne'd (Jones, McDaniel, Snyder, Soliz, and Tibbett). This document when adopted will be retitled as NFPA 1991, Standard on Vapor-Protectlve Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies. Part III of this Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating C o m m i t t e e o n Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 20 voting members of whom 18 voted affirmatively and 2 ballots were not returned (Anderson and Johnson.) Part I of this Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 25 voting members; of whom 18 voted affirmatively and 7 ballots were not returned (Abbott, Bore, Jenkins, Pryor, Ruutopold, Thomas, and West). Part IV of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical C o m m i t t e e o n Structural Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment, and documents its action on the comments receivect on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural Ftre Fighting, 1997 edition, as published in the Report on Pro[~osals for the 1999 November Meeting. Part I of this Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating C o m m i t t e e o n Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists o f 20 voting members of whom 18 voted affirmatively and 2 ballots were not returned (Anderson and Johnson.) Part IV of this Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical C o m m i t t e e on Structural Fire Ftghting Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 29voting members; of whom 27 voted affirmatively, 1 abstained (Lawson), and 1 ballot was not returned (Beason). Part H of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical C o m m i t t e e on Hazardous MatErials Protective Clothing a n d Equipment, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1992, Standard on Liquid Splash-Protective Suits for Hazardous Chemical Emergencies, 1994 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1999 November Meeting. Mr. Lawson abstained stating: "NIST has provided significant technical assistance on the development of this document, and it is the voter's desire to abstain on this ballot." Part IV of this Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists o f 20 voting members of whom 18 voted affirmatively and 2 ballots were not returned (Anderson and Johnson.) This document when adopted will be retitled as NFPA 1992, Standard on Liquid Splash-Protective Clothing for Hazardous Materials Emergencies. Part II of this Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 25 voting members; of whom 18 voted affirmatively and 7 ballots were not returned (Abbott, Bore, Jenkins, Pryor, Ruutopold, Thomas, and West). Part II of this Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists o f 20 voting members of whom 18 voted affirmatively and 2 ballots were not returned (Anderson and Johnson.) 409 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC organization shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section. Item 3. Add new 2-3.4 to read: 2-3.4 The certification organization shall test individual elements with the specific ensemble(s) they are to be certified with in accordance with the requirements of 2-1.3. Move existing 2-3.1 (ROP text) to become 2-3.5, renumber existing 2-3.4 through 2-3.12 (ROP text numbering) as 2-3.6 through 2-3.14. Item 4. Add new 2-3.15 to read: 2-3.15 The certification organization shall maintain records of all pass/fail tests for initial certification. Pass/fail records shall indicate the dis'position of the failed material or product. SUBSTANTIATION: The TCC has revised 2-2~7 to reflect the current text being used in the documents in this Project for consistency of certification requirements. The TCC has provided the new text for 2-3.1 for the TC to add to Section 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements. The TCC hasprovided suggested text for a new 2-3.4 to cross reference with 2-1.3 and to reinforce the important need for testing individual elements with a specific ensemble or ensembles that they will become a part of to assure a combination of elements that are compatible and will provide the required protection for the emergency responder when assembled. The TCC has provided the new text for 2-3.15 for the TC to add to Section 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. PART I (__Lpg#64) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- I - (Entire Document): TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this Comment is to change the TC action to "Accept in Part in Principle" as follows: 1991-1 Item 1: Accept 1991-1 Item 2: Accept in Principle. Revise 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 to read: R e n u m b e r the following existing paragraphs.) 2-3.2 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for certification or for recertification shall be conducted by the certification organization or a facility accredited by the certification organization for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in ISO Guide 25,General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing lab oratories. 2-3.3 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing conducted by a product manufacturer shall not be used in the certification or recertificatinn process unless the facility for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing has been accredited by the certification organization in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and I testing laboratories. ~ For Item 2, the TCC is correcting its own Comment (1991-1 Item 2) to change the prol.~osed text in 2-3.2 and 2-3.3 to add the reference to ISO Guide 25 as a basis for determining the qualifications of the testing laboratory. This change is for consistency with other Project documents in this cycle and reflects the same text used in NFPA 1971, NFPA 1976, and NFPA 1992. It is the TCC's position to now make this the aboUerplate~ text for Section 2-3 in all documents within this Project. 1991-1 Item 3: Accept 1991-1 Item 4: Accept in Principle. Add new 2-3.15 to read: ] 2-3.15 The manufacturer shall maintain all design and [ performance inspection and test data from the certification [ organization used in the certification of the manufacturer's [ compliant product. The manufacturer shall provide such data, I upon request, to t h e p u r c h a s e r or authority having jurisdiction. For Item 4, the T C C i s correcting its own Comment (1976-3) by replacing its proposed text for a new 2-3.15 for consistency with other Project documents in this cycle and reflects the same text used in NFPA 1971, NFPA 1976, and NFPA 1992. The TCC also made for following corrections for consistency in "boUerplate" text for certification and for consistency in requirements with other documents within this Project. Add new definition to Section 1-3 to read: 1-3 Recall System. The action taken by which a manufacturer identifies an element, provides notice to the users, withdraws an element from the marketplace and distribution sites, and the element is returned to the manufacturer or other acceptable location for corrective action. Revise 2-3.8 to read: 2-3.8 Inspection by the certification organization for determining compliance with the design requirements specified in Chapter 4 shall be performed on whole or complete products. T h e certification organization shall report on the compliance of each e l e m e n t to each design requirement specified in Chapter 4 for that element. Add to 7-1.2.6: ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the c o m p e t e n c e of calibration and testing laboratories, 1990. SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Item 1. Revise 2-2.7 to read: 2-2.7, The certification organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturing facilities of the certified product, with at least two random and unannounced visits per 12month period. As part of the follow-up inspection program, the certification organization shall select sample product at random from the manufacturer's production line, from the manufacturer's in-house stock, or fi'om the open market. The certification organization shall have a statistically validated process for determining the critical inspections and tests to be conducted through this follow-up program to verify the continued compliance of the product or component. Item 2. Add new 2-3.1 to read: 2-3.1 For both initial certification and recertification of ensembles, ensemble elements, and components; the certification Committee: ( ~ - g ~ 1991- 2 - (2-2.1, A-2-2.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITrER: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: An asterisk must be added to 2-2.1 in the main body of the documentAdd new text: A-2-2.1 The certification organization should have a sufficient breadth of interest and activity so that the loss or award of a specific business contract would not be a determining factor in the financial w~ell-being of the agency. SUBSTANTIATION: This item is currently part of NFPA 1991, 1994 edition. I believe it was not the intent of the committee to delete this from the document and it should be reinserted. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log#12) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 3 - (2-3.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-5 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "The manufacturer shall test each vapor protective ensemble, each individual element for ~as tight integrity as specified in Section 6-2, Gas Tight Integrity Test. Each ensemble and individual element, shall show an ending pressure of at least 80 mm (3 5/32 in.) water gauge pressure. The data of the test shall be placed on t h e p r o d u c t label." SUBSTANTIATION: Current wording implies that the certification organization would perform the specified testing. This testing should be performed on each completed ensemble, by the manufacture, before shipment, as part of the manufacturer's a l l ~ , ~ E O l program. ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-4 (Log #24). 410 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC (Log #24) Committee: FAE-HAZ of the Technical Committee when preparing the test methods to permit specimen testing after one condition to be reconditioned and retested, unless specified in the testing. C O ~ ACTION: Accept. 1991- 4 - (2-3.1.1, 2-3.1.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.1.1: 2-3.1.1 The certification organization shall ensure that the I manufacturer tests each vapor-protective ensemble, each ensemble element, and each individual element for gastight integrity as specified in Section 6-2, Gastight Integrity Test. Each ensemble, ensemble element, and individual element shall show an ending pressure of at least 80 m m (3 5/32 in.) water gauge pressure. The date of the test shall be placed on the product label. Delete paragraph 2-3.1.2: (Log #40) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 7- (5-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 5-1.1.1 Each vapor protective ensemble shall have a product label permanently andconspicuously attached to the inner most surface of the ensemble when the ensemble is properly assembled with all layers, components a n d p a r t s in place. 5-1.1.X Each glove andfootwear element shall have a product label attached to the element, or printed upon or inserted in the smallest unit of packaging of that element. 3-1.1.8 ".....printed legibly on the product label of the ensemble and the product label for each glove and footwear." SUBSTANTIATION: It is not necessary that detachable component have the label attached. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. clcmcn~ "~ t~.c=c "tc:r= arc =~.zzhcd tc ~ z ;riper prc.tz~--'e er_'emble : ; ~ : : tcgtea~. SUBSTANTIATION: The intent of the requirement is to have the manufacturer test each suit. The certification organization is supposed to verify this but cannot apply 100 percent inspection/test requirements using its own resources. Since the exhaust valve is a manufactured component of the ensemble, lot testing of the values in acceptable in lieu of 100 percent testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #41) Committee: FAE-HAZ Committee: ( ~ - I ~ 1991- 8 - (5-1.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTE~ James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Remove specific chemical agents from the label. SUBSTANTIATION: In the last revision of this standard, the committee removed the 21 chemicals in the base requirements from the label. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no list of the 21 chemicals in the product label as presented in the ROP. 1991- 5 - (2-3.1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: OEach exhaust value installed in vapor-protective ensembles shall be tested for inward leakage as specified in Section 5-26, Exhaust Valve Inward Leakage Test. Each exhaust value shall not exhibit a 3 leakage rate exceeding 30 m l / m i n (1.83 in. / m i n ) . " SUBSTANTIATION: The Report on Proposals wording implies the the certification organization will perform the specified testing. This should become a mandatory testing requirement imposed upon the manufacturer, as part of the manufacturer's quality control program. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. I Revise the recommendation text to read as follows as 5-1.9: "E=ch eExhaust valve~ installed in vapor-protective ensembles shall he tested for inward leakage as specified in Section 5-26, Exhaust Valve Inward Leakage Test,. E=ch ¢'~.au=t ;v2u¢ shall not exhibit a leakage rate exceeding 30 m l / m i n (1.83 in. S/rain)." Delete existing 5-1.9 in the ROP. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Action on 1991-4 (Log #24) deleted 2-3.1.2. The text more appropriately belongs as a performance requirements in Section 5-1. One h u n d r e d percent testing of exhaust valves is not intended. The proposed changes reflect the establishment of a minimum performance requirement low exhaust valves that is subject to the manufacturers quali~ assurance requirements, as with the other testing requirements m this standard. (Log #46) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 9 - (5-1.2.1): Reject SUBMI'VrER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Remove the specific chemicals warfare S~Bnt name from the label. STANTIATION: This is consistent with previous committee decisions to remove the names of the 21 chemicals tested under the base requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The 21 chemicals were moved to the appendix for informational purposes and all vapor-protective suits are required to be tested to all 21 chemicals. However, the chemical warfare agents are an optional requirement and the label would provide basic information as to which chemical warfare agents the suit is certified for. (Log #25) Committee: FAE-HAZ (Log #47) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 6- (2-$.9): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.9 to read as follows: 2-3.9 The certification organization shall not allow any modifications, pretrealment, conditioning, or other such special processes of the product or any product component prior to the product's submission for evaluation and testing by the certification organization. The certification organization shall not allow test specimens that have been conditioned and tested for one test method to be reconditioned and tested for another test method unless specifically permitted in the test method. SUBSTANTIATION: In some cases, specimens that are conditioned for one type of exposure could be tested and then be tested for a different condition under the same test or even a different test. While conditioning can adversely impact specimen performance, there are situations where certain condidoning can actually 8mprove a specimens performance. It was not the intent 1991- 10- (5-1.3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Remove the names of the chemical warfare agents from the label. SUBSTANTIATION: This is consistent with previous committee decisions regarding the the names of the 21 chemicals tested under the base requirements not being printed on the label COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I T I ~ E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-9 (Log #46). 411 NFPA 1991 ~ F99 ROC (Log #26) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 16 - (5-1.8, 5-1.9, 5-2.11, 5-4.8, 5-5.10): Reject SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Remove "Each" from each of the listed paragraphs; change each subject to plural, e.g., "Vapor-protective suits shall..."; delete 5-2.11. SUBSTANTIATION: The certification organization cannot test each suit or exhaust value. The intent of the requirement is that the manufacturer test each suit. See related public comment for change that specifies manufacturer testing of each suit Paragraph 5-2.11 is redundant with paragraph 5-1.8. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Stull is a Committee member and was present at the Report n Comments meeting on 14 May 1999 and requested that this comment not be considered. (Log #31) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 11 - (3-3.2.2(l) (New)): Reject SUBMrrTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: "Type or style of serf-contained breathing apparatus accommodated within the suit." SUBSTANTIATION: Due to differences in the designs and signs of SCBA, it can not be assumed that all suits can accommodate all SCBAs. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Zeigler is a member of the Committee and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 14 May 1999 and requested that this comment not be considered. (Log #CC9) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 12 - (3-3.2.4(b)2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing a n d Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: In 3-3.2.4 add to (b)2: "and sizing information". SUBSTANTIATION: The revision will improve accuracy and understanding of the text COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #15) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 17- (5-1.9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-1.9 and change wording as proposed in 2-3.1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes in 2-3.1.2 made mandate this test on each exhaust valve as part of the manufacturer's quality control program COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-5 (Log #13). (Log #8) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 13- (5-1.5): Accept SUBMITTER= Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete the followingz 5 !.5 V z ~ r Frc.tec~5;'c cn~em~le ~Fcc'men~ =ha!! ~c t ~ t c ~ for (Log #44) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 18- (5-1.9): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each exhaust valve in the gastight ensemble shall be tested, as specified in Section 6-26, for inward leakage by the manufacturer, as specified in 2-3.1.2." SUBSTANTIATION: Alternative wording, leaving performance requirement in Section 5, and fixing implication that certification organization performs the testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-5 (Log #13). SUBSTANTIATION: This test is intended to demonsu'ate resistance to inward leakage of biological agents (see A-l-l.2). The requirement for this test is already contained in 5-9 Optional Chemical and Biological Terrorism Protection Requirement as paragraph 5-9.4. Therefore, 5-1.5 is unnecessary a n d should be stricken. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #14) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 14- (5-1.8): Accept SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Remove 5-1.8. Change 2-3.1.1 to mandate manufacturer testing of each ensemble. SUBSTANTIATION: For certification requirements, this is a redundant requirement. Air-tight integrity is determined after conditioning in 5-1.2. In addition, proposed revisions to 2-3.1.1 make this a mandatory QC test on each ensemble. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #33) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 19 - (5-2.1, 5-2.6, 5-3.1, 5-4.1, 5-5.1, 5-7.2, 5=8.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete from 5-2.1: "for each chemical in ASTM F 1001, Standard Guide for Chemicals to Evaluate Protective Clothing Materials," Replace with: "for the following list of chemicals" Add to the end the list of chemicals found in A-5-2.1 to 5-2.1, 52.6, 5-3.1, 5-4.1, 5-5.1. Add only the chemicals identified as gas to 5-7.2 and 5-8.6, they Committee: (FL°AI~-I~ 1991- 15- (5-1.8): Reject SUBMITrER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each vapor protective ensemble shall be tested, as specified in Section 6-2, by the manufacturer, for gasfight integrity as specified in 2-3.1.10." SUBSTANTIATION: Alternative wording, leaving performance eCification in Chapter 5. MMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrlTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-14 (Log #14). are: Ammonia Butadiene Chlorine Ethylene Oxide Hydrogen Chloride Methyl Chloride. SUBSTANTIATION: This moves the list of chemicals into a more prominent place in the document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 412 NFPA 1991 - - (Log #$) Committee: FAE-HAZ F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: Leaves performance requirement in Chapter 5 and fixes implication that each suit is tested by the certification organization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-5 (Log #15). 1991- 20 - (5-2.4 and 6-11.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 5-2.4 Vapor-protective suit materials shall be tested for puncture ropagafi.on tear resistance as specified in Section 6-11, Puncture ropagat~on Tear Resistance Test, and shall have a puncture propagation tear resistance of not less than ~ 4 9 N (11 IbI). 6-11.5.1 The puncture propagation tear resistance of each specimen shall be reported to the nearest 0.05 kg 1N (0.1 Ibm)of fcrce. An average puncture propagation tear resistance shall be calculated for warp and filling directions. SUBSTANTIATION: The original performance criteria measures are units of force. Units of force should be converted to Newton's (N) as the unit of force and the original measurement of pounds should be noted as pounds of force (Ibf). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ~ (Log #56) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 25- (5-4.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Vapor protective gloves shall be tested for dexterity as specified in Section 6-17, Glove Hand Function Test, and shall =.===".h= ~-"^"-". . . . " ~ . . . . . . . " ~ ' - - ' ^ " have an avermze nercent of harehand control not exceedin~ 600 ~ercent." SUBSTANTIATION: Continued work by the Glove Task Group has determined that the peg board test is the most appropriate, and recommends deletion of the Gross Dexterity Test A (knot tying), Fine Dexterity Test, and Tactility Test. The performance criteria is based on round robin testing of several glove styles. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #9) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 21 - (5-2.10): Accept SUBMITTER= Glenn P. Jirk,% Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: (Log #28) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 26 - (5-4.6, 6-17): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Jeffrey o . Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, I n c COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Modify the hand function performance requirement and test method as follows: 5-4.6 Glove specimens shall be tested for hand function as specified in Section 6-17, Glove Hand Function Tests, and shall SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement is relative to optional chemical flash fire protection and is contained in both 5-6 Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Requirements as 5-6.5 and 5-8 Optional Combined Chemical Flash Fire and Liquefied Gas Protection Requirements as 5-8.5. Therefore, 5-2.10 is unnecessary and should be removed. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. ,-, . . . . e,. . . . . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . have an average percent of barehand control not exceeding 600 percent fc: -.h~ C : c = (Log #27) Committee: FAE-HAZ dia=..ctc- c.f ~ mr... ~nx...~n . . .: .-. ,~ "^ . . . .~'^ r-~----:'~'^~"'--vf~= ~ c ~ = c ~c::tc='~" "3~^.#, 1991- 22 - (5-2.10, 5-4.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, In~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-21 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 5-2.10 and 5-4.7. SUBSTANTIATION: The subject paragraphs were never intended to become part of the base requirements but were to be included only as part of the optional chemical flash fire protection requirements. Paragraph 5-6.5 current provides the latter requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. [AS TK~ --I . . . . . . . . ." . . . . . I..^II -----.'~ --: . . . . .,$'~k . . . . . . . . . b~-=h=-=d ccn'..-c! :.;'c==g: cf net !c=: ~:.== °0 p c = c = t fc: ~hc CrOp Revise Test Method as follows: 6-17 Glove Hand Function Tests. 6-17.1 Application. 6-17.1.1 This test shill apply to gloves. 6-17.2 Specimens. 6-17.2.1 A minimum of three gloves pairs each for each size provided with the suit shall be used for testing. Where multiple gloves are used for compliance with this standard, the glove oair .soecimen shall consist of all ~ioves combined in a fashion representing their use on the vanor-nrotective suit. 6-17.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a complete set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-17.2.3 Glove pair specimens shall not receive special softening treatments prior to tests. 6-17.3 Sample Preparation. 6-17.$.1 Glove pair specimens shall be preconditioned as specified in 6-1.2. 6-17.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove pairs. 6-17.4 Avvaratus. 6-17.4.1 A De~ board armaratus shall be used which consists of 25 stainless steel nins and a ve~ board. Each stainless steel vin shall have a diameter of 9.5 mm (0.$75 in.~ and length of $8.1 mm (1.5 in.). The ne~ board shall have 25 holes with each hole havin~ ii diameter of (0.$9 inA and a denth of (0.5 in.L The holes shall be in a 5 x 5 pattern and each hole shall have a separation of 25 mm (1 in.) from other holes. (Log #16) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 25 - (5-2.11): Accept SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-2.11 and mandate this testing on each suit as part of the manufacturer's quality control program. SUBSTANTIATION: This need not be a certification requirement if this requirement is mandated on each suit as part of the manufacturer's quality control program in 2-3.1.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: ( ~ - I ~ 1991- 24- (5-2.11): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each vapor protective suit, with visor installed, shall be tested, as specified in Section 6-2, for gastight integrity by the manufacturer, as specified in 2-3.1.1." 413 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC varies no more than 10 oercent. T h e mez='.:red average dexterity test time of the selected-three ret3etitlons shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (IJTTs). :t:l~Each test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each tesL 517.1.5.7 6-17.5.10 T h e dexterity test times with gloves shall be compared with the baseline dexterity test time for each test subject. T h e percentage of barehand control shall be calculated as follows: Percent of = D T T _ (100) barehanded control DTT~ 6-17.5 Procedures• 6-17.5.1 Each available size of gloves shall be evaluated with at least o n e separate test subject with the same pair of # o v e s f ~ r ~ e e~ch cf t h e h=nd fun~-e:'~ = p e - ~ : ~ 5 !7.~-.2, 5 !.%'+.3,5 !7.'-.~., a n d 5 17.1.E. 6-17.5.2 A m i n i m u m of five different glovepalrs shall be evaluated. W h e n less than 5 different sizes of gloves are available, different pairs of the same sized gloves shall be permitted to be tested by different test subjects to m e e t the m i n i m u m five glove pair testing requirement. 6-17.5.$ Test subjects shall be selected such that their h a n d dimensions are as close as possible to those specified in accordance with manufacturing glove sizing guidelines. 6-17.5.4 Each test subject used to perform this testing shall practice of the hand functions a m i n i m u m of 3 times before conducting actual testing. 1 ~3' A ~ A 1 I.~+ ~.:'~ +^-+ . . . . . . + .... 1-+ . . . . . I+..11 +4 . . . I + . : . I + . . . . . 4~ 1 " 7 A A~ . . . . . 'li-.l^~lo..I~-11 1^~ :--^1 . ~ ' - ^ I~ . . . . . . . . 11%1% ^C u ~')~¢ . . . . C 11%N ____ /A I% : - - A "% ~i+.^ ~1 . . . . I.^II I-+ +. . . . . . .~ //% x I + - - + k ~1"71"% = - - g ~ O [ - - - - [1% # - - ~ 'D . . . . ---- /1% +'/% 1 < l O :~ A .... t l A I .-- % c) [ c') .I.1(%----•O;-- ~TA~..1-, + • • ... ~. . . . . . *. " • +" ~ . . . . .. . .. . ---- . . . . . ^g" / ~ 1 ;"1 A :.+. ..•k:^^+ ^k~ll , 3 ++~ - - ~ . 0 + --.+-- . . . . . × 50 m . . ~ ( I in. × !0.5 "z. x 2 iz.). E=ch hc!c :h=:' h='.'c= ~'=n.=tcr K : ~ '% Wk^ ... ~1^..k^ll k ..... of 1. .0. . ~'/ :"n.'T'-- {CI • ....... ,. . . . . . . . o h ............. v-."a *. ~. A. . 11,...; ^A."-~ ---- znann:- "r",l,^~+.~.*~. ~+ [ ____ .,:z.', ~n.= m m " 1%'° : - '% ^-,3 1%o _ _ oi ;J~;~+,.~;7+i~v+;g'~?,;;72++~2;+:;~;7;=q~T;%i;;KJT,:I .~+ P'J' " L ' ~ . ~ ^ 1~ 1 F 2 I~ ,3. A _--.1-. "P~ +^ "PI~_ * . . . . . O --^~1 A :-- --:--. 1--+^ _+:|: --:+! ~. . . . . . . . .••k*.-~+ +^.+ ~:~1.: k +:-- .k--II 1 . . . . . " +• A/ " + b: ~ I I ---- [____ k --:-- .~1^~ .I~ O . . . . .+^--.: I-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . "1) . . . . :-- ~ :~ /nne.o '% 1...: . . . . _. _ - - " " +.l.Ch'1 ~ I +~...~. .- : + +~ + ~ ^ J. ~. 14"+,.PI .++^--~+ ~: ; ; ; ; ' ~ , ~!._ /#'% Q ~ : n ,~-~m.1%~°-,:=.~ ..a.:_~, ~.. . . . . .1.~ ^C ---- //'% /%1*10 .:',3-3 ^ , 3 ~ , 3 .k . . . . ;~'+X +I~^ +^++ .:+k +t.^ I. . . . . . . . . :^,3 ~ 4 P 1 J% +k.-- .k+ll k~l,3 + *k^ ,3 .... +"~=.:7+/22:L'+L%7£~ .................................. 5 !7.!.5.2 Bcfcrc cazh tc;t, thc :hcc!accz. :ha!! bc unficd and l a # n g t c *-he ==de= c f t h e ; - ' c o d k ' 2 c k . i n t ~ a z h s c ! = e e k n o t = tc*~! ~'~.t c n ".2me:. T h c t c : t :hall th.c .qr:t t o u c h cf the z h c c h z c : b 7 t..hz t c z t : u h j c c t a n d :haehc~ bc~n 5 !7.!.5.4 T h c f i m c t c t i c a.'zd = z f i c =!! lent.= : h a l l b c m c z ~ u r c d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . ,,~^~+ : ~ ~ +I~^+ . . . . . . I ...... ,3 j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~- '- +^++ k~.^l:---- ^£ ,3--..+~*-.:'.. ........ +k- ++* ~. b ~1.^ t~^ thclr glc:'c :--.1..,3^,3 +I~+~ +k . . . . . . . I..+ *:--^ [l~t"T"~ ~t O . . . . . . +:*: . . . . ~^_t. +__+ "~.."LT.,L.~.~Y:.T++,+.L~+":F+'L~.,?.:~?+.,'++:;:22..%+^~f^'^~.+-'+F2 k^ll p c : ' d c : whcrc "..hc)" ^:+:TL': +~ ";,li'T g;+7, "Z.:'~;7:.:.27.2~:22"7.':+--'+. z:c ~'ddc= frcz. ~ c +~. . . . . . . . ,3: . . . . :~+ t~t +" . . . . . . . :..... +. +:_:~'~ ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c ~, * .k^11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a d : n ' = ' : t r a t 3 r : h - d : aFFt7 : ' . ~ . c : c = t r-c ,3:._.,.:'~:_~+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +t.^+ , k ~ I~-- 32:;.=2..+'2. CC hz.na.dz ~ i: CT.2L':L:L"Y.2" --'~ :1 d: ^ ,3 . . . . . "¢"" +. . . . ; . . . . .,.:" . . . . . . . . =:+: . . . . . +:--^ .=• 1/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ~ " .... t.. e. 1 , 7 +I~ . . . . . . . 1^.+ + ~I-..+^-:.. +k- j . . . . . . . . . +,. . . . . . ~ ~ ,7 1+ ~ o % ^ .... +I~11 -;'!+..h k^ +I~^ ~! . . . . . . 71.+ +^-:~1..,J+t.^..= ..... :. . . . . . . . .b ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . . . f -: . . . . . . . 1~ *^ xh . . . . . point "~,~C~.tO.~C,~. +I.^ ...+ ^r ...I+.:^~ 1" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j~+-- t i m e f c r c=zh t.'~t g + 1/'1 A ....... '1~.1.,. +^^+ _..I..:^~ .k^ll ~ . . . . . . + o++j . . . . ..= I ¢ 4~ + . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . .~'.I~ t; . . . . . . . . . • ^.+ A A [ '%+- I ...... ,7 +, I r%+'IPT +,, . . . . +..k:--++~. 1,7 *^.* ,3^..;^-;~. ~1 ..... "T'~^ .=, ;=--^ ~I"I~_ +h . . . . . . . . . . .lk^l| +_.+ 1"-" k^ ^k^ll .-I?^.~ +I~^ +^++ ~.^.-I ^. k . . . . *1.~ A..~+--,3 ..................................... I^A+++~+ .I-~+ A^..+^.~'~. A-+++.:., *+.* +J . . . . . +++* +:--+ ¢~. --1 . . . . . . J+h C^11~...~,~-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J .w . ,3^--*^4+*. ..J+l-.^..+ + . . h 1..^11 £~ 1 / 7 "^-* A 1% 1 P~:-- .~e:~-- .I.._11 k . . . . I..--+--J .•,,:+k +1+. . . . . . . C I~E - - - - +k-- ++.+ ].~ . . . . . . . . I ~ 1 P / A 1% 0 . . . . . . . . ~ A ~ + - k ++.+ ...k:^++ . . . . . . . . . . . .k--|l --.I.^ +k . . . . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . ++~--+. ~ ..... j ~ ~ t . h thc b z z c ! i n c dcxtcri.%' t c z t d m c f a r c a c h t z : t z u b j c c t . T h e n . . . . . . . • +.=/~TT_ . 5=rchz.zd c c n t r c ! . . . . . . . . t', n n + . .,,I k . , +I-.^ ~--l:k--++^,3 ~. . . . . . . . . . . :---- ..I--..'~ .k~ll I.^ c^2c'.:lmtcd ^_nJ '-.~qcv:n ^_z t h e h^-zc!".:c ".':eight F ' : ! t ' n g -^~Fad~" DTT~ 5 I . . I . 0 . ~ . =tcr a :-...'='mum rc:: p c r l c a ^e ....= . . ._. .: . . ,. .. . . . .1. te~t ...k:^~+ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1" . . . . . . . . . .I...11 1~ . . . . . ,3:.--^.^. -~" N [ •, . . . . . . . ^ ,, . . . . . A : ~ ^ * ^ . t"~6 --~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {1% ~ K :-- '% ~--,3 l ^ ~ l k ^C 1+-,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^4P {/'I 9N :-- ~ ............. '% ~ A ^ ,3--~+k --~ [rt K aC :~ \ '1~.. 9O ...k:l ...... ..I'~ +--+J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b * . . . . 11 ^ . ]~-,3 . . . . . . 1....u 1 ---- ....... ,,a,--.~, . . . . . . . . .3 t... +~..^ ~I ...... k.ll --~b-+ k . . . . . . . . . . . .*. . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1+.I^ ^-+k . . . . . . . . :--+ I.~#k t.^~A _.~:'.~.~+^,3 £ . . . . . . . . . . . :---- 4n.-'-^ ++^----++ n -t-~|l +++'"y= nmA 1~ ],.^1^..k.II 17 "'~'i~?i+/ f 6-17.5.5 == 1/'/ Before each test, the pegs shall be placed on a hard, smooth surface adjacent to the p e g board ( o n the fight side for right-handed test subjects and on the left side for lefth a n d e d test subjects). 6 .I . .~. . .A. . ~ Q 6-17.5.6 In stardng the test, each peg shall be g r a s p e d near its e n d and shall be placed in the peg board from left-to-right a n d top-to-bottom. ~ I ~ A ~ A ......... 6-17.5,'/ T h e time to place all pegs in the p e g board shall be measured for each test subject and shall be known as the dexterity test time. 5 ! 7 . 1 . 5 . 5 6-17.5.8 Each test subject shall perform the test following the steps in =~ ~. . . . .~. .~ ~° +~. . . . . . . . . ~"+" 517.1.5.4 6-17.5.5 through 6-17.5.7 until ~gethree dexterity test times of that person's last ~ r e e total repetitions vades no more than 8 1 0 percent. T h e !owe~t average dexterity test time of the t ~ selected three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (DTr~). Each test shall be c o n d u c t e d without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each test. ......... 6-17.5.9 E a c h test subject shall then perform the test following the steps i n 5 ! 7 A . 5 . 2 ".hrc.ugh 5 1 7 A . 5 . 1 6-17.5.5 through 6-17.5.7 with the pair of test gloves. T h e testing shall be conducted until three dexterity test times of that oerson's total reoetitions . . . . . . . . . . . I 1% .4 ~ ..... :--k+ --..If: . . . . . . . 1....~+k --1 ...... I~^11 . c=ch tc:t :'ahjcc~ +.1~..1^,^~1 . . . . . . . + . . ~. . . I~. I J+4..: .'I~..e p c r c c = t . 7 . g c c f E = r c h ^ - q d c ~ = = c l ;h^2l h c +P^II ...... .~.+. II~Df~ & 6-17.6 Report. 6-17.6.1 W. .^ .. . . O - - c.=. "~r ' tx^ . . c ~r : o";+ . . D . r c c c ~, 3u r c . . ,A T h e percent of barehanded control shall be reported for each test subject. The average percent of barehanded control for all test subjects shall be calculated• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ~ ^~ 1.,.~.^I..^--,3-A 1" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~^--+-~1 ~^^11 ~r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1.+ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . *^.~ 1" d~. ...1.-.=^~ . . . . . . . . . i., Jtll .I~-II . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . Im . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 4"o.II.. ~:.1.~,3 ..-k.. ~11 +-.+ ...1-.:~_~..k--ll I-~- ^~1~..1~+-~A the ~.':c p:'+"-+th=t ~._u ~e detected :h-2! b e r e ~ 2 : e d ...I~:+_+ +~+j++~ ~ .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *.+lb+ I1~-~ . . . . :---- + k ~ + ^-k+ +* . . . . . . . . L+, . . . . . ~, + . . . . . . . te=t : u h j c c = :hz2' h e c=2c=!a=cd. 414 f2r e=ch tezt ,3^+++++I I'~+ .II ~+++ ++. ~. . . . . I~ N F P A 1991 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #10) Committee: FAE-HAZ b^-.-*hanSca.4,cc.n',:cl far ^2! tc:t :"~i:ct :h^M! 5c ^.=!c'-I:t:5. 6-17.6 Interpretation. 6-17.6.1 For Crc:~ Dcxtc-~" Procedure & The average percent of barehand control shall be used to determine pad/fall performance. 1991- 28- (5-4.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: . . . . . . k^__l~___..l _~__~__| ^I-.--II I~ . . . . . -I ._ A--#------I . . . . . . p. . . . . . . . . . . b.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1~'^~'I t~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~I~ . . . . A ^ ~ . ~ ^ A 11^.~ --:~ '1-.., ~ ^ ^ ~ #b..~ .--- ...I-.:^.+..1~11 K^ --:.I.^A I~ . . . . . . . . . A ~^ t.~ll 1.. . . . . . A - - ~ ^ - - : A . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,k_~. ~ 0 xr, 5 =c:.?.:a.~ -.~=r tc:':-..'~^-'-~.: =f :h^..rg= gc~.cr:'-~n. SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement is relative to optional chemical flash fire protection and is contained in both 5-6 Optional Chemical Flash Fire Protection Requirements as 5-6.5 and 5.8 Optional Combined Chemical FlashFire and Liquefied Gas Protection Requirements as 5-8.5. Therefore, 5-4.7 is unnecessary and should be removed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. . I£'^:1 r" . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBSTANTIATION: Evaluation ott'the proposed test requirements based on testing conducted at a Technical Committee meeting shows the peg board test provide the best discrimination of hand function consistent with user observations. While both the pin pickup test and the two-point discriminator also provides some discrimination, these additional test do not add any additional value as discerned in a statistical analysis of the data. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-27 (Log #34) and 1991.47 (Log #35). (Log #17) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 29- (5-4.8): Accept SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-4.8. SUBSTANTIATION: Certification requirement not necessary is this is a mandatory requirement on each element as specified in 2-3.1.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: ( ~ k l ~ - ~ 1991- 27 - (5-4.6, A-5-4.6 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-4,6. Replace with: 5-4.6 Vapor protective gloves shall be tested for hand function as specified in Section 6-17, Glove Hand Function Test, and shall have an average percent increase over barehanded control less than 600 percent. Add new A-5.4.6 to read: A-5-4.6 The Glove Hand Function Test is intended to evaluate the ability of a user to accomplish a task while wearing the glove system of the vapor protective ensemble. The test compares the time required for a user, wearing the glove system, to place a series of pegs into a specifically designed peg board with the time required to accomplish the same task with no gloves on (barehanded). The results of the test are reported as a "percent increase over barehanded control." A value of 100 percent for a glove system would indicate that the user was able to accomplish the task of placing the pegs in the peg board as quickly as s / h e were able to do so while barehanded. A value greater than 100 percent indicates that a greater time was required to accomplish the task while wearing the gloves. For example, a value of 400 erCent increase over barehanded indicates that a user needed ur (4) times longer to accomplish the task while wearing the love system than s / h e required barehanded. Testing of slructural re fighting gloves (NFPA 1971 compliant) produced values in the 175 percent - 325 percent increase over barehanded range. SUBSTANTIATION: Based on the analysis of the data collected to evaluate the peg board test, the pin pick up test, and the two point discrimination test, it appears that the peg board test is the best test to use. The data analysis shows that it is least sensitive to the test subject, it has the best ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves, and it has the best ability to discriminate between gloves. It also shows that including a second test does not significantly improve the ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves. The knot tying test and the grip test were not further evaluated and should also be dropped until further work is done to determine if they produce more or better information. A minimumperformance value of 300 percent is proposed for 1992 gloves. This would allow all the 1992 styles be evaluated up to and including 1971 structural gloves. A minimum performance value of 600 percent is proposed for 1991 style gloves. This would allow all the styles we evaluated up to and including the current 3 layer gloves used for 1991 compliant gloves. Note: Supporting material available for review upon request at NFPA Headquarters. (Log #37) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 30- (5-4.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each vapor protective glove shall be tested, as specified in Section 6-2, for gastight integrity by the manufacturer, as specified in 2-3.1.1." SUBSTANTIATION: Leaves performance requirements in Chapter 5 and fixes implication that each glove is tested by the certification organization COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Prindple. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-5 (Log #13). (Log #38) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 31 - (5-5.10): Accept in Prindple SUBMITFER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each vapor protective footwear shall be tested, as specified in Section 6-2, for gastight integrity by the manufacturer, as specified in 2-3.1.1." SUBSTANTIATION: Leaves performance requirement in Chapter 5 and darifies that the manufacturer, not the certification organization, is responsible for testing each items. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-5 (Log #13). ~ (Log #29) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 32 - (5-6, 5-8, Chapter 6, Chapter 7): Hold SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new requirement for radiant protective performance of the primary suit, glove and footwear materials. Add the following requirement to both Section 5-6 and 5.8: 5-6.6 Primary suit, glove, and footwear materials shall be testedfor radiantprotectiveperformance (RPP) as spedfied in Section 6x, Radiant Protective Performance Test, and shall have an average RPP rating of not less than 12. 415 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC (Log #1) Committee: FAE-HAZ Add similar paragraph to Section 5-8. Add new section for test requirement in Chapter 6: 6-x Radiant Protective Performance Test. 6-x.1 Application. 6.x.l.1 This test method shall apply to suit, glove, a n d footwear materials. 6-x.2 Specimens. 6-x.2.1 Radiant protective performance testing shall be conducted on three specimens. Specimens shall measure 76 m m x 254 m m _+5 m m (3 in. x 10 in. + 1 / 4 in.) and shall consist of all layers representative of the clothing item to be tested. 6-x.2.2 Specimens shall consist of all layers used in the construction of the suit, glove, or footwear, excluding any areas with special reinforcements. Specimens shall not include seams. Specimens shall not be sdtched to hold individual layers together. 6-x.3 Sample Preparation. 6-x.3.1 Specimens shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.2. 6-x.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be of specimens size given in 6-x.2.1. 6-x.4 ApA0aratus. 6-x.4.1 The test apparatus specified in ASTM F 1939, Test Method for Radiant Protective Performance of Flame Resistant Clothing Materials, shall be used at an exposure heat flux of 84 k W / m 2 (2.0 cal/cm2s). 6-x.5 Procedure. 6-x.5.1 Flame resistance testing shall be performed in accordance with ASTM F 1939, Test Method for Radiant Protective Performance of Flame Resistant Clothing Materials. 6-x.6 Report. 6-x.6.1 The individual test RPP rating of each specimen shall be reported. The average RPP rating shall be calculated a n d reported. If a RPP rating is greater than 60, then the RPP rating shall be reported as ">60." 6-x.7 Interpretation. 6-x.7.1 Pass or fall determinations shall be separately based o n the average reported RPP radng of all specimens. 6-x.7.2 If an individual result from any test set varies more than ±10 percent from the average result, the results from the test set shall be discarded and another set of specimens shall be tested. Add the following to test method to Chapter 7: ASTM F 1939, Test Method for Radiant Protective Performance of Flame Resistant Clothing Materials, 1998. SUBSTANTIATION: The primary exposure from a chemical flash fire is radiant heat. The current TPP test measures exposure to a combined convective and radiant source. A radiant heat exposure is more indicative of a chemical flash fire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be prol~erly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. 1991- 34- (6-2.3.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 6-2.3.1 Samples for conditioning shall be complete vaporprotective ensembles, individual glove elements, or footwear elements. SUBSTANTIATION: The standard allows for the certification of individual glove elements and individual footwear elements. These individual elements should be conditioned in the same m a n n e r as complete ensembles. Therefore, the noted language should be added to 6-2.3.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: ( P ~ I ~ 1991- 35 - (6-2.6.2): Accept SUBMITI"ER: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 6-2.6.2 Any one specimen failing the test constitutes failure of the item t~L SUBSTANTIATION: Failure of a specimen during this test constitutes failure of the test. This point is not clearly expressed using the current language. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: F ( ~ g ~ 1991- 36- (6-2.7.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 6-2.7.1 A minimum of ti~eee one vapor protective ensembles shall be tested. SUBSTANTIATION: Testing of three ensembles is very cosdy and provides little benefit considering the cost associated with the testing. Testing one ensemble would be more cost effective while still ensuring adherence to the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. r (Log #18) Committee: FAE-HAZ Committee: ( F L ° A t ~ 1991- 33- (5-9.1): Hold SUBMITTEI~ James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Pdmary suit, glove a n d footwear materials, a n d seams, shall not exhibit normalized breakthrough detections times of one h o u r or less, when tested against the following chemicals as specified in 66, Chemical Permeation Resistance Test: Acrolein (107-02-8) Dimethyl Sulfate (77-78-1) Methyl Isocyanate (624-83-9) Phosgene (75-44-5) Hydrogen Cyanide (74-90-8) Arsine (7784-42-1)." SUBSTANTIATION: These chemicals have been identified as chemical warfare agents and identified as highly toxic chemical threats for use by terrorists, and are widely available. Both hydrogen cyanide and methyl isocyanate where involved in mass casualty incidents (Nazi German), and Bhopal, India). The other chemicals have been identified since W o r l d W a r I as mass casualty agents. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. 1991- 37- (6.2.7.1): Accept SUBMITTER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "A m i n i m u m of one vapor protective ensemble shall be tested." SUBSTANTIATION: If this is to be a mandatory quality control test for each ensemble, then, by implication, the minimum n u m b e r of specimens must be one. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #20) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 38- (6-2.8.1): Accept SUBMrlq'ER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "A minimum of one pair of gloves shall be tested." SUBSTANTIATION: If this becomes a mandatory quality control requirement on each pair of gloves, then, by implic~.tion, the minimum sample size must be one pair COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. 416 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC (Log #21) Committee: FAE-HAZ circumference, and inseam height in accordance with the manufacturer's sizing system. SUBSTANTIATION: The current language of the text is not as clear as it could be. This revision will clarify the language. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1991- 39- (6-2.8.2): Accept SUBMITTER= James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "A test fixture that provides a gas-tight seal with the cuff of the glove shall be utilized. The fixture shall have a valved port to allow air introduction and pressure measurement. The test fixture shall be permitted to be a vapor-protective suit." SUBSTANTIATION: Allows a single ensemble inflation test to meet the mandatory QC requirements of the suit and gloves. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #23) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 44- (6-3.4.1(c) (New)): Accept SUBMITrER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1901-28 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: "The absorptive garment shall cover all portions of the mannequin that ar e covered by the test specimen.~ SUBSTANTIATION: The ASTM test method does not specify that the head are of the mannequin be covered. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #22)" Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 40 - (6.2.9.1): Accept SUBM1TrER: James p. Zeig!er, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "A minimum of one pair of footwear items shall be used." SUBSTANTIATION: Should testing of each pair of footwear become mandatory, then, by implication, the minimum sample size must be one pair. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #32) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 41 - (6-2.9.2): Accept SUBMITrER: James p. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 ] RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ] "A test fLxture that provides a gastight seal with the footwear shall ] be utilized. The fixture shall have valved port to allow air } introduction and pressure measurement. The test fLxture shall be [ permitted to be a vapor-protective suit." SUBSTANTIATION: Allows a single ensemble inflation test to meet the mandatory QC requirements of the suit and footwear. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC7) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 45 - (6-4): Accept S U B M I T I T ~ Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise the second sentence of 6-4.4.1(g) to read: "For consistency in testing, the SCBA shall be compliant with NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire and Emergency Service.~ 6-4.4.2 Delete words "within the suit ~ from the first sentence of 6-4.4.2. A-6.4.4.1 (g) Delete. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision will improve accuracy and understanding of the text. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept. (Log #39) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 46 - (6.6.7.1): Reject SUBMITrER: James P. Zeigler, DuPont Nonwovens COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1901-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "The average normalized breakthrough detection time shall be used in determining compliance for the particular material/chemical combination." SUBSTANTIATION: The use of average results from multiple measurements in consistent with normal treatment of laboratory measurement data. The precision and accuracy of the permeation test is documented with the text of the ASTM method. Statistically, the average value is mor.e representative of the expected performance of the product than a bias single measurement, whether high or low. For purposes of exposure calculations, the accepted practice is to use the average permeation value. No data is hidden from the end-user, since all measurements for each chemical/fabric combination must be reported in the technical data package. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'['rF_.E STATEMENT: The Committee is conservative in chemical permeation testing as it is a critical test. The comment would lessen the severity of the requirement and the Committee does not agree. The pass/fail and interpretation has been in the past editions of NFPA 199t-and is not aware of unfair discrimination among materials evaluated in this manner. (Log #5) Committee: FAE-HAZ -- 1991- 42- (6-3.2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn P.Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 6.3.2.1 A minimum of ",,hreeone s p e d m e n s shall be tested. The specimen shall consist of the entire ;u't ensemble with all layers assembled that are required for the ;u't ensemble to be compliant. SUBSTANTIATION: Testing of three ensembles is very cosdy and provides little benefit considering the cost associated with the testing. Testing one ensemble would be more cost effective while still ensuring adherence to the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the proposer; however, believes that the substantiation to this change is to provide consistency of full ensemble type testing with other full ensemble requirements in the standard (i.e., Sections 6-4, 6-5, and 6-8). (Log #35) Committee: FAE-HAZ (Log #6) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 47 - (6-17): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 6-17 and replace with the following: 6.17 Glove Hand Function Test. 6-17.1 Application. 6.17.1.1 This test shall apply to gloves. 6-17.2 Specimens. 6-17.2.1 One glove pair for each size provided with the suit shall be used for testing. 1991- 43- (6-3.2.2): Accept SUBMrlq~R: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 6 $ 9 1 "r't.^ .:~^ ^c .t-. .... :. . . . . . :~:~- .k . . . . . :. . . . . t.~.. ,...~ chc.gcn to. c~.:'-%:r:. :'-'~ "Ac ~imc:'.:'-~== =f "A: .:.=:~cq'~':= f~r l~'v~ ". . . . . . . . . . . 1" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... ~, ~j. . . . . . The snze of the ensembles [ comprising the specimens shall be-conform to the mine size a s o f [ the mannequin in terms of chest circumference, waist 417 . NFPA 1991 m F99 ROC 6-17.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a complete set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-17.2.3 Glove pair specimens shall not receive special softening or flexing treatments prior to this test. 6-17.3 Sample Preparation. 6-17.S.1 Glove pair specimens shall be preconditioned as specified in 6.1.$. 6.17.$.2 Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove pairs. 6-17.4 Procedures. 6-17.4.1 Each glove size shall be evaluated by a separate test subject. 6.17.4.2 Test subjects shall be selected such that their hand dimensions are close to the middle of the range given in Table 4-2.2 for the glove size they are evaluating. 6-17.4.$ A minimum of five different glove pairs shall be evaluated. When less than five different glove sizes are available, different pairs of the same size gloves shall be permitted to be tested by different test subjects, so that a total of at least five different glove pairs are tested. 6-17.4.4 Each test subject shall be familiarized with the test apparatus and procedure by practicing the test three times before conducting actual testing, but not on the same day of the actual testing. 6-17.5 Pegboard Procedure. 6.17.5.1 A pegboard apparatus that consists of 25 stainless steel pins and a pegboard shall be used. Each stainless steel pin shall have a diameter of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) and a length of 38 mm ( 1 1/2 in.). The pegboard shall have 25 holes, each hole having a diameter of 10 mm (15/32 in.) and a depth of 15 mm (1/2 in.). The holes shall be a 5 x 5 pattern and each hole shall have a separation of 25 mm (1 in.) from any adjacent hole. 6-17.5.2 Before each test, the pegs shall be placed on a hard smooth surface adjacent to the pegboard (on the right side for right-handed test subjects and on the left side for left-handed test subjects). 6-17.5.3 In conducting the test, each peg shall be picked up from the test surface along its long dimension (not by its ends) and placed in the pegboard from left to right and top to bottom. 6.17.5.4 The dexterity test time shall be the time it takes from grasping the first peg to placing the last peg in the pegboard. 6.17.5.5 Each test subject shall perform the test barehanded according to 6-15.5.2 through 6-13.5.4. The test shall be repeated until the last three repetitions have dexterity test times with a coeffident of variance less than 8 percent. The average of the last three repetitions shall be the baseline dexterity test time (DTT b) for that test subject. Each repetition shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions. 6-17.5.6 Each test subject shall then perform the test according to 6-15.5.2 through 6.13.5.4 wearing the pair of test gloves. The test shall be repeated until the last three repetitions have dexterity test times with a coefficient of variance less than 8 percent. The average of the last three repetitions shall be the dexterity test time with gloves (DTTg). Each repetition shall be conducted without the test subject's Knowledge of the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions. 6.17.5.7 The dexterity test time with gloves (DTT,) shall be compared with the baseline dexterity test time (DTTb) for each test subject. The percent increase over bare-handed control shall be calculated for each glove size as follows: 6-17.2 Specimens. 6-17.2.1 A minimum of one glove pair for each size provided with the suit shall be used for testing. 6-17.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a complete set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-17.2.3 Glove pair specimens shall not receive special softening or flexing treatments prior to this test. 6.17.3 Sample Preparation. 6-17.3.1 Glove pair specimens shall be preconditioned as specified in 6-1.2. 6-17.$.2 Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove pairs. 6-17.4 Procedures. 6.17.4.1 Each glove size shall be evaluated by a separate test subject. 6-17.4.2 Test subjects shall be selected such that their hand dimensions conform to the manufacturer's sizing information for •ahe glove sizes being evaluated. 6-17.4.3 Each test subject shall be familiarized with the test apparatus and procedure by practicing the test three times before conducting actual testing, but not on the same day of the actual testing. 6.17.5 Pegboard Procedure. 6.17.5.1 A pegboard apparatus that consists of 25 stainless steel pins and a pegboard shallbe used. Each stainless steel pin shall have a diameter of 9.5 m m (3/8 i¢.) and a length of $8 mm (1 1/2 in.). The pegboard shall have 25 holes, each hole having a diameter of 10 mm (13/$2 in.) and a depth of 13 mm (1/2 in.). The holes shall be a 5 x 5 pattern and each hole shall have a separation of 25 mm (1 in.) from any adjacent hole. 6-17.5.2 Before each test, the pegs and peg board shall be placed on which shall be a nominally 610 m m x 915 mm (24 in. x $6 in.) sheet of 1.6-ram (0.0625-in.). Neoprene having a hardness of 50 :L5 Shore A and a thickness of 1.57 mm (0.062 in.) ±10 percent. The pegs shall be randomly scattered in the working area most comfortable to the test subject (such as on the right side for fighthanded subjects, left side of left-handed test subjects, or directly in front of the subject.) 6-17.5.5 In starting the test, each peg shall be grasped near its end and shall be placed in the peg board beginning at the upper left c o m e r and proceeding from left-to-right and top-to-bottom. The pegs shall not be picked up from any surface other than the specified test surface, and shall not be picked up by sliding, standing, or otherwise supporting the peg with another object (such as the peg board, another peg, or the test subject's free hand). Only one hand shall he used during the test, and only one peg shall be grasped at a time. The test subject shall not alternate hands during the test series. The peg board shall be permitted to be prevented from moving during the test by the test subject's free hand or other means as necessary. 6-17.5.4 The dexterity test time shall be the time it takes from grasping the first peg to placing the last peg in the pegboard. 6-17.5.5 Each test subject shall perform the test without gloves following the steps in 6-17.5.2 through 6-17.5.4 until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's last three repetitions does not exceed 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated b~¢dividing the standard deviation by the average of three repetiuons, and multiplying by 100. The average of the three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (Dttb), and shall be between 25 - 45 sec_ The test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each repetition. 6-17.5.6 Each test subject shall then perform the test with one pair of gloves following the steps in 6-17.5.2 through 6-17.5.4 until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's fastest three repetitions does not exceed 8 percent. Vadance shall be calculated as in 6-17.5.5. The average of the three fastest repetitions shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (DTTg). The test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each repetition. 6-17.5.7 The dexterity test time with gloves (DTT¢) shall be compared with the baseline dexterity test time (DTTb) for each test subject. The percent of bare-handed control shall be calculated for each glove size as follows: Percent increase over barehanded control = DTTg x 100 DTT b 6-17.6 Report. 6o17.6.1 The percent increase over barehanded control shall be reported for each glove size. The average percent increase over barehanded control for all glove sizes shall be calculated and also reported. 6-17.7 Interpretation. 6-17.7.1 The average percent increase over barehanded control for all glove sizes shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. SUBSTANTIATION: See Substantiation for new 5-4.6. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text to read: 6-17 Glove Hand Function Test. 6-17.1 Application. 6-17.1.1 This test shall apply to gloves. Percent of barehanded control = DTTg x 100 DTTb 6-17.6 Report. 6-17.6.1 The average percent of barehanded control for all tests shall be calculated and reported. 6-17.7 Interpretation. 418 NFPA 1991 ~ F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: Modifications to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test for the data to be meaningful and reproducible. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-47 (Log #35). I 6-17.7.1 The average percent of barehanded control for all tests shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee chose the more specific text to modify the submitters text. (Log #50) Committee: FAE-HAZ Committee: ( ~ 1991- 48- (6-17.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Since the hand function test has been narrowed down to one procedure (the peg board test), the section is unnece . COMMI~TSSE~ ACTION: Accept. 1991- 52- (6-17.4.6.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITrF~a Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each test subject shall perform the test ~ following the steps in 6-17.4.6.2 through 6-17.4.6.4 until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's last three repetitions does not exceed vari:~ 57 =~ mcrc "..h---':8 percent. Variance shall be calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the average of three repetitions, and multiplying by 100. The ! c ' : : ~ de.".te~.v; *~:t dm..c cf ~hc !=t ~ r = c average of the three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (Dmo), and shall be between 25 45 see_ The E:.ch test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each renetifion t ~ . " SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to clarify the procedure and to provide for greater reproducibility and more meaningful data by setting limits on the baseline dexterity times to attempt to remove subject-to-subject bias. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text: "Each test subject shall perform the test without gloves following the steps in 6-17.4.6.2 through 6-17.4.6.4 until the coefficient of variance of the dexterity times of that person's last three repetitions does not exceed 8 percent. Coefficient of variance shall be calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the last three repetitions by the average of the last three repetitions, and multiplying by 100. The average of the three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (Dttb), and shall be between 25 - 45 sea The test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Referenced paragraph numbers revised to be correct with numbering in 1991-47 (Log #35). (Log #58) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 49- (6-17.4.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and .[ renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and interdab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #49) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 50 - (6-17.4.6.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Before each test, the pegs ~ shall be placed on the test surface a hard, :,mc.c.~ :u:'f::c :.djz.cczt to, ~ c - - - ~-^---~ t^_ (Log #52) Committee: FAE-HAZ • shall be a nomma Ily 610 m m . .^ c.~. .,...~. .a. ^. .a. . . . . . . . . k:a .~. _. .,~. which 91~ mm (24 in. x 36 in3 sheet of 1.6-mm (0.0625-in.L Neoprene having a hardness of 50 +_5 Shore A and a thickness of 1.57 mm (0,062 in3 +10 percent. The p e ~ shall be randomly scattered in the working area most comfortable to the test subject (such as on the right sicle for right-handed subiects, left side of left-handed test sobjec-ts, or 4irectly in front of t h e subiectA" SUBSTANTIATION: Since the working surface can significantly impact the dexterity times observed, the proposed language would standardize this variable to allow better reproducibility of the test. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. 1991- 53 - (6-17.4.6.6): Accept in Principle SUBMrrTER: Catherine 1LDodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each test subject shall then perform the test with one pair of gloves following the steps in 6-17.4.6.2 through 6-17.4.6.4 vi'.h t.hc F~r.'r cf : = : g!ev=, until the woriance of the dexterity times of that person's fastest three repetitions does not exceed :v..-c~b 7 ........ th=.n 8 percent. V~Fiance shall be calculated as in 6-17.4.6.5. The ~verage of the three fastest repetitions m~.~.=ured d e x ~ D" te:t "-"me shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (DTTg). The test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each repetition ~'~." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to clarify the procedure and provide for ~ e a t e r reproducibility and more meaningful data. Modificataons to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text: "Each test subject shall then perform the test with one pair of gloves following the steps in 6-17.4.6.2 through 6-17.4.6.4 until the coefficient of variance of the dexterity times of that person s fastest three repetitions does not exceed 8 percent. Coefficient of variance shall be calculated as in 6-17.4.6.5. The average of the three fastest repetitions shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (DTTg). The test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Referenced paragraph numbers revised to be correct with numbering in 1991-47 (Log #35). Committee: (~°A#SH~I) 1991- 51 - (6-17.4.6.3): Accept in Principle SUBMr[TEPa Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "In starting the test, each peg shall be ~wasped near its end and shall be placed in the peg board b e ~ n n m g at the upper left comer from left-to-right and top-to-bottom. The pegs shall not be tricked up from any surface other than the snecilied tCSl; surface. ~ d shaft not be nicked ut) bv sliding, standing, or otherwise suDoorti~e the neg with another object (such as-the peg board, anotlae-r oeg. or the test subiect's free faandL Only one hand shall be used-during the test. and only one neg shMl be grasned at a time. The test subject shall not alternate hands c-luri-ng the test series. The p e g b o a r d shall be permitted to be prevented from moving during the test by the test subject's free hand or other means as necessary." 419 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC (Log #59) Committee: FAE-HAZ results is the peg board test (6-17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1991- 54- (6.17.4.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #63) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 59 - (6.17.5.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6.17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #60) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 55 - (6.17.4.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6.17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #43) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 60- (6-17.6.1): Accept SUBMITTEl~ C~therine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #61) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 56 - (6-17.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #54) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 61 - (6-17.6.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Catherine P,. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Fcr C r c ~ Dexter'S" Prccc~urc I~, The average percentage of bare-hand control for each size ~love evaluated shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. Failure of anv size shall constitute failure of the test." SUBSTANTIATION: Modifies the interpretation criteria to reflect other proposed changes to this test procedure and performance criteria. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Ms. Dodgen is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 14 May 1999 and requested that this comment not be considered. (Log #53) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 57 - (6-17.5.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: - ~ o . . . . r~. . . . . ~ , o . . . . a . . . . ~, The averaue percentage of bare-hand control shall be reported for each test subject. The average percentage of bare-handed control for all test subjects shall be c.~!z'.:k~tzd renorted for eachsize." SUBSTANTIATION- Clarifies reporting requirements based on other proposed changes to this section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1991-47 (Log #35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . _ (Log #36) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 62- (6-17.6.3): Accept SUBMrrTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove~and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #62) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 58- (6.17.5.3): Accept SUBMITTER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory 420 NFPA 1991 -- F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. C O ~ ACTION: Accept. (Log #19) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 63- (6-17.6.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 11. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove a n d laboratory results is the peg board test (6-17.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: (FL°AI~-~I~ 1991- 64- (6-25.2.1, 6-23.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Alexander, Bata Shoe Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-23.2.1 A minimum of three footwear heels and bali of soles. 6-23.5.1 The static coefficient of friction average of four readings obtained from each heel and each ball of sole shall be reported as the average of a total footwear sole. SUBSTANTIATION: The test apparatus to determine the slip resistance properties of footwear soles is limited to testing 76 mm square sections of heel or sections from other parts of a footwear sole. The apparatus (James Machine) is not capable of measuring the coefficient of friction of a whole footwear sole. According to ASTM F-489 Standard Test Method for Static Coefficient of Shoe Sole and Heel Materials as Measured by the James Machine, the reported static coefficient of friction arithmetic average of the four readings obtained should be reported. Confirmation of this method can be verified with one of the third-party test laboratories, such as Artech Footwear Test Lab in Chantilly, VA. (703) 378-7263 or fax (703) 378-7274. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC3) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 67- (7-1.2.6): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 ] RECOMMENDATION: Add title for ISO 9001 Publication. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CCA) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 68- (A-2-6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to ISO 9000, ISO 9005, and ISO 9004. SUBSTANTIATION: These documents are not applicable to this document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #55) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 69- (A-6.17): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Insert new text: "The test surface specified is identical to the calibration material specified in the cut resistance test found in Section 6.15 (ASTM F1790).~ Note: Appropriate paragraph is now A-6.17.5.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Explanatory material/source and detail for the test surface spedfied. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: ( F L ° A ~ 1991- 65 - (6-28): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Make the following revisions to Section 628 (replace 6-28.1, 6-28.2, and 6.28.3): 6-28.1 Application. 6-28.1.1 This test method shall apply to suit, glove, and footwear materials. 6-28.2 Specimens. 6-28.2.1 Thermal protective performance testing shall be conducted on three specimens. Specimens shall measure 150 mm x 150 mm, .+_5mm (6 in. x 6 in. + 1 / 4 in.) and shall consist of all layers representative of the clothing item to be tested. 6-28.2.2 Specimens shall consist of all layers used in the construction of the suit, glove or footwear, excluding any areas with special reinforcements. Specimens shall not include seams. Specimens shall not be stitchedto hold individual layers together. 6-28.3 Sample Preparation. 6-28.3.1 Specimens shall be conditioned as specified n 6-1.2. 6.28.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be of specimen size given in 6-28.2.1. Delete 6-28.8, 6-28.9, 6-28.10, and 6-28.11. SUBSTANTIATION: The test method was copied from NFPA 1971 and contains application, sample preparation, and other sections that do not pertain to testing of vapor-protective ensemble materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC8) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 70- (A-6-28): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: A-6-28.4.1 Delete. A-6.28.4.2 Delete. SUBSTANTIATION: The revision will improve accuracy and understanding of the text. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC6) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 71 - (B-1.2.1 and B-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITI'ERa Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing a n d Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to ISO 9000, ISO 9003, and ISO 0004. SUBSTANTIATION: These documents are not applicable to this document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC2) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1991- 66 - (Chapter 7): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1991-28 RECOMMENDATION: Add the current edition dates to references. 421 NFPA 1992 D F99 ROC Item 2. Add new 2-$.1, 2-$.2, and 2-3.$ to read: 2-$.1 For both initial certification and recertlfication of ensembles, ensemble elements, and components; the certification organization shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section. 2-3.2 All inspecdous, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for certification or for recertification shall be conducted by the certification organization. 2-3.3 Any inspection, evaluation, conditioning, or tesdng conducted by a product manufacturer shall not be used in the certification or recertification process. Item 3. Add new 2-$.4 to read: 2-$.4 The certification organization shall test individual elements with the specific ensemble(s) they are to be certified with in accordance with the requirements of 2-1.5. Renumber 2-$.1 through 2-3.10 (ROP text numbering) to become 2-3.5 through 2-3.14. Item 4. Add new 2-3.15 to read: 2-$.15 The certification organization shall maintain records of all pass/fall tests for initial certifcation. Pass/fail records shall indicate the disposition of the failed material or product. SUBSTANTIATION: The TCC has revised 2-2.7 to reflect the current text being used in the documents in this Project for consistency of certification requirements. The TCChas provided the new text for 2-3.1, 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 for the TC to add to Section 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements. The TCC has provided text for a new 2-$.4 to cross reference with 2-1.5 and to reinforce the important need for testing individual elements with a specific ensemble or ensembles that they will become a part of to assure a combination of elements that are compatible and will provide the required protection for the emergency responder when assembled. The TCC has provided the new text for 2-3.15 for the TC to add to Section 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. P~TH (Log #39) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 1 - (Entire Document): TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this Comment is to change the TC action to ~Accept in Part in Principle~ as follows: 1992-1 Item I: Accept 1992-1 Item 2: Accept in Principle. Add new 2-3.1, 2-3.2, and 2-$.$ to read: Renumber the following existing paragraphs.) 2-$.1 For both certification and recertification o f ensembles, ensemble elements, and components; the certification organization shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section. 2-$.2 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for certification or for recertification shall be conducted by the certification organization or a facility accredited by the :certification organization for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories. 2-$.$ All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing conducted by a product manufacturer shall not be used in the certification or recertification process unless the facifity for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing has been accredited by the certification organization in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories." For h e m 2, the TCC is correcting its own Comment (1992-1 Item 2) to change the prol?osed text in 2-3.2 and 2-3.2 to add the reference to ISO Grade 25 as a basis for determining the qualifications of the testing laboratory. This change is for consistency with other Project documents in this cycle and reflects the same text used in NFPA 1971, NFPA 1976, and NFPA 1991. It is the TCC's position to now make this the ~boilerplate~ text for Section 2-3 in all documents within this Project. 1992-1 Item $: Accept ] 1992-1 Item 4: Accept in Principle. Add new 2-$.11 to read: [ 2-3.11 The manufacturer shall maintain all design and I performance inspection and test data from the certification [ organization used in the certification of the manufacturer's [ compliant product. The manufacturer shall provide such data, [ upon request, to the purchaser or authority having jurisdiction. For Item 4, the T C C i s correcting its own Comment (1992-1 Item 4) by replacing its proposed text for a new 2-3.15 for consistency with other Project documents in this cycle and reflects the same text used in NFPA 1971, NFPA 1976, and NFPA 1991. The TCC also made for following corrections for consistency in "boilerplate" text for certification and for consistency in requirements with other documents within this Project. Add new definition to Section 1-3 to read: 1-3 Recall System. The action taken by which a manufacturer identifies an element, provides notice to the users, withdraws an element from the marketplace and distribution sites, and the element is returned to the manufacturer or other acceptable location for corrective action. Revise 2-3.5 to read: 2-3.5 Inspection by the certification organization for determining compliance with the design requirements specified in Chapter 4 shall be performed on whole or complete products. The certification organization shall report on the compliance of each element to each design requirement specified in Chapter 4 for that element. Add to 7-1.2.8: ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories, 1990. SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Item 1. Revise 2-2.7 to read: 2-2.7* The certification organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturing facilities of the certified product, with at least two random and unannounced visits per 12month period. As part of the follow-up inspection program, the certification organization shall select sample product at random from the manufacturer's production line, from the manufacturer's in-house stock, or from the open market. The certification organization shall have a statistically validated process for determining the critical inspections and tests to be conducted through this follow-up program to verify the continued compliance of the product or component. (Log #CC5) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 2 - (1-3 Garment Closure Assembly): Accept SUBMITFER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Correct the definition of Garment Closure Assembly in Section 1-$ to change the word "excluding" to read "including". Definition will now read: Garment Closure Assembly. The combination of the suit closure and the seam attaching the suit closure to the garment, including any protective flap or cover. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. The Technical Committee believes that there are potential closure assembly desi~gns that do not use a closure flap, that should be tested for chemical penetration resistance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC3) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 3 - (2-3.2, 2-3.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise the cross references to 3-1.1 and 3-1.1.7. 2-$.2 Change reference to 3-1.1 to read "...Section $-1." 2-3.3 Change reference to 3-1.1.5 to read: "3-1.1.7." SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 422 NFPA 1992 m F99 ROC (Log #CCA) Committee: FAE-HAZ SUBSTANTIATION: A design requirement is proposed as an alternative to chemical penetration resistance testing of the closure assembly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C o M M r r r E E STATEMENT: This type of requirement is better handled in a performance requirement. See Committee Action on Comment 1992-9 (Log #13). 1992- 4 - (2-3.10): Accept SUBMITTER= Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Change "garment" to ~elemenf'. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (L.o~ #13) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 9 - (5-1.2, 6-3): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new text to both paragraph 5-1.2 and Section 6-3 to address closure protective flaps: 5-1.2.3 Where a protective flap is used over the closure system, it shall remain dosed over the duration of the overall garment function test. 6-3.4.4 Where a protective flap is used over the closure system, the test observer shall note whether the flap remains over the closure during exercise procedures A. 6-3.4.5 Where a protective flap is used over the closure system, any disengagement of the closure flap that exposes the closure shall be reported as the closure not remaining closed. 6-3.4.6 Where a protective flap is used over the closure system, any report of the closure not remaining closed shall consutute failure of the test. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed performance requirement Supports the design requirement for a protective flap over a closure in place of closure penetration resistance testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #11) Committee: FAI~-HAZ 1992- 5 - (2-3.11 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: 2-3.11 Unless otherwise specified, a new set of specimens shall be used for all tests, including testing where multiple sample conditioning is used. SUBSTANTIATION: In some cases, specimens that are conditioned for one type of exposure could be tested and then be tested for a different condition under the same test or even a different test. While conditioning can adversely impact specimen performance, there are situations where certain conditioning can actually improve a specimens performance. It was not the intent of the technical committee when preparing the test methods t o p e r m i t specimen testing after one condition to be reconditioned a n d retested, unless specified in the testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #5) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 10- (5-1.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete from 5-1.3: "for each of the NFPA battery of chemicals, shall exhibit no penetration for at least 1 hr for 100 percent isopropanol,~ Replace with: ~for the following list of chemicals~. Add at the end of the list of chemicals found in 64.11.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Garment materials should be tested for the full battery of chemicals and not isopropanol specifically. This modification also moves the battery of NFPA chemicals to a more prominent place in the document. The selection of isopropanol represents a more severe challenge for chemical penetration resistance for testing portions of splashprotective ensembles and elements. Penetration of liquids is governed by the surface tension of the challenge liquid. lsopropanol has a surface tension of approximately 17 dynes/cm as compared to hexane (22 dynes/cm) or other liquids in the chemical battery. Liquids with a lower surface tension can more easily penetrate through seams or closures. Concentrated sulfuric acid is also included for testing because it represents a severe corrosive challenge liquid for evaluation of scams and closures. The revised NFPA 1992 represents a consolidation of NFPA 1992 and NFPA 1993 in the attempt to provide garments that are userfriendly and provide an acceptable level of level of protection. In the 1994 edition, NFPA 1992 required chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures against the full chemical battery. The 1994 edition of NFPA 1993 did not require chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures, but instead relied on the shower test (overall liquid-tight integrity test) for evaluating garment design in terms of seams and closures. The proposed revision of NFPA 1992 institutes a more severe challenge on seams and closures by virtue of using the proposed surrogate chemicals, but others reduced testing for this determination. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC6) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 6 - (3-3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete the first sentence of 3-3.4. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC7) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 7 - (4-1.5): Accept SUBMI'[q'ER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete all of 4-1.5. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #12) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 8 - (4-1.6 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new requirement: 4-1.6 The closures for liquid splash-protective garments shall be covered with a protective flaps that extends at least 50-ram (2-in.) across the closure and 50-mm (2-in.) both below and above the closure. The protective flap shall have a means for remaining over the closure during use, including but not limited to hook and loop tape or adhesive tape. 423 N F P A 1992 - - F99 R O C (Log #18) Committee: FAE-HAZ chemical battery. Liquids with a lower surface tension can more easily penetrate through seams or closures. Concentrated sulfuric acid is also included for testing because it represents a severe corrosive challenge liquid for evaluation of scares and closures. The revised NFPA 1992 represents a consolidation of NFPA 1992 and NFPA 1993 in the attempt to provide garments that are userfriendly and provide an acceptable level of level of protection. In the 1994 edition, NFPA 1992 required chemical penetration resistance testing of seams a n d closures against the full chemical battery. The 1994 edition of NFPA 1993 did not require chemical penetration resistance testing of seams a n d closures, but instead relied on the shower test (overall liquid-tight integrity test) for evaluating garment design in terms of seams and closures. The proposed revision of NFPA 1992 institutes a more severe challenge on seams a n d closures by virtue of using the proposed surrogate chemicals, but others reduced testing for this determination." COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1992- 11 - (5-1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete text: P~e:::~.~nce Tezt, ~nd : h ~ ! =hew n~ -:c!tagc greater Lh~_.n~50 V f~r 5 SUBSTANTIATION: This reqmrement is relaave to optional chemical flash fire protection and is contained in Section 5-6, Optional Chemical Fire Protection Requirements as 5-6.4. Therefore, 5-1.4 is unnecessary a n d should be removed. COMMI'FFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #14) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 12 - (5-1.4, 5-2.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 5-1.4 and 5.2.3. SUBSTANTIATION: The subject paragraphs were never intended to become part of the base requirements, hut were to be included only as part of the optional chemical flash fire protection r e q u i r e m e n ~ Paragraph 5.6.4 currently provides the latter requirement. COMMITI"EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC8) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 15 - (5-1.9.2 a n d 5-1.10.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: In 5-1.9.2 change reference to "Section 6-9" to read: "Section 6-8". Change ~1.44 k N / m (15 lb force/2 in.)" to read:"67 N / 5 0 m m (15 l b f / 2 in.)". Also revise 5-1.9.2 to read: "Garment seams, and visor seams where visors are provided, shall be tested...". In 5-1.10.2 change reference to "Section 6-9" to read: "Section 6-8". Change "1.44 klq/m (15 lb force/2 in.)" to read:'67 N/50 mm (15 lbf/2 in.)". SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee provided the corrections from the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #38) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 13 - (5d.9, 5-1.10): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 ' RECOMMENDATION: The TCC directs the TC to reconsider the action taken on 1992-6, which appears as 5-1.9 and 5.1.10 in the ROP text, to address testing to the full battery of chemicals instead of using the surrogate isopropanol, ff it is the TC's decision to retain use of the surrogate in these tests, then the TC should provide additional substantiation to support this decision. SUBSTANTIATION: The TCG wants the TC to fully consider the issues and be correct in its choice of testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comments 1992-14 (Log #3), 1992-16 (Log #4), 1992-10 (Log #5), 1992-18 (Log #6), 1992-23 (Log #7), and 1992-29 (Log #10). Committee: 1992- 16- (5-1.10.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite 5-1.10.1 as follows: "Garment closure assemblies shall be tested for penetration resistance as specified in Section 6-4, Chemical Penetration Resistance Test, and shall exhibit no penetration for at least 1 hr for 100 percent isopropanol and 93.1 percent w/w sulfuric acid." SUBSTANTIATION: Using these two chemicals only instead of the full battery of chemicals for closure testing provides a reasonable reduction in the cost of testing and certifying the suit without any consequential reduction in the safety provided by the suit because these two chemicals evaluate the integrity of the seam to failures by wetting of low surface tension fluids a n d the corrosion resistance of the seam respectively. These are the two principles mechanisms of seam failure once the fabric has been qualified against the full battery. The committee believes that thi~ adjustment will result in wider utilization of NFPA 1992 compliant garments which will overall increase the safety provided to the work force. The selection of isopropanol represents a more severe challenge for chemical penetration resistance for testing portions of splashprotective ensembles and elements. Penetration of liquids is overned by the surface tension of the challenge liquid. opropanol has a surface tension of approximately 17 dynes/cm as compared to hexane (22 dynes/cm) or other liquids in the chemical battery. Liquids with a lower surface tension can more easily penetrate through seams or closures. Concentrated sulfuric acid is also included for testing because it represents a severe corrosive challenge liquid for evaluadon of scams and closures. The revised NFPA 1992 represents a consolidation of NFPA 1992 and NFPA 1993 in the attempt to provide garments that are userfriendly a n d provide an acceptable level of level of protection. In the 1994 edition, NFPA 1992 required chemical penetration resistance testing of seams a n d closures against the full chemical battery. The 1994 edition of NFPA 1993 did not require chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures, but instead (Log #3) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 14- (5-1.9.1): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite 5-1.9.1 as follows: "Garment seams, a n d visor seams where visors are provided, shall be tested for penetration resistance as specified in Section 6-4, Chemical Penetration Resistance Test, and shall exhibit no penetration for at least 1 h r for 100 percent isopropanol a n d 95.1 ercent w/w sulfuric acid." UBSTANTIATION: Using these two chemicals only instead of the full battery of chemicals for seam testing provides a reasonable reduction of testing and certifying the suit without any consequential reduction in the safety provided by the suit because these two chemicals evaluate the integrity of the seam to failures by wetting of low surface tension fluids and the corrosion resistance of the seam respectively. These are the two principles mechanisms of seam failure once the fabric has been qualified against the full battery. The committee believes that this adjustment will result in wider utilization of NFPA 1992 compliant garments which will overall increase the safety provided to the work force. The selection of isopropanol represents a more severe challenge for chemical penetration resistance for testing portions of splashprotective ensembles and elements. Penetration of liquids is OVemed by the surface tension of the challenge liquid. opropanol has a surface tension of approximately 17 dynes/cm as compared to hexane (22 dynes/cm) or other liquids in the g 424 NFPA 1992 - - relied on the shower test (overall liquid-tight integrity test) for evaluating garment design in terms of seams and closures. The proposed revision of NFPA 1992 institutes a more severe challenge on seams and closures by virtue of using the proposed surrogate chemicals, but others reduced testing for this determination. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. F99 ROC (Log #19) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 19- (5-2.3): Accept SUBMITrEI~ Glenn P. Jirka, Univ. of Missouri Fire & Rescue Training Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text: 5 2.~ C!~':= :x.:.:¢-^'---- :5^.21 ~: :=-t=~ f~.r r=:= ~ f : ~ ' - = =Icc::!c . . . . . ~. ^~.^_ .7~__:_^~^_ ^c _t._~^ g . . . . .:^_ SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement is relative to optional chemical flash fire protection and is contained in Section 5-6, Optional Chemical Fire Protection Requirements as 5-6.4. Therefore, 5-1.4 is unnecessary and should be removed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #15) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 17 - (5-1.10.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'i Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete requirement for closure penetration resistance (paragraph 5-1.10.1) • SUBSTANTIATION: The philosophy for combining NFPA 1992 and NFPA 1993 into one standard was to consolidate requirements in an attempt to define a more "user friendly" product. Testing of the closure assembly for chemical penetration is partly redundant with the liquid integrity test and also has a dramatic effect on ensemble design. The combination of the liquid-tight integrity test together with a requirement for a splash flap over the closure is a more reasonable requirement. In addition, there are no specific test parameters provided in Section 6-4 for penetration testing of closures. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. I evise 5-1.10.1 to read: "Where garment closures are not fully covered by a protective flap that is constructed of the same material as the garment, garment closure assemblies...". Also see Committee Comment 1992-2 (Log #CC5). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee believes that there are potential closure assembly designs that do not use a closure flap, that should be tested for chemical penetration resistance. (Log #1) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 20- (5-2.7): Accept SUBMITrER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-2.7 and replace with: 5-2.7 Glove specimeus shall be tested for hand function as specified in Section 6-13, Glove Hand Function Test, and shall have an average percent increase over barehanded control less than 300 percent. SUBSTANTIATION: Based on the analysis of the data collected to evaluate the peg board test, the pin pick up test, and the two point discrimination test, it appears that the peg board test is the best test to use. The data analysis shows that it is least sensitive to the test subject, it has the best ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves, and it has the best ability to discriminate between gloves. It also shows that including a second test does not significantly improve the ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves. The knot tying test and the grip test were not further evaluated and should also be dropped until further work is done to determine if they produce more or better information. A minimumperformance value of 300 percent is proposed for 1992 gloves. This would allow all the 1992 styles we evaluated up to and including 1971 structural gloves. A minimum performance value of 600 percent is proposed for 1991 style gloves. This would allow all the styles we evaluated up to and including the current 3 layer gloves used for 1991 compliant gloves. Note: Supporting materials is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #6) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 18- (5-2.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete from 5-2.2: "for each of the NFPA battery of chemicals, shall exhibit no penetration for at least 1 hr for 100 percent isopropanol,~ Replace with: "for the following list of chemicals". Add at the end of the list of chemicals found in 6-4.11.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Gloves should be tested for the full battery of chemicals and no isopropanoi specifically. This modification also moves the battery of NFPA chemicals to a more prominent place in the document. The selection of isopropanol represents a more severe challenge for chemical penetration resistance for testing portions of splashprotective ensembles and elements. Penetration of liquids is OVerned by the surface tension of the challenge liquid. opropanol has a surface tension of approximately 17 dynes/cm as compared to hexane (22 dynes/cm) or other liquids in the chemical battery. Liquids with a lower surface tension can more easily penetrate through seams or closures. Concentrated sulfuric acid is also included for testing because it represents a severe corrosive challenge liquid for evaluation of scams and closures. The revised NFPA 1992 represents a consolidation of NFPA 1992 and NFPA 199~ in the attempt to provide garments that are userfriendly and provide an acceptable level of level of protection. In the 1994 edition, NFPA 1992 required chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures against the full chemical battery. The 1994 edition of NFPA 1993 did not require chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures, but instead relied on the shower test (overall liquid-tight integrity test) for evaluating garment design in terms of seams and closures. The proposed revision of NFPA 1992 institutes a more severe challenge on seams and closures by virtue of using the proposed surrogate chemicals, but others reduced testing for this determination. COMMrlq'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #20) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 21 - (5-2.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Glove specimens shall be tested for hand function as specified in Section 6-13, Glove Hand Function Test, and shall mcc= "~c have an average nercent of barehand control not exceedin~ 300 nercent." SUBSTANTIATION: Continued work by the Glove Task Group has determined that the pegboard test is the most appropriate, and recommends deletion of the Gross Dexterity Test A (knot tying), Fine Dexterity Test, and Tactility Test. The performance criteria is based on round robin testing of several glove styles. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1992-20 (Log #1). g~ll~.,2 425 . . . . J . . . . . . . J~=~t'~. NFPA 1992 -- ( L o g #16) ROC F99 ~=~= -~+_h +_he fi.--_t t=~-_h e f +_he =~ee!=ee= ~7 +_he ++e=t ='_'~e=t = ~ _ Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 22 - (5-2.7, 6-15): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stuil, Intl Personnel Protection, Ina 6 13A.~. A. .'[~..: ".~-,.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t: ".]: ~.~ "'--"- ^ " '. . . . . k ^ . m:^__-.:rc~ ~- j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -! . . . . . . . . . . C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 199~-22 RECOMMENDATION: Modify the hand function performance requirement and test method as follows: . . . . 5-2.7 Glove s p e d m e n s shall b e tested f o r h a n d f u n c t i o n as specified in Section 6-17, Glove Hand Function Tests, and shall meet ~e f~!!c:Hng req'_"rement~: ~-, . . . . b . . . . . r- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :...... : -~z . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . have an average percent of barehand control not exceeding 140 percent for t h e C . - c = D c x = c r ' ~ " "T'~.+ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 14 . . . . . . . r ............ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .... 13.~..5.~ F_~ch t c : t : ' - ~ j z z t : h a ! ! t h z = pc:~.c.'~,. +&e t c : t f c ! ! c ' ; - = g A • ";'7.F~-.. ................... . . . . . + +,..+ .... ~,.OV~ ~t" . . . . . . . . . . . h a J . t" . . . . . . . . IA~, T1`^ +1 ........ k~ll :. . . . . --^--.'. t-':':': ";'- . . . . . . . ~: .... J.k " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +." . . . . ~'+1` --| ..... II~'l"~r YZY ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~P1`-- +6~ .1`~11 1` . . . . 22.+~Z~-'2"+\'Z .,.t..~,..1 - ..,~'~1,,.~... Cil,.^ , ,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . .'~--ge IV . . . . . . D ..... . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + . ~ C. . . . . b"~ch^--~d ten'=:! DTT~ r~-r ( .1~~1u~% , 6 la.~..~ c = = : ~=:te::_--, P.-e~:~'_;?e ~. b~ch^~d c c . n t r ~ ! a - ' c m g c c f ~ c : l.~.,: "..he.'; ° 9 F c r c c ~ t f o r t.he Crip Revise Test Method as follows: 6-13 Glove Hand Function Tests. 6-13.1 Application. 6-13.1.1 This test shall apply to gloves. 6-13.2 Specimens. 6-15.2.1 A minimum of three gloves pairs each for each size provided with the suit shall be used for testing. Where multinle ~loves are used for comnliance with this standard, the glove pair snecimen shall consist of all ~loves combined io a fashio[i reoresentin~ their use on the-vapor-protective soit. ~13.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a complete set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-13.2.3 Glove pair specimens shall not receive special softening treatments prior to tests. 6-13.3 Sample Preparation. 6-13.3.1 Glove pair specimens shall be preconditioned as specified in 6-1.2. 6-13.3.9 Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove pairs. 6-13.4 Anoaratus. 6-13.4.1 A De~ board apparatus shall be used which consists 9f 25 stainless steel-ni'ns and a peg board. Each stainless steel pin shall have a diameter of9.5 mm (0.375 inA and length of 38.1 mm ([,5 in.). The peg hoard shall have 25 holes with g~ch hole having a diameter of (0.~9 in.I and a denth of ( 1 / ~ in.I. The holes shall be in a 5 × 5 nattern and each hole shall have a senaration of ~5 mm (l in.) from other holes. 6-13.5 Procedures. 6-13.5.1 Each available size of gloves shall be evaluated with at least one separate test subject with the same pair of gloves fsr "~he ,=, A 9 !$A.~, ~ 5 1~.~.5. 6-15.5.2 A minimum of five different glovepairs shall be evaluated. When less than 5 different sizes of gloves are available, different pairs of the same sized gloves shall be permitted to be tested by different test subjects to meet the minimum five glove pair testing requirement. 6-13.5.3 Test subjects shall be selected such that their hand dimensions are as close as possible to those specified in accordance with manufacturing glove sizing guidelines. 6-1~.5.4 Each test subject used to perform this testing shall practice of the hand functions a minimum of $ times before conducting actual testing. ---- + * ~ +~ ~". . . . 11 ., : n ? , £ e f ~ ' : s = ~ ;.,@.h ~ ' : c b o l e : ~_~ a :hcelace. ~'~.~ m r . . . 1 ~ A ~ O . '~ . . '~ . J:~--~+^---:-- F.c+ch h o l e : h a ! ! h a ' : c a d ' a m c t c r ......... cf . . . . . ,I+ 5 !3.!. ° ....... ~ ..... , ..... ........................ ~ ~.. oz, ~ .... oz). , ................. II . . . . . . . . o :_ TA~+1` ~ ^--.1~ ~ . _ _ ,~"~.n'~° ( 2 "n., --~.! ~n.). __~ --- " ~' +1... ^ - - . + . 1 --.*--. I-.~ •, : n . x .,+1`:_,. ~1-+ . . . . . i. .... . . . . +1` The ................. (~ in. +"-10.5 i n . × 2 i n . ) . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . @ 50 mm 1`^1^. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ _ - - 1 ` ^e= cf rcc'~._~g'-!~ b!cd'~ +1_^. Ig.~..5.2 6-13.5.5 Before each test, the pegs shall be placed on a hard, smooth surface adjacent to the peg board (on the right side for right-handed test subjects and on the left side for left-handed test subjects). 5!3.!.~.~ 6-13.5.6 In starting the test, each peg shall be grasped near its end and shall be placed in the peg board from left-to-fight and top-to-bottom. ~ I~A.~.I 6-13.5.7 The time to place all pegs in the peg board shall be measured for each test subject and shall be known as the dexterity test time. !3.1.5.5 6-13.5.8 Each test subject shall perform the test following the steps in 5 !3.~.5.2 "~hrc.ug~ ~ . . . . . . . . 6-I~.5.5 through 6-13.5.7 until ~ three dexterity test times of that person's ! ~ t ~ - z z total repetitions varies no more than $10 percent. The !='::e:t average dexterity test time of the Ta~ selected three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (DTrb). Each test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each t e s t . § !3A..~+.~ 6-1S.5.9 Each test subject shall then perform the test following the steps in 5 13.¢.5.2 "&ro'~'gh 5 !3A.~.I 6-13.5.5 through 6-13.5.7 with the paJr of test gloves. The testing shall be conduc(¢~ until three dexterity test times of that nerson's tot~ I'¢pefitiQns varies no more than 10 oercent. The me~'-'re~ average dexterity test time of the selected-three renetltions shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (1)TT). T--l~Each test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each test. 13.~.~.7 6-1S.5.1Q The dexterity test times with gloves shall be compared with the baseline dexterity test time for each test subject. The percentage of barehand control shall be calculated as follows: Percent of = DTT_ (100) barehanded control DTT~ • 'T~.^ + ++ +~.+ r ............... +. . . . . I-+- ...1`*.^-+ --:~1.: -1`~11 ,s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I~ . . . . . +.-3^AI r ....... I-. ~:-- -~,-i .1`^11 r..£ 1 0 1`^1,-I +1~^ Tacfi!i W Prcccdurc. w h i c h cc.=:!:'.z c f : c ~ c f g;'c ~ ' n a , .1`.a;'ag a ~ : ~ m c t c : an~ +~.JI a Fer;~ +1~+~ o f 9.°.°.I m . m i ~..cc.acc~ i n t a a =hc.c!acz '-nc.t a tc'^~J e.~ t c n "-mz=..'1~..e te=t : h a ! ! :hM! a!':.: bc includzd. 426 NFPA 1992 . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . =..k:~.~^ +^.+ v .." .... . . . . . + U:.-I:--~ . . . . I-.-II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ~K---I ..... C. . . . . . . . . +t. . . . . :^. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ..... I~^11 I~ . . . . . . . ~.g'~ . . . . :~ & tl 19 A CI 1 I'%.:_ .1-~11 .~..'.--~ I..~..A I-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll ~. lk--_A . . . . . . -*kl~ ^-- .^.. ¢) .1~ - . . . . ~1~ . . . . . . c N~ lk~*lk k----A. +..~| ~ _ _ ----A / ~-. . . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . ~..,2eul:tcd ~ fo!!ov-: Perccnt of = W" . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WPC : - ( 4 0 0 ~ ~A~Df" 6.13.6 Report. 6.13.6.1 . : : ~r:== ~:x.cn.," . r o c : ~ = : c .., The percent of barehanded control shall be reported for each test subject The average percent of barehanded control for all test subjects shall be calculated. I_. . . . . . . . . . . ' y ; , L v U =.F.L2: ....................... ...k:^.~ "T'I. . . . . . . . . . . . !1^.~ . . . . :---- *k-~ ~_ k^ A--~^--^A .,.,.^ £^-- (Log #17) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 24 - (5-6.5, Chapter 6, Chapter 7): Hold SUBMITI'ER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 199"2-2"2 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new requirement for radiant protective performance of the primary suit, glove and footwear materials. Add the followinl~ requirement to Section 5-6: 5-6.5 Primary smt, glove, and footwear materials shall be tested for radiantprotectiveperformance (RPP) as specified in Section 6x, Radiant Protective Performance Test, and shall have an average RPP rating of not less than 12. Add new section for test requirement in Chapter 6: 6.x Radiant Protective Performance Test 6-x.1 Application. 6.x.1.1 This test method shall apply to suit, glove, and footwear materials. 6.x.2 Specimens. 6.x.2.1 Radiant protective performance testing shall be conducted on three specimens. Specimens shall measure 76 mm x 254 mm _+.5 mm ($ in. x 10 in. + 1 / 4 in.) and shall consist of all layers representative of the clothing item to be tested. 6.x.2.2 Specimens shall consist of all layers used in the construction of the suit, glove, or footwear, excluding any areas with special reinforcements. Specimens shall not include seams. Specimens shall not be stitchedto hold individual layers together. 6.x.3 Sample Preparation. 6-x.3.1 Specimens shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.2. 6.x.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be of spedmens size given in 6-x.2.1. 6-x.4 Apparatus. 6-x.4.1 The test apparatus specified in ASTM F 1939, Test Method for Radiant Protecuve Performance of Flame Resistant Clothing Materials, shall be used at an exposure heat flux of 84 kW/m 2 (2.0 cal/cm2s). 6.x.5 Procedure. 6-x.5.1 Flame resistance testing shall be performed in accordance with ASTM F 1959, Test Method for Radiant Protective Performance of Flame Resistant Clothing Materials. .11 tc:t :',:bjcc'= :ha!! b: -~..-2'culatcd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-13.6 Interpretation. 6-13.6.1 ~.'.~ _. . . .~. .... . .. . . . .r .- , , ^ . . ~ ^ , . . : ' ~ . ~ .D . .. .. .. .. . .A.I .. . . . A~ The average percent of barehand control shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. :T3YC22_~7 . . . . . . ............................ u£ A~*..*^AI k.. ~ . * ...k:~.*- .K--11 1-. . . . . . A *^ A _ * _ - - : . . . . . . (Log #7) FAE-HAZ 1992- 23- (5-3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 199"2-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete from 5-3.2: "for each of the NFPA battery of chemicals, shall exhibit no penetration for at least 1 hr for 100 percent isopropanol," Replace with: "for the following list of chemicals'. Add at the end of the list of chemicals found in 6-4.11.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Footwear upper materials should be tested for the full battery of chemicals a n d n o isopropanol specifically. This modification also moves the battery of NFPA chemicals to a more prominent place in the document The selection of isopropanol represents a more severe challenge for chemical penetration resistance for testing portions of splashprotective ensembles and elements. Penetration of liquids m governed by the surface tension of the challenge liquid. Isopropanol has a surface tension of approximately 17 dynes/cm as compared to hexane (22 dynes/cm) or other liquids in the chemical battery. Liquids with a lower surface tension can more easily penetrate through seams or closures. Concentrated sulfuric acid is also included for testing because it represents a severe corrosive challenge liquid for evaluation of scares and closures. The revised NFPA 1992 represents a consolidation of NFPA 1992 and NFPA 1993 in the attempt to provide garments that are userfriendly and provide an acceptable level of level of protection. In the 1994 edition, NFPA 1992 required chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures against the full chemical battery. The 1994 edition of NFPA 1993 did not require chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures, but instead relied on the shower test (overall liquid-tight integrity test) for evaluating garment design in terms of seams and closures. The proposed revision of NFPA 1992 institutes a more severe challenge on seams and closures by virtue of using the proposed surrogate chemicals, but others reduced testing for thisdetermination. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. . . . . . . . ,,a:~-- F99 ROC Committee: fast I:-I~nA ~ w w ~ ..,:~1.. .1,. . . . . . _--...I - /4P.:I SUBSTANTIATION: Evaluation of theproposed test requirements based on testing conducted at a Technical Committee meeting shows the pegboard test provides the best discrimination of hand function consistent with user observations. While both the pin pickup test and the two-point discriminator provide some discrimination, these additional tests do not add any additional value as discerned in a statical analysis of the data. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMWrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comments 1992-20 (Log #1) and 1992-21 (Log #20). 427 NFPA 1992 -- F99 ROC 6-x.6 Report. 6-x.6.1 The individual test RPP rating of each specimen shall be reported. The average RPP rating shall be calculated and reported. If a RPP rating is greater than 60, then the RPP rating shall be reported as ">60." 6-x.7 Interpretation. 6-x.7.1 Pass or fail determinations shall be separately based on the average reported RPP rating of all specimens. 6-x.7.2 If an individual result from any test set varies more than -I-10 percent from the average result, the results from the test set shall be discarded and another set of specimens shall be tested. Add the following to test method to Chapter 7: ASTM F 1939, Test Method for Radiant Protective Performance of Flame Resistant Clothing Materials, 1998. SUBSTANTIATION: The primary exposure from a chemical flash fire is radiant heat. The current TPP test measures exposure to a combined convective and radiant source. A radiant heat exposure is more indicative of a chemical flash fire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #9) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 28- (6-4.8.4, 6-4.9.4, 6-4.10.5): Accept SUBMITrER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Change the text in 6-4.8.4, 6-4.9.4 and 6-4.10.5 to the text in 6-4.7.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Primary materials should be tested to the entire battery of chemicals after flexing and abrading. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (L~ #10) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 29 - (6-4.11.5): Accept SUBMITrER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Change 6-4.11.5 to read: "Penetration testing shall be conducted against 100 percent isopropanol and 93.1 percent w/w sulfuric acid." SUBSTANTIATION: Using these two chemicals only instead of the full battery of chemicals for seam testing provides a reasonable reduction in the cost of testing and certifying the suit without any consequential reduction in the safety provided by the suit because these two chemicals evaluate the integrity of the seam to failures by wetting of low surface tension fluids and the corrosion resistance of the seam respectively. These are the two principle mechanisms of seam failure once the fabric has been qualified against the full battery. The committee believes that this adjnsttnent will result in wider utilization of NFPA 1992 compliant garments which will overall increase the safety provided to the work force. The selection of isopropanol represents a more severe challenge for chemical penetration resistance for testing portions of splashprotective ensembles and elements. Penetration of fiquids is governed by the surface tension of the challenge liquid. Isopropanol has a surface tension of approximately 17 dynes/cm as compared to hexane (22 dynes/cm) or other liquids in the chemical battery. Liquids with a lower surface tension can more easily penetrate through seams or closures. Concentrated sulfuric acid is also included for testing because it represents a severe corrosive challenge fiquid for evaluation of scares and closures. The revised NFPA 1992 represents a consolidation of NFPA 1992 and NFPA 1993 in the attempt to provide garments that are userfriendly and provide an acceptable level of level of protection. In the 1994 edinon, NFPA 1992 required chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures against the full chemical battery. The 1994 edition of NFPA 1993 did not require chemical penetration resistance testing of seams and closures, but instead relied on the shower test (overall liquid-tight integrity test) for evaluating garment design in terms of seams and closures. The proposed revision of NFPA 1992 institutes a more severe challenge on seams and closures by virtue of using the proposed surrogate chemicals, but others reduced testing for this determination. COMMI'FI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC12) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 25 - (6-1.4.1(c), (d)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise (c) to read: "The abradant shall be silicone carbide, ultrafine, 600 grit." Revise (d) to read: "The specimen shall be abraded for 25 continuous cycles." SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has made the corrections from the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC14) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 26 - (6-3.4.1(b), (g)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: In 6-3.4.1(b) change reference to 3-1.4 to read: "...3-3.4 of this standard." Revise the second sentence of 6-3.4.1(g) to read: ",For consistency in testing, the SCBA shall be compliant with NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire and Emergency Service." SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has made the corrections from the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC15) Committee: FAE-HAZ (Log #8) 1992- 30- (6-5.4.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Commktee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise title to read: ASTM D 751, Standard Test Methods for Coated Fabrics, 1998. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 27- (6-4): Accept SUBMI'ITER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete garment, glove and footwear :materials from 6-4.1.2 and 6-4.7. Revise 6-4.7.1 to read: "Samples for conditioning shall be visor material(s)." SUBSTANTIATION: Testing a garment glove and footwear materials is only done after flexing and abrading and for the battery of chemicals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 428 NFPA 1992 -- F99 ROC times with a coefficient of variance less than 8 percent. The average of the last three repetitions shall be the dexterity test time with gloves (DTTg). Each repetition shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions. 6613.5.7 The dexterity test time with gloves (DTTg) shall be compared with the baseline dexterity test time (DTT b) for each test subject. The percent increase over barehanded control shall be calculated for each glove size as follows: Percent increase overbarehanded control = D T T . x 100 o D'l~Yb 6-15.6 Report. 6-15.6.1 The percent increase over barehanded control shall he reported for each glove size. The average percent increase over barehanded control for all glove sizes shall be calculated and also reported. 6613.7 Interpretation. 6-13.7.1 The average percent increase over barehanded control for all glove sizes shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : See Substantiation for new 5-2.7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise text to read: 6-13 Glove Hand Function Test. 6613.1 Application. 6-13.1.1 This test shall apply to gloves. 6613.2 Specimens. 6-13.2.1 A minimum of one glove pair for each size provided with the suit shall be used for testing. 6613.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a complete set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-13.2.3 Glove pair specimens shall not receive special softening or flexing treatments prior to this test. 6613.3 Sample Preparation. 6-13.3.1 Glove pair specimens shall be preconditioned as specified in 661.2. 6-13.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove pairs. 6-13.4 Procedures. 6-13.4.1 Each glove size shall be evaluated by a separate test subject. 6-13.'t.2 Test subjects shall be selected such that their hand dimensions conform to the manufacturer's sizing information for the glove sizes being evaluated. 6-13.4.3 Each test subject shall be familiarized with the test apparatus and procedure by practicing the test three times before conducting actual testing, but not on the same day of the actual testing. 6-13.5 Pegboard Procedure. 6-13.5.1 A pegboard apparatus that consists of 25 stainless steel pins and a pegboard shallbe used. Each stainless steel pin shall have a diameter of 9.5 mm (3/8 in.) and a length of 38 mm ( 1 1/2 in.). The pegboard shall have 25 holes, each hole having a diameter of 10 mm (13/32 in.) and a depth of 13 mm (1/2 in.). The holes shall be a 5 x 5 pattern and each hole shall have a separation of 95 mm (1 in.) from any adjacent hole. 6-13.5.2 Before each test, the pegs and peg board shall be placed on which shall be a nominally 610 mm x 915 mm (24 in. x 36 in.) sheet of 1.6-ram (0.0625-in.). Neoprene having a hardness of 50 +_5 Shore A and a thickness of 1.57 mm (0.062 in.) +10 percent. The pegs shall be randomly scattered in the working area most comfortable to the test subject (such as on the right side for righthanded subjects, left side of left-handed test subjects, or directly in front of the subject.) 6-13.5.3 In starting the test, each peg shall be grasped near its end and shall be placed in the peg board beginning at the upper left comer and proceeding from left-to-right and top-to-bottom. The pegs shall not be picked up from any surface other than the specified test surface, and shall not be picked up by sliding, standing, or otherwise supporting the peg with another object (such as the peg board, another peg, or the test subject's free hand). Only one hand shall he used during the test, and only one peg shall be grasped at a time. The test subject shall not alternate hands during the test series. The peg board shall be permitted to be prevented from moving during the test by the test subject's free hand or other means as necessary. 6-13.5.4 The dexterity test time shall be the time it takes from grasping the first peg to placing the last peg in the pegboard. 6-15.5.5 Each test subject shall perform the test without gloves following the steps in 6-13.5.2 through 6-13.5.4 until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's last three repetitions does not exceed 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the average of three repetitious, and (Log #CC16) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 31 - (6-9.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1992-22 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise title to read: ASTM D 2136, Standard Test Method for Coated Fabrics-LowTemperature Bend Test, 1998. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE A C T I O N : Accept. (Log #2) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 32 - (6-13): Accept in Principle SUBMrFFER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L NO: 1992-22 • R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete Section 6-13. Replace with new 6-13 as follows: 6-13 Glove Hand Function Test. 6613.1 Application. 6-13.1.1 This test shall apply to gloves. 6-13.2 Specimens. 6-13.2.1 One glove pair for each size provided with the suit shall be used for testing. 6613.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a' complete set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-13.2.3 Glove pair specimens shall not receive special softening or flexing treatments prior to this test 6-13.3 Sample Preparation. 6-13.3.1 Glove pair specimens shall be preconditioned a specified in 6-1.3. 6-13.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove pairs. 6-13.4 Procedures. 6-13.4.1 Each glove size shall be evaluated by a separate test subject. 6-13.4.2 Test subjects shall be selected such that their hand dimensions are close to the middle of the range given in Table 4-2.2 for the glove size they are evaluating. 6-13.4.3 A minimum of five different glove pairs shall he evaluated. When less than five different glove sizes are available, different pairs of the same size gloves shall be permitted to be tested by different test subjects so that a total of at least five different glove pairs are tested. 6-13.4.4 Each test subject shall be familiarized with the test apparatus and procedure by practicing the test three times before conducting actual testing, but not on the same day of the actual testing. 6-13.5 Pegboard Procedure. 6-13.5.1 A pegboard apparatus that consists of 25 stainless steel pins and a pegboard shall be used. Each stainless steel pin shall have a diameter of 9.5 mm ($/8 in.) and a length of 38 mm (1 1/2 in.). The pegboard shall have 25 holes, each hole having a diameter of 10 mm (13/32 in.) and a depth of 13 mm (1/2 in.). The holes shall be in a 5 x 5 pattern and each hole shall have a separation of 25 mm (1 in.) from any adjacent hole. • 6-13.5.2 Before each test, the pegs shall be placed on a hard smooth surface adjacent to the pegboard (on the right side for right-handed test subjects and on the left side for left-handed test subjects). 6-13.5.3 In conducting the test, each peg shall be picked up from the test surface along its long dimension (not by its ends) and placed in the pegboard from left to right and top to bouom. 6-13.5.4 The dexterity test time shall be the time it takes from grasping the first peg to placing the last peg in the pegboard. 6-13.5.5 Each test subject shall perform the test barehanded according to 6-13.5.2 through 6-13.5.4. The test shall be repeated until the last three repetitions have dexterity test times with a coefficient of variance less than 8 percent. The average of the last three repetitions shall be the baseline dexterity test time (DTTb) for that test subject. Each repetition shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions. 6-13.5.6 Each test subject shall then perform the test according to 6-13.5.2 through 6-13.5.4 wearing the pair of test gloves. The test shall be repeated until the last three repetitions have dexterity test 429 NFPA 1992 -- F99 ROC multiplying by 100. The average of the three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (Dttb), a n d shall be between 25 - 45 sec. The test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each repetition. 6-13.5.6 Each test subject shall then perform the test with one pair of gloves following the steps in 6-13.5.2 t h r o u g h 6-13.5.4 until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's fastest three repetitions does n o t exceed 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated as in 6-13.5.5. The average of the three fastest repetitions shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (DTFs). The test shall be c o n d u c t e d without the test subject's knowledge o f the dexterity test time for each repetition. 6-13.5.7 The dexterity test time with gloves ( D T I " ) shall be c o m p a r e d with the baseline dexterity test time (DTTb) for each test subject. T h e p e r c e n t o f bare-handed control shall be calculated for each glove size as follows: SUBSTANTIATION: Since the working surface can significantly impact the dexterity times observed, the p r o p o s e d language would standardize this variable to allow better reproducibility of the test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #33) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 36 - (6-13.4.6.3): Accept in Principle SUBMYIq'ER: Catherine P,. Doctgen, hatertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 199'2-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ~In starting the test, each peg shall be ~rasped near its e n d and shall be placed in the peg b o a r d b egitmmg at the u p p e r left c o m e r from left-to-fight and top-to-bottom. The n e ~ shall n o t be tricked un from any surface other than the soecif~d test surface, and shaft n o t be picked un by sliding, standing, or otherwise supporting the peg-with a n o t h e r obiect (such a~-th~ peg board, a n o t h e r t3em or the test subject's free h a n d L Only one h a n d shall be used-during the test. a n d only one peg shall be, grasoed at a time. The test subiect shall n o t alternate hands d~lring the test series. T h e ne~ b e a r d shall be nermitted to be nrevented from moving during-the test by the test subject's free h a n d or other Percent o f barehanded control = DTI'g x 100 DTI"b 6-13.6 Report. 6-13.6.1 The average p e r c e n t of b a r e h a n d e d control for all tests shall be calculated a n d reported. 6-13.7 Interpretation. 6-13.7.1 The average p e r c e n t o f b a r e h a n d e d control for all tests shall be used to d e t e r m i n e pass/fail performance. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee chose the more specific text to modify the submitters text. SUBSTANTIATION: Modifications to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test for the data to be meaningful a n d reproducible. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on C o m m e n t 1992-32 (Log #2). (Log #21) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 3 3 - (6-13.4.1): Accept SUBMYI'rER: Catherine R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and r e n u m b e r appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Since the h a n d function test has b e e n narrowed down to one p r o c e d u r e (the peg board test), the section is unnecessary. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept. (Log #32) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 37- (6-13.4.6.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Catherine R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each test subject shall p e r f o r m the test without gloves following the steps in 6-17.4.6.2 t h r o u g h 6-17.4.6.4 until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's last three repetitions does n o t exceed ".-.-~ ~)" =c r...crc "~^~ 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the average o f three repeUtaons, and multaplymg by 100. The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ........ c f k~: l : : t.~.z:: average o f the three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (Dttb) , a n d shall be between 95 - 45 sec. The FE.:c~-htest shall be c o n d u c t e d without t h e test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each renetition t e ~ ~ SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to darify the p r o c e d u r e and to provide for greater reproducibility a n d more meaningful data by setting limits o n the baseline dexterity times to a t t e m p t to remove subject-to-subject bias. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on C o m m e n t 1992-$2 (Log #2). (Log #22) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 5 4 - (6-13.4.5): Accept SUBMITTER= Catherine IL D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its endrety and r e n u m b e r appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: D e v e l o p m e n t a n d inter-lab work on the p r o p o s e d dexterity test procedures have d e t e r m i n e d that the best correlation between field p e r f o r m a n c e of a glove a n d laboratory results is the peg board test (6-13.4.6). T h e o t h e r three p r o p o s e d techniques are either n o t reproducible, too cumbersome, or do n o t provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information a b o u t the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #34) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 38 - (6-13.4.6.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Catherine R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 ° RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Each test subject shall t h e n p e r f o r m the test with one hair o f gloves following the steps in 6-17.4.6.2 through 6-17.4.6.4 ;'~.'~ "~: v~.--^:"c f t~.t g!o;'c.; until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's fastest three repetitions does n o t exceed ;x:':~- ~y n= more ~ : = 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated as in 6-17.4.6.5. The average of the three fastest repelalao . . . . . . . . . . . . . :-7 ~c:. ::me shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves ( D T r g ) . The test shall be c o n d u c t e d without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each renetition ¢~t~" SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to clarify the p r o c e d u r e a n d provide for greater reproducibility a n d m o r e meaningful data. Modifications to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test. (Log #31) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 35 - (6-13.4.6.2): Accept SUBMITTER= Catherine R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Before each test, the pegs and peg board shall be placed o n the test surfag~ : ~:='~, ^. . . . i . . . . ~ . . . . ~j . . . . . . . . I.^ FAg ~ ^ ~ a t ~ .e . . . . = ~ e ~ te=t :u~j¢ctr). which shall be a nominally 600 m m x 900 m m (24 in. x 36 inA sheet of 1.6-ram (0.0625-in.L N e o p r e n e having a hardness o f 50 + 5 Shore A a n d a thickness o f 1.57 m m (0.062 in.) + 10 nercent. The net, s shall be randomly scattered in the working area most comfortable to the test subiect (i.e.. right side for ri~ht-handed subiects, left side of left-handed test subjects. directly in front, etc.)." 430 NFPA 1992 m F99 ROC (Log 026) Committee: FAE-HAZ COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1992-32 (Log #2). 1992- 43 - (6-13.5.3): Accept SUBMITTER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity testprocedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-15.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #23) Committee: FAF~HAZ 1992- 39 - (6-13.4.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-15.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log 027) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 44- (6-13.5.4): Accept SUBMrrTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-13.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not pr.ovide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or umque information about the glove's performance. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #24) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 40 - (6-13.4.8): Accept SUB.MITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: DeLete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-15.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (_Lo~ #28) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 45 - (6-15.6.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine P,. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-13.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #25) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 41 - (6-13.5.1): Accept SUBMITrER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-13.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #36) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 46 - (6-13.6.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: -v^. ¢~. . . . r~. . . . . . :~. D. . . . ~ . . . . E, The average percentage of bare-handed control for each size glove evaluated shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. Falhlr¢ of anv size shall constitute failure of the test." SUBSTANTIATION: Modifies the interpretation criteria to reflect other proposed changes to this test procedure and performance criteria. C O M M I l q ~ E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Ms. Dodgen is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 14 May 1999 and requested that this comment not be considered. (Log #35) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 42 - (6-13.5.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: - ~ r". . . . r~. . . . .~,.. D. . . . .4. . . . t~, The ~verag_e percentage of bare-hand control shall be reported for each test subject. The average percentage of bare-handed control for all test subjects shall be ca . . . . . . . . renorted for each size." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies reporting requirements based on other proposed changes to this section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1992-$2 (Log #2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . (Log #29) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 47- (6-13.6.3): Accept SUBMI]q'ER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best 431 NFPA 1992 -- F99 ROC correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-13.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC30) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 52 - (A-2-6): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-2'2 RECOMMENDATION: Delete ISO 9000, ISO 9003, and ISO 9004 from A-2-6. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has made the correction to the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #30) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 4 8 - (6-13.6.4): Accept SUBMITFER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Development and interdab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-13.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC31) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 55- (A-3-$.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Revise title to read: ASTM F 1154, Standard Practices for Qualitatively Evaluating the Comfort, Fit, Function, and Integrity of Chemical-Protective Suit Ensembles, 1998. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC20) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 49- (6-20.4.1): Accept SUBMITTERa Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the last sentence in 6-20.4.1. Revise the last sentence in 6-20.4.1.1 to read: "The specifications for the lower specimen mounting plate shall conform to Figure 6-20.4.1.1. In Figure 6-20.4.1.3 delete spaces (blocks) "Spacer (if used)" with arrow. In Figure 6-20.4.1.10 add 4th thermocouple to top left drawing in the figure. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has made the corrections to the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #37) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 54- (A-6-13.4.6.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Insert new text: "The test surface specified is identical to the calibration material ecified in the cut resistance test found in Section 6-15 (ASTM 790)." SUBSTANTIATION: Explanatory material/source and detail for the test surface specified. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ~l (Log #CC21) Committee: FAE-HAZ (Log #CC34) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992-. 50 - (6-20.4.1.7): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective C~othing and Equipment COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 RECOMMENDATION: Change measurement to read: "54 kPa, ±14 kPa (8 psig, +2 psig)." SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has made the correction to the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1992- 55 - (B-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete ISO 9000, ISO 9003, and ISO 9004 from B-1.2.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has made the correction to the ROP. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC27) Committee: FAE-HAZ 1992- 51 - (6-20.5.3.5): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1992-22 I RECOMMENDATION: The reference 6-11.5.4.1 is incorrect and should be 6-20.5.4.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee has made the correction to the ROP. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 432 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC element from the marketplace and distribution sites, and the element is returned to the manuf,~cturer or other acceptable location for corrective action. Revise 2-3.5 to read: 2-3.5 Inspection by the certification organization for determining compliance with the design requirements specified in Chapter 4 shall be ~erformed on whole or complete products. The certificanon organization shall report on the compliance of each element to each design requirement specified in Chapter 4 for that element. Revise 2-4.1 and 2-4.2 to read: 2-4.1 All individual elements of the protective ensemble that are labeled as being compliant with this standard shall undergo recertification on an annual basis. The recerdficatlon shall include the following: (a) inspection and evaluation to all design rec[uirements and testing to all performance requirements as required by this standard on all manufacturer models and component& (b) testing to all performance requirements as required by this standard on all manufacturer models and components with the following protocol: 1. When a test method incorporates testing both before and after laundering precondition specified in 6-1.2 and the test I generates qtuantitative . . . . results, . . recertificatinn testing shall be limited to the condiUomng which ymided m the worst case test result during the initial certification for the model or component. 2. When a test method incorporates testing both before and after laundering preconditioning specified in 6-1.2 and the test generates non-quantitative results (e.g., pass/fail for melt/drip), recertification shall be limited to a single condifioningprocedure in any given year. Subsequent annual recertificatlon shall cycle through the remaining conditioning procedures to ensure that all required conditionings are included over time. 3 . Where a test method required the testing of these specimens, a minimum of one specimen shall be tested for annual recertification. 4. Where a test method requires the testing of five or more specimens, a minimum of two specimens shall b e tested for annual recertification. "2-4.2 Samples of... be acquired as part of the follow up program, in accordance with 2-2.7, shall be permitted to be used toward annual recertificatinn. ~ Add new 4-2.10 to read: 4-2.10 Where helmets are provided with a self*contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facepiece that is attached or integrated wRh the helmet, the helmet, with the SCBA facepiece installed,, shall meet. all al~pllcable design and performance reqmrements of this standard. Revise 5-2.20 to read: 5-2.20 All sewing thread used in the construction of helmets shall be made of inherently flame-resistant fiber and shall be tested for melting resistance as specified in Section 6-11, Thread Melting Test, and shall not melt below 260°C (500°F). Add to 7-1.2.8: ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories, 1990. SUBMITITER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing a n d Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Item 1. The TCC directs the TC to review the federal test methods referenced within the document and replace these with a consensus standard wherever possible. Item 2. The TC,C directs the TC to reconsider the trim issue as covered in 4-1.12, 4.1.13, 4-2.8, a n d 4-2.9 in the Report on Proposals text. The TCC notes that as trim is described in the above referenced paragraphs it does not fit within the definition of "accessory". If the TC decision is to allow trim of elements, the TCC directs the TC to assure that the trim will not degrade the performance a n d thermal protection provided by the ensemble element. The TC should fully document their rationale and results of tests that support their decision. Further, if the TC decision is to allow trim of elements, the TC must provide criteria for the trim itself to address reflectivity, flouresceuse, location, and amount as is provided in all other documents within this Project that require trim. Item 3. The TCC directs the TC to consider incorporating full garment performance and testing using a mannequin in NFPA i976. The TCC is providing the following performance and test text for the TC's consideration. Performance requirement 5-1.X Complete garments shall be tested for overall heat and flame resistance as specified in Section 6-X, Overall Heat and PART IH (Log #8) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 1 - (Entire Document): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Document has both design and test methods for protective hood interface components. Delete Section 4-5 a n d remove references to "hoods" from Chapters 2 and 6. SUBSTANTIATION: Performance requirements were left out of drafL COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #26) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976. 2 - (Entire Document): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976.29 RECOMMENDATION: The requirements for hoods have not b e e n adequately developed. The scope of the standard does not include hoods, yet definitions include "Proximity Protective Hood". Section 4-5 includes protective hood interface component design requirements, yet Chapter 5 includes no performance requirements for hoods. We suggest that the committee develop hood requirements, or remove hoods from the 2000 edition of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Standard is incomplete as proposed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976.1 (Log #8). (Log #180) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976. 3 - (Entire Document): TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this Comment is to change the TC action to ~Accept in Part in Principle ~ as follows: 1971.21 Item 5: Accept in Principle. Add new 2-3.1, 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 to read: Renumber the following paragraphs.) 2-3.1 For both certification and recert]fication of ensembles, ensemble elements, and components; the certification organization shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section. 2-3.2 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for certification or for recertification shall be conducted by the certification organization or a facility accredited by the certification organization for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories. 2-3.3 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing conducted by a product manufacturer shall not be used in the certification or recertification process unless the facility for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing has been accredited by the certification organization in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories. For Item 5, the TCC is correctlng its own Comment (1976-3 Item 5) to change the proposed text in 2-3.2 and 2-3.2 to recognize the TC's action on Comment 1976-27 (Log #99) to accommodate the submitter's recommendation but to modify the requirement to add the reference to ISO Guide 25 as a basis for determining the qualifications of the testing laboratory. It is the TCC's position to now make this the "boUerl?late" text for Section 2-$ in all documents within this Project. 1976-3 Item 6: Accept in Principle. Add new 2-3.13 to read: 2-3.13 The manufacturer shall maintain all design and performance inspection and test data from the certification organization used in the certification of the manufacturer's compliant product. The manufacturer shall provide such data, u p o n request, to t h e p u r c h a s e r or authority having jurisdiction. For Item 6, the T C C i s correcting its own Comment (1976-3) by replacing its proposed text for a new 2-3.13 in favor of the TC's action on Comment 1976-32 that uses the text of 2-4.3 with modification. The TCC also made the following corrections for consistency in "boilerplate" text for certification and for consistency in requirements with other documents within this Project. J Add new definition to Section 1-3 to read: [ 1-3 Recall System. The action taken by which a manufacturer [ identifies an element, provides notice to the users, withdraws an 43~ NFPA 1976 m F99 ROC Flame Performance Test, and shall show no after flame times greater than 5 seconds, shall indicate no amounts of predicted second degree bum damage greater than 5 percent over the mannequin's body, shall indicate no third degree burn damage over the mannequin's body, and shall show no melting or charring of any surface of the innermost layer of the garment in contact with the mannequin. Test Method 6-X Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test. 6-X.1 Application. 6-X.I.1 This test method shall apply to full garments. 6-X.2 Samples. 6-X.2.1 Samples for conditioning shall be complete garments. 6-X.2.2 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.2. 6-X.3 Specimen Preparation. 6-X.3A Specimens shall include complete garments sized appropriate to the mannequin with all layers in place and all closures properly secured. 6-X.3.2 A minimum of one specimen shall be tested. 6-X.4 Procedure. 6-X.4.1 Specimens shall be evaluated in accordance with ISO CD 13506, Protective clothing against heat and flame - Test method for complete garments - Prediction of b u m injury using an instrumented mannequin, with the following modification: (a) Specimens shall be tested for a total exposure time of 10 seconds at an average exposure heat flux of 80 kW/m 2 (2.0 cal/cm2s). (b) The interior of the garment, including the surface of the innermost layer in contact with the mannequin, shall be inspected for visible damage 5 minutes following the exposure. 6-X.5 Report. 6-X.5.1 The after flame time observed on the specimen following exposure shall be reported to the nearest 0.1 s. 6-X.5.2 The percentage of 2nd degree burn area and percentage of 3rd degree burn area shall he reported to the nearest 0.1 percent. Diagrams showing the relative area of burn injury prediction shall be provided as part of the report. 6-X.5.3 Observations of melting or charring of any surface of the innermost layer in contact with the mannequin shall be reported. 6-X.6 Interpretation. 6-X.6.1 The after flame time, percentage of predicted 2nd degree b u m injury, percentage of 3rd degree burn injury, and observations of melting or charring of any surface of the innermost layer of the garment in contact with the mannequin shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. 6-X.6.2 Failure in any one performance area shall constitute failure of the specimen. Item 4. Revise 2-2.7 to read: 2-2.7* The certification organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturing facilities of the certified product, with at least two random and unannounced visits per 12l month period. As part of the follow-up inspection program, the certification organization shall select sample product at random from the manufacturer's production line, from the manufacturer's in-house stock, or fi'om the open market. The certification organization shall have a statistically validated process for determining the critical inspections and tests to be conducted through this follow-up program to verify the continued compliance of the product or component. Item 5. Add new 2-3.1, 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 to read: 2-3.1 For both initial certification and recertification of ensembles, ensemble elements, and components; the certlficadon organization shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section. 2-3.2 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for certification or for recertification shall be conducted by the certification organization. 2-3.3 Any inspection, evaluation, conditioning, or testing conducted by a product manufacturer shall not be used in the certification or recertiflcation process. Renumber 2-3.1 through 2-3.9 (Report on Proposals text numbering) to become 2-3.4 through 2-3.12. Item 6. Add new 2-3.13 to read: 2-3.13 The certification organization shall maintain records of all pass/fall tests for initial certification. Pass/fall records shall indicate the disposition of the failed material or product. SUBSTANTIATION: The TCC has revised 2-2.7 to reflect the current text being used in the documents in this Project for consistency of certification requirements. The TCC has provided the new text for 2-3.1, 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 for the TC to add to Secdon 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements. The TCC has provided the new text for 2-3.13 for the TC to add to Section 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Item h See Committee Action on Comment 1976-47 (Log #4). The Committee will continue to seek consensus documents to replace military specifications for the next edition. Item 2: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-50 (Log #6), 1976-61 (Log #42), and 1976-53 (Log #52). Item 3: Hold. The Committee will "Hold" garment testing for overall heat and flame resistance as the test method is not ready to be implemented as a test method and performance requirement. The Committee will monitor the development in this testing procedure and consider the issue when the test method is completed. Item 4: Accept. Item 5: Accept. Item 6: Accept. (Log #9) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 4 - (1-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 1-1.2 This standard shall apply to the design, manufacturing, and certification of new proximity protective ensembles, new I'¢pl~gement liners, or new individual elements of the proximity rotective ensemble. UBSTANTIATION: The fire service has expressed the need for certified replacement liners. To certify such products, the scope of this standard needs to reflect the acceptability of this practice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document covers the manufacturer and certification of new PPE and does not address after purchase changes that can not be evaluated as an entire ensemble element by the certification organization. g (Log #137) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 5 - (1-$ Basic Plane): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197629 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Basic Plane. A he!met te..-m,for the p!zr.e through ~ e center= cf t~c ¢'.:tcrz-2 c~r epen'zgz ~ d "~z ha'::cr zdgz~ .~f "~c eye e.~zkz'.z. A helmet term for the anatomical nlane that includes the sunerior rim of the external auditory meatus, the under edge of the external 9oenin~s of the ear. and tlae inferior mar~in of the orbit, the lowest point of the floor of the eve socket. SUBSTANTIATION: Rei]ects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #90) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 6 - (1-3 Basic Weight): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows; 'q'he weight of the helmet including all components specified in 4 2.1 4-2.2." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 4-2.2 contains the components of a helmet used to determine the basic weight. Section 4-2.1 does not mention anything about the components of a helmet. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 434 NFPA 1976 - - (Log #177) Committee: FAE-SFA F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 7 - (1-5 Collar (New)): Accept SUBMFIq'ER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-5 RECOMMENDATION: Add new definition to Section 1-$, to read: Collar. The portion of a coat or coverall that encircles the neck. SUBSTANTIATION: The TCC directs the TC to consider this definition for the term "collar" which is a modification of the one recommended in the Proposal 1976-5. This definition will be a Project definition used in other documents. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #84) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 12 - (1-5 Recall System): Accept SUBMITTER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Recall System. The action by which a manufacturer identifies an element, provides notice to the users, withdraws an element from the marketplace and distribution sites, and returns the element to the manufacturer or other acceptable location for corrective action. SUBSTANTIATION: Recall System is not defined within the standard yet the certifying organization must verify that a Recall System is in place. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #158) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 8 - (1-5 Coronal Plane): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976.29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Coronal Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . . . v . . . . a.ar . . . . . (Log #142) Committee: FAF.-SFA ¼x.=rn~ :=r open:rig:. A helmet term for the anatomical plala¢ Deroendidular for both the basic and midsagittal planes and containing the midooint of a line connectin~ the suoerior rims of the right ~aad left au~tory meatuses. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976. 15 - (1-5 Reference Plane): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Reference Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at :: . . . . . ..'a 1 :..:.. ~.~.~;'c : . ~ F~.-xllcl to. =.~.: ~ . ' c F!=x:. The plane that is 102.5 mm down from the ton of the head and narallel to the basic pl~41e on an ISO size 1 headform. SUBSTANTIA'i'ION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #159) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 9 - 0-3 Eye/Face Positioning Index): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen F~ Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: "Eye/face Positioning Index. The verfical distance, as specified by the helmet manufacturer, from the top lateral midpoint...'. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #11) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 14 - (1-3 Replacement Liner (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Thomas L. WoUan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: "Replacement Liner. A removable innermost comnonent of the garment comoosite containing the thermal a n d / o r moisture barrier." SUBSTANTIATION: The fire service has expressed the need for certified replacement liners. To certify such products, the certification provisions of this s t a n d a r d n e e d to reflect the acceptability of this practice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This standard does not apply to replacement components and only applies to new elements. (Log #140) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 10- (1-5 Helmet Positioning Index): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen K Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Helmet Positioning Index. The vertical distance, as specified by the helmut manufacturer, form the lowest point of the brow opiating- at the lateral midpoint of the helmet to the basic plane of e rcfcrc~.cc ISO Size J headform when the helmet is firmly positioned on the headform. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC6) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 15 - (1-3 Standard (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following new definition: Standard. A document, the main text of that contains only mandatory provisions using the word "shall" to indicate requirements and that is in a form suitable for mandatory reference standard or code or for adoption into law. nmandatory provisions are located in the appendix and are not considered a part of the requirements of a standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Adoption of preferred definitions will assist the user by providing consistent meaning of defined terms throughout the National Fire Codes©. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #141) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 11 - (1-5 Mid-Sagittal Plane): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Mid-Sagittal Plane. A ~¢Imct :or:'.. f~r =.~.: ~!m~:, pcrF=n~c~:la= to The anatomical r)lane perpendicular to the b ~ i c plane and containing the midpoint of the line connecting the notches of the right and ]eft inferior orbital rldees, and the rr~idnoint of the line connecting the superior rims of the right and left auditory meatus. 435 N F P A 1976 - - F99 R O C (Log #143) Committee: FAE-SFA the time of certification would be the edition used by the certification organization. Also the Comment could introduce the concept of "component" certification. It is not the intent of the certification to apply to parts or components of individual elements of the protective ememble. Only individual elements of the protecnve ensemble can be certified. 1976- 16 - (1-3 Top): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumiock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition to read as follows: Top. The intersection between the mid-sagittal plane n:,~_:^~ C ~ . = ~ 3~c and the Coronal Plane extended to the helmet surface. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistenL COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #11a) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 19- (2-1.6): Reject SUBMITrER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2-1.6 With the excention_ of replacemen~ liners, the certification or~,anizafion shall reouire manufacturers to remove all certification lal~eis and nroduct labels indicadn~ comoliance with the 1997 edition of lqFPA 1976 from all nrotectiveensembles, or individual elements of the Proximity nrotective ensemble, as comnliant with tabe 1997 edition of 1976 o n or after 1 SePtzm~z: .%~2~ The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any proximity protective clothing or individual elements of the proximity protective ensemble as compliant with the 1992 edition of this standard on or after 1 September 20001. SUBSTANTIATION: The fire service has expressed the need for certified replacement liners. To certify such products, the certification provisions of this standard need to reflect the acceptability of this practice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIlq'EE STATEMENT: This standard does not apply to replacement components and only applies to new elements. (Log #10) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 17- (2-1.5): Reject SUBMrrTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2-1.5 The certification organization shall not certify any proximity protective ensembles, or individual elements of the proximity protective ensemble, to the 1992 edition of NFPA 1976 on or after 1 September 2~L~2.March 2001, SUBSTANTIATION: The compliance timeframe for implementation of a new standard should also allow for manufacturers to react to new requirements, performing product development work as necessary. There is not sufficient time in a six month implementation window to allow for this work. Also, past experience indicates that printed copies of the NFPA Standard won't be available until late March 2000 at the earliest. The selection of a suitable compliance deadline should be based in part upon the availability of printed standards for purchase. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Six months is the maximum time the Committee is comfortable with before requiting all PPE to be certified as compliant with the 2000 edition. It is unacceptable to have production of PPE certified as compliant to the 1997edition for the period of one year. CLOg#37) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 20 - (2-2.7, 2-3.1, 2-3.2, 2-3.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Woilan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 2-2.7 The certification organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturing facilities of the certified product, with at least two random and unannounced visits per 12month period. As part of the follow-up inspection program, the certification organization shall select sample product at random from the manufacturer's production line, from the manufacturer's stock, or from the open market. Tt-~cz z : ~ . ~ c . = ~:g-~-iza'2on (Log #66) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 18 - (2-1.5, 2-1.6): Reject SUBMITrER: Marilyn Wright, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 2-1.5 The certification organization shall not certify any structural protective ensembles, ~,r "~'?A'.':~'.:=2 clcr'..c::~; ~.f "~c :'~",:c"....::~ v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the 1997 edition of NFPA 1971 on or after 1 September 2000. The certification organization may certify individual elements of the structural vrotective ensemble to the 1997 edition of NFPA 1971 for those elements manufactured with components certified to the 2000 edition of NFPA 1971 9nly. 2-1.6 The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any structural protective ensembles,--ot= "~'-'~'=-2 :Icmz=~ c.f ".P.c :'~r-'::'-:~~ p:=:cc~-:c c:-=¢m-~lz,as compliant with the 1997 edition of NFPA 1971 on or after 1 September 2000. The certification organization may certify. individual elements of the structural orotective en~emblg as comnliant with the 1997 edition of NiTPA 1971 for those elements manufactured with comoonents certified to the 2000 edi~iqi~ 9f NFPA 1971 only The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any structural protective clothing or Otective equipment as compliant with any edition of NFPA 1971, 1972,NFPA 1973, or NFPA 1974 that is dated prior to 1997 on or after 1 March 2000. SUBSTANTIATION: This modification would allow elements to be replaced due to material defects, workmanship defects or as a result of other extraordinary occurrences to continue the use of the structural protective ensemble for its intended and reasonable wear life. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommended text addition is unnecessary. The certification organization can evaluate any element, regardless of components, to the standard to determine compliance, ff an element exceeds the requirements of the standard, then it can be listed and labeled. The edition in effect at u~, t~. v~ . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.-t- . . . . . . . . . . . . t" . . . . . t or =c.=..pc.n=~.t. Sample product shall be inspected and tested by the certification organization to verifv the nroduct's continued comnliance. ........... , ..................... ~ . . . . . . . . t" ....... , . . . . . . . . . . -~tlon SUBSTANTIATION: As worded, the requirement in 2-2.7 contains no requirement relative to the confidence level to be established. Without a specific statistical requirement, "statistical validation" has no meaning. A testing organization could require extensive lot testing and still not establish 100 percent statistical confidence of continued compliance. The TCC needs to either leave this requirement as worded in the 1992 edition, or be more specific regarding the confidence level desired and the means to be used to determine that level. Also, the TCC's stated rationale for 2-2.7 is invalid as the proposed wording has not yet been published in any of the documents in this Project. Accordingly, it isn't "correlation~ that is being performed, it's the drafting of new text. The requirements in 2-$.1, 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 needlessly invalidate data from manufacturer's laboratories that have been evaluated by the certification organization to nationally recognized laboratory 436 NFPA 1976 m F99 ROC (Log #3) Committee: FAE-SFA operation standards. Manufacturer's test data that is generated under an ongoing comprehensive system of confidence building, audit testing, a n d on-site review is currently used by certification organizations around the world and accepted by national accreditation bodies. Elimination of manufacturer's data will translate to higher product costs with no net benefit to the firefigbter. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee will follow the policy for this text from the TCC. 1976. 25 - (Table 2-3.1.2): Accept SUBMrITER= Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Table needs to be updated according to text. SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #43) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #75) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 26 - (Table 2-3.1.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 [ RECOMMENDATION: Revise test matrix Table 2-3.1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: This matrix has been pulled directly from NFPA 1971 a n d does not identify the additional need for test product for additional proximity helmet tests, which are not a part of NFPA 1971. This leaves test laboratories without iustruction for which samples to be used for tests such as described in Section 6-11. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976. 21 - (2-2.9): Accept SUBMITTER= William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976.29 RECOMMENDATION: Define the requirement for a "recall system" and add a new definition to read: Recall System. The action by which a manufacturer identifies an element, provides notice to the users, withdraws an element from the marketplace and distribution sites, and returns the element to the manufacturer or other acceptable location for corrective action. SUBSTANTIATION: If we cannot define what a recall system is - - we should remove the requirement for a recall system from the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #99) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 27 - (2-3.2, 2-3.3): TCC N O T [ : Tile TCC action on this COl~utnelltis to leave the TC's ~Acce.pt in. Principle" action in place and revise the Committee Action to r ~ d : ~See action taken on Item 5 of Comment 1976-3 (Log #180)." The TCC is agreeing with the TC's action to accommodate the submltter's recommendation but is modifying the TC's proposed text for 2-3.2 and the submitter's proposed text for 2-3.$-to add the reference to ISO Guide 25 as a basis for determining the alifications of the testing laboratory. (See the new text in the C action on Comment 1976-3.) It is the TCC's position to now make this the "boilerplate" text for Section 2-3 in all documents within this Project. SUBMITTER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc• COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add to paragraph 2-3.2: "or the certification organization's ac;q;redited facility for inseections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing." Add to paragraph 2-3.3: "unless the facilitv for insoection, evaluation, conditioning, or testin~ has been accredited-to do this work bv the certification organization." SI.7"BSTANTIATION: Data from independent third party accredited labs owned and operated by manufacturers should be allowed to b e used for certification a n d annual recertification processes. Third party certifiers must now be accredited to ANSI Z 34.1, Standard for Third-Party Certification Program for Products, Processes, and Services. Certification and annual recertification are processes that can include the use by the third party certifier of laboratory test data from the third party certification organization's accredited lab network as well as from their own lab. Bottom line, the ANSI Z 34.1 accreditation for third party certifiers ensures that no fly by night certifier is able to accredit a fly by night manufacturer's lab. This practice of using data from vendor labs is not new or unique across most industry. It can be structured like UL's "Client Data Test Program" so that the third party certifier meeting the requirements of Section 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, a n d 2-4 routinely audit these test facilities by visits to check calibration methods and practices but, also so that the data is generated by both labs. This checking of each other for accuracy, etc., creates a continuous lab to lab round robin which should he welcomed by the Fire Service customer as it makes the testing part of a manufacturer's (~C Program stronger. Paragraphs 2-3.2 and 2-3.3 as currently written and unchanged mandate redundancy and extra costs without delivering any benefit to the Fire Service whatsoever. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle• Modify 2-3.2 to add: "...or a facility accredited by the certification organization for inspections or the certification organization's accredited facility for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing." Accept 2-3.3 as submitted. (Log #98) Committee: FAE-S FA 1976- 22 - (2-3.1): Reject SUBMITIT.J~ Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apl~arel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971g~9 RECOMMENDATION: Move paragraph 2-3.1 from Section 2-3 to Section 2-4. SUBSTANTIATION: Sampling and testing frequency are QC issues. Paragraph 2-2.5 mandates the certification organization establish and require the manufacturer to maintain an inspection and testing program that the certifier audits. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 2-3 is the appropriate section for this requirement as it applies to all inspection and testing by the certification organizations• (Log #12) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 23 - (Table 2-3.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc, COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I P~2COMMENDATION: Revise Table 2-3.1.1 as follows: • specify garment, not "clothing", • renumber test method references to eliminate errors. SUBSTANTIATION: The table is inaccurate/incomplete as PCresented. OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #72) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 24- (Table 2-3.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER= Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite Table 2-3.1.1, Protective Garment Test Matrix, to accurately represent test procedures described in the body of the document. SUBSTANTIATION: Testing matrix Table 2-3.1.1, Protective Garment Test Matrix, is not complete and does not match what is actually in the body of the document. Examples: The RPP test is not included in the matrix and TPP is listed as Section 6.10 when it is actually Section 6.13. Problems throughout all test matrix. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 437 N F P A 1976 - - F 9 9 R O C COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee modified the text to make more d e a r that the laboratory needs to be accredited by the certification organization to do their testing. method to be reconditioned and tested for another test method unless specifically permitted in the test method. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with the submitter but incorporated the wording into the existing 2-3.9. (Log #91) Committee: FAF~FA (Log #70) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 32- (2-4.3): Accept TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this Comment is to leave the TC's "Accept~ action in place and revise the Committee Action to 1976- 28- (2-3.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Inspection by the certification organization shall include a review of any graphic representations used on product labels, as permitted I.!.5, ~2.!.5, ~ L!.5, ~ ~.!.5, a=~ ~ 5.!.5 $-1.5. to ensure that the symbols are consistent with the worded statements, readily understood, a n d clearly communicate the intended message." SUBSTANTIATION: Within the NFPA 1976 - F99 NFPA 1971-F99 , there is no Section 3-1.1.5, $-2.1.5, 3-$.1.5, 3-4.1.5, or $-5.1.5. The correct reference for Section 2-$.$ is Section $-1.5. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. read: "See action taken on Item 6 of Comment 1976-3 (Log #180).~ SUBMITIT_~ William L Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Copy a n d move 2-4.$ to a new 2-$.10 so that this requirement applies to both certification and recertification. SUBSTANTIATION: I believe that it is the intent of the committee to require initial certification as well as recertification records. COMMFI'TEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #92) Committee: FAEtSFA (Log #62) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 29- (2-3.4): Accept S U B M r r r E R : Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Inspecti6n by the certification organization shall include a review of the user information required by ~ !.2 :..=~ $ 2.2 $-2 to ensure that the information has been developed a n d is available." SUBSTANTIATION: Sections 3-1.2 and 3-2.2 do not contain the correct reference for Section 2-$.4. The correct reference should be Section 3-2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- $$- (2-6.$): Accept SUBMITTER: NicholasJ. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete 2-6.$ entirely a n d r e n u m b e r balance of cha_napter SUBSTANTIATION: Reqmrement for ISO 9002 regqstrauon for assembly of elements is r e d u n d a n t to requirements for ISO 9001 registration for the manufacturer. ISO9001 (p4.6, Purchasing; 4.6.2, Evaluation of Subcontractors; 4.6.4.1, Supplier verRicauon at subcontractor's premises; 4.6.4.2 Customer Verification of subcontracted products; 4.8 Product identification a n d traceability;, 4.9 Process control; 4.10, Inspection and Testing, et al) mandates quality process and documentation controls which make the requirement for ISO9002 unnecessary. The requirement for ISO9002 registration may unnecessarily restrict the opportunities for a n ISO9001 registered manufacturer to use skilled partners in the provision of diverse products at reasonable costs to the consumer and AHJ. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. , (Log #95) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 30- (2-3.7): Accept SUBMITrER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Where certification testing includes a n element with an accessory or accessories, each accessory shall be certified as complying with Section 4-g 4.7." SUBSTANTIATION: There is no Section 4-8 in NFPA 1976 - F99. The correct reference should be 4-7. COMMII~I'EE ACTION: Accept. . . ° (Log #63) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 34- (3-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: NicholasJ. Curtis, Lion Apparel, I n c COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise $-1.1 as follows: "Each element of the protective ensemble shall have at least one product label permanently located inside, and at least one product label shall be conspicuous when the element(s) are properly assembled with all layers a n d components in place." SUBSTANTIATION: As currently written, labels on all elements must be conspicuous when they are all assembled together. This is unnecessary, and diminishes the ability to design the elements in a ra(~~tects the labels. ACTION: Reject. C O ~ STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Curtis was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 29 April 1999 and asked the Technical Committee not to conmder this comment. (Log #100) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 31 - (2-3.10 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: 2-$.10 Unless otherwise specified, a new set of specimens shall be used for all tests, including tesdng where multiple sample conditioning is used. SUBSTANTIATION: In some cases, specimens that are conditioned for one type of exposure could be tested and then be tested for a different condition under the same test or even a different test. While conditioning can adversely impact specimen performance, there are situations where certain conditioning can actually improve a specimens performance. It was not the intent of the Technical Committee when preparing the test methods to permit slSecimen testing after one condition to be reconditioned a n d retested, unless specified in the testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 2-3.9 to read as follows: 2-3.9 The certification organization shall not allow any modifications, pretreatment, conditioning, or other such special processes of the product or any product component prior to the product's submission for evaluation a n d testing by the certification organization. The certification organization shall n o t allow test specimens that have been conditioned and tested for one test 438 N F P A 1976 m F99 R O C COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Add a new 3-1.10 to read: "For hoods only, where the hood is designed to interface with a specific SCBA facepiece(s), the hood manufacturer shall add an item (k) to the items specified in 3-1.7." Add a new 3-1.10.1 to read: ~l'he hood manufacturers shall designate the specific SCBA facepiece(s), model(s) and size(s) in that item (k)." Add a new 3-1.10.2 to read: "Where the hood is designed to be used with a specific SCBA facepiece(s), the hood manufacturer shall add to the hood product label the following statement: "This hood is designed to be used f l l ~ with i [INSERT SCBA FACEPIECE(SL MODEL¢SL and SIZE(S~ HEREI For compliance with NFPA 1971 this hood can only be used with the above noted facepiece(s)"." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees but has modified the text to follow the same style for other product labels and to omit warning language. (Log #13) Committee: FAF_.~FA 1976- 35 - (3-1.6): Reject SUBMITrER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: ".3-1.6 The following compliance statement shall be printed legibly on the product label. The appropriate term for the element type - sa.-~..:nt, coat. trouser, goverali, helmet, glove, footwear, hood -...". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies the requirement. "Garment" is not a specific element term. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The term "garment" is the defined term for coat, ttouser, and coverall and is appropriate for label use. (Log #64) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 36 - (3-1.6): Reject SUBMrYFER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Change minimum type size requirement from 2.5 mm to 1.6 mm. SUBSTANTIATION: 1.6 mm type is legible, and requiring larger type drives larger and more cumbersome label size. The minimum requirement for all type size has heretofore been 1.6 mm and this is more than ~glequate. Labels using 1.6 mm type have been widely tested by human factor engineers and design focus groups and meet all requirements for legibility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE S T A R T : Compliance statements are to be printed in larger type size. (Log #CC8) Committee: ~'AE-SFA 1976- 39- (3-2.5): Accept SUBMITFER= Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 [ RECOMMENDATION: Change reference from 4-3.5.3 to 4-3.7.3. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #65) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #94) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 37- ($-1.7): Accept SUBMITrER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Change minimum type size requirement from 2 nun to 1.5 mm. SUBSTANTIATION: 1.6 mm type is legible, and requiring larger type drives larger and more cumbersome label size. T h e minimum requirement for all type size has heretofore been 1.6 m m and this is more than adequate. Labels using 1.6 m m type have been widely tested by human factor engineers and design focus groups and meet all requirements for legibility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 40- ($-2.5): Accept SUBMrITER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "For gloves only, the manufacturer shall make a chart illustrating the hand dimension ranges specified in 4 ~.~.~ 4-$.7.3 available on request to prospective purchasers." SUBSTANTIATION: There is no Section 4-3.5.3 in NFPA 1976 F99. The correct reference should be 4-$.7.3. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #77) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #55) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 41 - (4-1.3): Hold S U B M I T r E ~ William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-1.3 Garments shall have a means of securing the moisture barrier and thermal barrier to the outer shell in such a means as tO hermit the visual insDection of both the interior and exterigr surfaces of each barrier. SUBSTANTIATION: The user must be able to access the barrier and tape portion of the moisture barrier and the insulation portion of the thermal barrier in order to inspect the barriers for damage and wear. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. 1976- 38- (3-1.10): TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this Comment is to change the TC's action to "Reject". The appropriate action is "Reject" as hoods are not part of the ensemble or interface elements of this standard. The TC's action on Comment 1976-1 (Log #8) deleted hoods from the entire document; therefore, product labels for hoods are not appropriate. SUBMITTER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following text: 3-1.10 For hoods only the hood manufacturer shall add (k) to Paragraph 3-1.7 if the hood face opening is designed to interface with a specific SCBA facepiece (see Paragraph 4-5.4) as follows: 3-1.7(k) WARNING This hood shall only [pc worn with SCBA face$Tiece mgdel name . number SUBSTANTIATION: A hood's face opening designed to be worn with a specific facepiece could be hazardous if worn with other SCBA facepieces. The label needs to warn the fire fighter. 439 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC (Log #14) Committee: FAE~FA construction requirements, additional flexibility is permitted without any loss to the NFPA minimum standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 42- (4-1.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER= Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "4-1.4 ...In coats, the moisture barriers and thermal barriers, or materials meeting the performance requirements of these components, shall also extend to within 25 mm (1 in.) of the sleeve end of the outer shell and be perm'tted t~ re'-~act a m=x:.mum ef 59 (Log #16) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 45 - (4-1.7): ReJect SUBMITFER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Fastener tape shall meet the nerformance requirements of MILF-21849G, Fastener Tapes, Hook and Pile, Synthetic. Class 2 hook and pile fastener tapes shall not be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: MIL-F-21840G contains additional requirements which are not relevant to the NFPA 1976 standard. By limiting the incorporation of the MIL spec to performance requirements, additional flexibility is permitted without any loss to the NFPA minimum standard. COMMFFrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-46 (Log #51). shall also e x t e n d to w i t h i n 75 m m (3 in.) o f t h e b o t t o m o u t e r shell hems ~ ' ~ ~". . .t~. .. . . . :'+~'~ ......... a ~: ..... ¢ lnn ~ (A "~.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fro..'.. "..~.¢~ t ' . ~ m ¢'.::zr ~hzil hem. Any mechanism used to affuc the lioer system to the outer shell, at or adjacent to the end of the coat ~lceve or trouser leg. ,hall nQt be greater than 95 mm (1 in.) in length....". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies requirement and correlates with language proposed for NFPA 1971. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 4-1.4 to read: "4-1.4 ...within 75 mm (3 in.) of the bottom outer shell hems. The liner svstem shall be attached at or adiacent to the end of the coat sleeves or the end of the trouser le~s.- Any mechanism used to attach the liner svstem at or adiacent to the end of the coat sleeves and the end of the trouser lec,sshall not be ~reater than 25 mm (1 in.) between the attachment ooints, and sh~l not be exoandable. Moisture barriers and thermal barriers...all closures." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee modified the text to include more specific language. (Log #51) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 46 - (4-1.7): Accept SUBM1TTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to MIL-F-21849G, Fastener Tapes, Hook and Pile, Synthetic. In its place, insert the following: *Aramid hook and pile fastener tapes shall not be permitted. SUBSTANTIATION: This is intended to provide for specific performance requirements, rather than a g e n e r a l reference to a rail specification and is in keeping with TCC directive. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #95) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 43 - (4-1.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Moisture barriers and thermal barriers, or materials meeting the performance requirements of these components, shall extend as a minimum, to the neckline seam of the coat, to the waistline seam of the trouser, and to within 75 mm (5 in.) of the bottom outer shell hems of protective garments. In coats, the moisture barriers and thermal barriers, or materials meeting the performance requirements of these components, shall also extend to within 25 mm (1 in.) of the sleeve end of the outer shell and in trousers, shall also extend to within 75 mm (3 in.) of the bottom outer shell hems. Any mechxnism used to alex the liner system to the outer shell, shall not be greater than 25 mm (1 in.) in length. Moisture barriers and thermal barriers, or materials meeting the performance requirements of these components, shall be configured in a manner to provide overlap at all closures." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 4-1.4 contains the same wording as NFPA 1971, 1997 edition. In NFPA 1971-F99 Report on Proposals, Section 4-1.4 wording has been revised. Since much of the design criteria for NFPA 1976 has been taken from NFPA 1971, the proposed wording will make NFPA 1976 consistent with NFPA 1971. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-42 (Log #14). (Log #4) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 47- (4-1.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 4-1.8 and replace with the following: 4-1.8 Zippers shall meet the physical performance requirements of A-A.55634, Commercial Item Description, Zippers (Fasteners, Slide, Interlocking). Coat/coverall front closures zippers, trouser fly zippers, and sleeve and leg tippers shall be size 9 or larger when measured in accordance with A-A.55634, Commercial Item Description, Zippers (Fasteners, Slide Interlocking). SUBSTANTIATION: Convert Mil-Spec to performance document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #17) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 48 - (4-1.8): Accept SUBMITrER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-1.8 Zinvers shall meet the vhvsical nerformance reouirements of A-A-55(~34. Commercial Item Descrlvtion. Zinners (Fastener~, Slide. InterlockingL Coat/coverall front closure~ tipn¢l~, trouser fly tinders, and sleeve and lee tinders shall be size 9 or lanzer when measured in accordance with A-A55634. Commercial Item Descrintion. Zivners (Fasteners. Slide. Interlocking). SUBS'fANTIA'i'ION: Correlates requirements to NFPA 1971 Report on Proposals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #15) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 44- (4-1.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Snaps shall at Ic::t re:at "..ha r ~ u ~ r e m c n ~ ~f Fagt:==::~, Snap, be Style 2 and shall comnlv with the design and constru~;~joq cf~S279~°0E, F=:tc=er, .e. . .- ~t ~ MIDF-10884F. The construction of the snap shall be permitted to wary from the drawings with regard to the attachment means and use of Ioggs on the caDS." SUBSTANTIATION: MIL-R-10884F contains additional requirements which are not relevant to the NFPA 1976 standard. By limiting the incorporation of the MIL spec to design and 440 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC (Log #19) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #96) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 49- (4-1.8): Accept SUBM1TTER= Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise wording. Zippers shall meet the physical performance requirements of A-A-55654, Commercial Item Description, Zippers (Fasteners, Slide, Interlocking). Coat/coverall front closures tippers, trouser fly zippers, and sleeve and leg zippers shall be size 9 or larger when measured in accordance with A-A-55634, Commercial Item Description, Zippers (Fasteners, Slide, Interlocking). SUBSTANTIATION: Section 4-1.8 contains the same wording as NFPA 1971, 1997 edition. In NFPA 71-F99 Report on Proposals, Section 4-1.8 wording has been revised. Since much of the design criteria for NFPA 1976 has been taken from NFPA 1971, the proposed wording will make NFPA 1976 consistent with NFPA 1971. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 52 - (4-1.13): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "4-1.13 Ne:'~a-.2"~-v-~trefl¢~-':e ! Leather or other such material, not having radiant reflective nronerties, shall be permitted to be al~xed only to the outer shell racliairit reflective surfaces of proximity protective garments as reinforcement of the sleeve cuffs and trouser leg cuffs. Such r.~.= . ~ . = = reinforcements shall not cover...". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Prindple. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-55 (Log #52). (Log #52) Committee: FAE~FA 1976- 53 - (4-1.13): Accept SUBMITTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: ]976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 4-1.13 Reinforcing materials that do meet the radiant reflective requirements speci~ed in 5-1.1' shall be permitted to be affixed only to the garment outer shell radiant reflect surfaces as reinforcement of the sleeve cuffs and trouser leg cuffs when the following requirements are met: (a) The reinfordng materials alone shall meet the flame resistant requirements specified in 5-1.8. ( b ) The reinforcing materials above shall meet the beat resistance requirements spedfied in 5-1.10. (c) Reinforcement areas shall not cover the radiant reflective surfaces of the garment by more than 25 mm when measured from the edge of the cuff back along the sleeve or leg. SUBSTANTIATION: This is an attempt to clearly state what is meant by "other such materials" and remove any possible ambiguity from the requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #6) Committee: FAE6FA 1976- 50 - (4-1.12): Accept SUBMITrER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4-1.12 to read: "Proximity protective garments shall not have materials that do not meet the radiant reflective requirements specified in 5-1.1 affixed to the outer shell radiant reflective surfaces of the garments unless such materials are covered in 4-1.13." SUBSTANTIATION: 1. Trim can not be called an accessory by definition since it is not removable. 2. Trim degrades the performance of clothing, therefore can not meet Paragraph 4-7 accessory design requirements. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #18) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 51 - (4-1.12): Reject SUBM~ Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-1.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . =8, t Trim, lettering, patches, name or number stencils, emblems, and paint i: pre:~.a_e~ ~n pr~:'2miW pr~t::fi:'e ~-_.-x-..::-.'_%:uch rc'.zc.rzflcc'--:: re=to--A: :h~2! ~c c:.=:'~crc~ accc==ric: ==:~ :hall r;'..zct ".~.z =z~u!=cmz=t: ~.f Szzt~z= A 7. shall not interfere with the function of the element or with the function of any of the element's comoonent varts, and shall not degrade the desi~qaed nrotection or nerformance of the element below-the reouirements oi~this standargL SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies requirement and avoids confusing implication that non-removable trim shill be considered an "accessory" which by definition is removable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-50 (Log #6). Chest Sleeve Waist Inseam (L~8) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 54 - (4-1.14.5, 4-1.14.6 (New)): Accept SUBMITIT_~ William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: 4-1.14.5" In order to label a protective coat or coverall as compliant with this standard, the manufacturer shall provide, as a mmtmum, mens and womens chest sizes, in increments no greater than 50 mm (2 in.), and sleeve lengths, in increments no greater than 25 mm (1 in.), in the ranges as specified in Table 4-1.14.5. (Table is shown below.) 4-1.14.6 Mens and womens siting shall be accomplished by mens and womens individual patterning. Add new Appendix item to read: A-4-14.5 Coat length is not addressed in this document as it must be determined by the individual donning both coat and trouser and proceeding through the directions contained in NFPA 1500 to insure adequate overlap between the coat and trouser. Overlap is a significant safety issue and can be best addressed by careful overlap evaluation and insuring only those coat/trouser combinations are worn that are recommended by the manufacturer of those ensemble items. SUBSTANTIATION: Garment siting is not addressed within the standard. All other elements - - helmets, gloves, and boot sizing are addressed within this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Table 4-1.14.5 Available Coat/Trouser Size Ranges Womens Mens 865 m m - 1525 ram 710 mm - 1270 mm ~s4 in. - 60 in. I 128 in. - 50 in.) 710 m m - 865 m m 820 m m - 965 mm (32 in. - 38 in. / (28 in. - 34 in.) 760 m m - 1525 nun 710 m m - 1270 mm (30 in. - 60 in.) (28 in. - 50 in.) 610 m m - 865 m m 660 m m - 915 mm (24 in. - 34 in.) (26 in. - $6 in.) 441 Increments 50 m m ~2 ~-I .~mm (1 in.) 50 mm (2 in.) 50 mm (2 in.) NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC (Log #145) Committee: FAF_~FA (Log #178) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 55 - (4-1.14.5, 4-1.14.6 (New)): Accept SUBMITYER: Technical Correlating Committee on F'we and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-13 RECOMMENDATION: The TGC directs the TC to reconsider the issue of garment sizing and the sizing requirements that would provide consistency with other e l e m e n t s i n this document as well as other documents in this Project. SUBSTANTIATION: Garment sizing is not addressed within the standard. All other elements - - helmets, gloves, and boot sizing are addressed within this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. See Committee Action on Comment 1976-54 (Log #78). 1976- 59- (Figure 4-2.5): Accept SUBMrrrER= Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete Figure 4-2.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. Figure is not needed since the method to measure field of view has changed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (L09_#48) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 60 - (4-2.6): Accept in Principle SUBMITfER: Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 4-2.6 The helmet, with the faceshield stowed, shallprovide peripheral vision clearance of at least 105 ° to each side of the midsagittal plane where seated according to its helmet positioning index on the ISO sizeJ headform specified in Figure 4-2.6. SUBSTANTIATION: Wording permits testing laboratories to perform test and mirrors the existing test requirements for NFPA 1971. Current test methods do not permit measurement of peripheral vision with the faceshield in the deployed position. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. I 4-2.4 evise The 4-2.4helmet to read: with faceshield componentff.i.), stowed, shall (Log #79) Committee: FAE~FA 1976- 56 - (4-1.15.3, 4-1.15.4 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Acid new text: 4-1.15.3 In order to label a protective trouser or coverall as compliant with this standard, the manufacturer shall provide, as a minimum, mens and womens waist sizes, in increments no greater than 50 m m (2 in.), and inseam lengths, in increments no greater than 50 m m (2 in.), in the ranges as specified in Table 4-1.14.5. 4-1.15.4 Mens and womens sizing shall be accomplished by mens and womens individual patterning. SUBSTANTIATION: Garment siting is not addressed within the standard. All other elements - - helmets, gloves, and boot siting are addressed within this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. provide peripheral vision dearance of at lest 94 degrees to each side when measured from the center of the eye with the helmet positioned according to its helmet positioning index on the Alderson 50th percentile male headform specified in Figure 617.4.1.1. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed and added text to specifically fm where the measurements are made. (Log #179) Committee: FAF~FA 1976- 57- (4-1.15.3, 4-1.15.4 (New)): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-14 RECOMMENDATION: The TCC directs the TC to reconsider the issue of garment siting and the siting requirements that would provide consistency with other elements in this document as well as other documents in this Project. SUBSTANTIATION: Garment sizing is not addressed within the standard. All other elements - - helmets, gloves, and boot sizing are addressed within this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. See Committee Action on Comment 1976-56 (Log #79). (Log #42) Committee: FAF~FA 1976- 61 - (4-2.8, 4-2.9): Accept SUBMH3"ER= Dennis K Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete 4-2.8. Revise 4-2.9 to read as follows: "Identification markings or material including, but not limited to, trim, lettering, patches, name or number stencils, emblems and paint shall be permitted only on the helmet outer cover, provided such materials are located above the corresponding helmet test line. The corresponding helmet with the outer cover and markings attached shall meet the rquirements specified in 5-2.23. SUBSTANTIATION: Require trim, patches, lettering etc. to be located above the helmet test line to insure that the materials will be tested according to Section 6-11 to confirm that they do not impede the performance of the helmet radiant heat transmittance properties. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #144) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 58- (4-2.5): Accept SUBMITYER= Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "The faceshield, when deployed in accordance with its helmet eye/face positioning indexes on an Alderson 50 th percentile male headform illustrated in Figure 6-17.4.1.1 shall provtde at least the following zc.;'z:agz field of vision when measured from the cente, r of the eve. (a) A dihedral angle of at least 85 ° (b) An upped dihedral angle of at least 10 ° (c) A lower dihedral angle 40°." SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. The method for performing field of view was changed to use the Alderson head, the pass/fail is also changed to reflect the method. COMMIT]FEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #54) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 62- (4-3.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197~x3 RECOMMENDATION: Change Paragraph 4-3.2 to read: "Gloves shall consist of a composite of an outer shell, moisture harrier, and thermal liner. This composite shall be permitted to be configured as a single or multiple layers." SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 4-3.2 as currently written with the words continuous or joined imply that removable and replaceable glove components or composites are not permitted. This implication is design restrictive. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE S T A ~ : Standard does not address replacement components. Current text is appropriate. 442 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC (Log #105) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #82) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 65- (4-$.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "The sample glove body shall extend circumferentially not less than 50 m m (2 in.) beyond the wrist crease where measured from the tip of the middle finger. - - a ^k^, I.^ _,^.^ c.,.: . . . . . ~.^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :...,. . . . . . . 2T2L';.~2L\~..~*~,~-?72=YL7 1976- 67- (4-5): Reject SUBMITTER: William L. GriUiot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: I976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 4-5.1 through 4-5.4.2. Add a new 4-5.1 Protective hood shall be labeled as being compliant to NFPA 1 9 7 1 / c u r r e n t edition and meet all NFPA 1971 design and performance requirements. SUBSTANTIATION: Both NFPA 1971 and 1976 hoods are equal but will require separate labels for each - - the hood will be all labels with labels required by both standards. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment on 1976-1 (Log #8). "~ SUBSTANTIATION: The determination of "close fitting" is highly variable and subject to interpretation. Deletion of the wording as specified limits evaluation of the glove to objective information, promoting better uniformity in testing and certification practices. The "dose fitting" issue would be dealt with in the market by the users as necessary. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #67) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 68- (5-1.x): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Reference NFPA 1971 F99 Report on Proposals Table 2-$.1.5 Protective Hood a n d Wristlets Test Matrix. Include all test requirements and procedures as specified in NF~A 1971 for protective hoods. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide consistency for total ensemble protection the requirements for protective hoods should be incorporated in the NFPA 1976. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-1 (Log #8). Hoods are part of this standard. (Log #106) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 64- (4-3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "...the sample glove body and the gauntlet or a glove wristlet shall extend circumferentially at least 75 m m (3 in.) beyond the wrist crease, ta~.-:g ir.t~ c~=:o'idcratlc..': t:~.¢ rcq=ir:.._c::: ~pcci~c~ i.-: SUBSTANTIATION: The determination of "close fitting" is highly variable and subject to interpretation. Deledon of the wording as specified limits evaluation of the glove to objective information, promoting better uniformity in testing and certification practices. The "close fitting" issue would be dealt with in the market by the users as necessary. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #68) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 69- (5-1.x): Reject S U B M r r r E R : Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Need to include requirement for water absorption: 5-1.? Garment outer shell snecimen shall be tested for water absomtion as svecified in Section 6-29. Water Absorodon Test. an0, shall absorb n o more than $0 oercent. SUBSTANTIATION: There needs to be a requirement for the water absorption test defined in Section 6-29, Water Absorption Test. COMMITI~E ACTION: Reject. COMMrrFEE STATEMENT: The reflective outershells shed water and requiring this test would not prove anything. (Log #80) Committee: FAE-S FA 1976- 65 - (4-3.6.1): Reject SUBMrFFER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mf~ Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: 4-3.6.1 The fingers, thumb, and back shall have radiant reflective protection of 180 degrees (+29/-0). The radiant reflective matenal shall provide coverage from 0 degree to 90 degrees (+10/-0) and then from 270 degrees to 360 degrees (+10/-0) as specified in Figure 4-3.6.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Extending the reflective surface around the fingers, t h u m b and back to 210 degrees will lower the wear life of the glove and provide no real extra protection. All area beyond the 90/270 degree area is a high wear location. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposed text does not provide adequate radiant protection for the hands and fingers. (Log #70) Committee: FAE,SFA 19762 70- (5-1.x): Reject SUBMITTER: Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197629 RECOMMENDATION: Need to include requirement a n d test rocedure for outer shell breaking strength. Reference NFPA 1971 eport on Proposals F99; use requirement as specified in Section 5-1.19 and testing procedure as defined in Section 6-50. SUBSTANTIATION: Need breaking strength test included in NFPA 1976 to provide standard to measure outer shell integrity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Thomas was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 3 May 1999 and asked the Committee to reject this comment. (Log #81) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 66 - (4-3.6.2): Reject SUBM1TTER= William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "4-3.6.2 The radiant reflective material shall vrovide coverage for the f i n g e r / t h u m b tiP of at least 90 de~ree r+16/-0) as soecifie-d in Figure 4-$.6.1. The-portion...". SUBSTANTIATION: Extending the reflective surface around the finger tip will lower the grip in this area, lower the wear life of the glove and l~rovide no real extra protection. All area beyond the 90 degree area is a high wear location. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment on 1976-65 (Log #80). (Log #SS) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 71 - (5-1.2, 6-48): Accept SUBMrI'I"ER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "5-1.7 ... Section 6-48, Whol~ Garmell~ Liquid L'~t~,'.v/ Penetration Test ..... 6-54 Whole Garment Liquid I~tcg:',~i Penetration Test. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide a more definitive identification of the whole garment procedure, to differentiate this test from the various material tests, and to correlate with NFPA 1971. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 443 N F P A 1976 - - F99 R O C (Log #21) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #74) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 77- (5-1.19): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Specimens of proximity protective garment moisture barrier materials shall...". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies requirement* COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI?EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-78 (Log #97). 1976- 72- (5-1.3): AcceEt SUBM1TFER: Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Rewrite Section 5-1.3 to read: "The garment outer shell shall be tested for adhesion durability as specified in Section 6-34. Adhesion after Wet Flex-Tape Method. ~nd...". SUBSTANTIATION: As written Section 5-1.3 is incorrect and should be corrected to refer to the proper section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #97) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #86) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 78- (5-1.19): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "SF.=z'mz.'z= .~f ~r~='..-'-~%"~rz'~z~'.'= ¢,--:...-'zz.-zt..-q:.t==-.:2:. Specimens of ~garment moisture barrier materials and seams shall be tested for reststance to liquids penetration as specified in Section 6-31, Liquid Penetration Test, and shall show no penetration of the test liquids for at least 1 hr." SUBSTANTIATION: By definition, the moisture barrier is "the ortion of the composite designed to prevent the transfer of quids". Thus, the moisture barrier should be reqffired to pass the Liquid Penetration Test and not all other materials used in a proximity protective garment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 73 - (5-1.8, 5-1.8.1 ): Reject SUBMITrER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL~]O: 1976-~§ RECOMMENDATION: Delete the padding from the list of items to be tested in 5-1.4 and add padding to the list in 5-1.4.$. SUBSTANTIATION: There are items used in boots and gloves which protect the fire fighter but because they are inside the item they are not exposed to the flame testing. Also, elastic, hook and pile fasteners are not subject to the flame test unless they come in contact with the wearer's skin (see 5-1.4.$). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no list of testing items in 5-1.4. ~i (Log #83) Committee: FAF~ FA (Log #87) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 74- (5-1.8.1): Hold SUBMITTE~ William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-1.8.1 for labels. SUBSTANTIATION: Flame resistant (FR) labels are now available within our industry and should be used in an FR garment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be prol~erly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. 1976- 79 - (5-1.19, 6-M): Reject SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire Paragraphs 5-1.15 and 6-28. SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement gives the user a false sense of protection from chemicals exposure and chemical attacks. With the new effort by the Federal government to develop protection from chemical warfare attacks this false sense will increase. These garments are not chemical protection garments. Because of neck openings and materials hoods are made from these garments provide limited splash protection at best. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Chemical and biological terrorism agents are clearly identified and the requirements for protection are covered in NFPA 1991 and the proposed NFPA 1994. None of the chemicals listed in the test method are considered to be chemical or biological terrorism agents. Paragraph 1-1.4 in the Scope also reinforces that this document does not provide requirements for all biological agents or from all hazardous chemicals. (Log #36) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 75 - (5-1.16, 5-3.20, 5-3.21): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 [ RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: ] 5-1.16 ...of not less than . . . . . t, ~ -~,. 22 N (5 lbf). 1 [K/'t t ] "5-3.20 ...of not less than O~ .~ ::g ,~ . . R. . .I I ~,." 225 N (50.6 lbf). ] "5-$.21 ...and shall have a b u ~ t breaking strength of not less than ~ I A I ~ t7 IK~t [ .1 0. . .g. I . ~, , . . . . . . ,. 181 N (40.7 Ibf). SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction/units were incorrect. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #50) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 80- (5-1.20): Accept SUBM1TrER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Log #20) Committee: FAE-SFA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Section 5-1.20 entirely. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed revision to NFPA 1971 has eliminated the resistance to the water penetration requirement. Since seams will be tested for viral penetration, which is a much more severe test, this water resistance test is redundant. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 76 - (5-1.18): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Woilan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: [ ...when tested as speofied in 6-30.4.1 ~_.~ . . . . . .n,v, . . ,.~,~--2 ~,. . . . . (! ~:x . . . . I "'i~T/et;°~'0.~.iY ................. SUBSTANTIATION: Correlates 1976 with 1971 proposal. One i~si testing was deleted from NFPA 1971 per public comment 197147 (Log #26) with the substantiation that 1 psi test was redundant with liquid penetration testing being performed. This is also true in 1976, where liquid penetration t~aUng is performed under 6-$1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #22) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 81 - (5-1.22): Reject SUBMITTER= Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Garment ~ moisture barrier materials,...'. 444 NFPA 1976 m F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: Cleaning shrinkage of outer shell materials has the same safety considerations as moisture barrier and liner materials. Section 6-28 references outer shells. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Outershells are not tested for laundering shrinkage because the outer shells are never laundered. (Log #69) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 85 - (5-1.23, 6-12): Accept SUBMITTER: Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 5-1.23 The garment composite from the shoulder areas and the knee areas shall be tested for resistance to heat t r a r ~ e r as specified in Section 6-12, Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance Test (CCHR), and shall have a minimum CCHR rating of 13.5 for the shoulder areas and for the knee areas. 6-12 Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance Test (CCHR). 6-12.1 Application. 6-12.1.1 This test method shall apply to the shoulder areas and the knee areas of proximity protective garments. 6-12.2 Samples. 6-12.2.1 Samples shall consist of composites representative of all layers of the shoulder areas and knee areas used in the actual construction of the proximity protective garment. Different samples shall be made representing each different composite combination used by the garment manufacturer. 6-12.2.1.1 Samples of garment shoulder areas shall be representative of the area in he actual garment that measures at least 100 mm (4 in.) along the crown of the shoulder and extending down from the crown on both the front and back of the garment at least 50 mm (2 in.). The crown of the shoulder shall be the uppermost line of the shoulder when the garment is laying flat on an inspection surface with all closures fastened. 6-12.2.1.2 Samples of garment knee areas shall be representative of the knee area in the actual garment that measures at least 150 m m x 150 mm (6 in. x 6 in.). 6-12.2.2 Samples shall measure 200 m m x 200 mm (8 in. x 8 in.) and shall be prepared of the composite layers. The sample of the composite layers shall be sewn along two adjacent sides, with the layers arranged in the same order and orientation as intended to be (Log #58) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 82- (5.1.25): Reject SUBM1TrER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add text: "baseline ~arment comoosite so that the first line reads: Specimens of the baseline Irarment comnosite and specimens from the reinforced shoulder area, etc." SUBSTANTIATION: Testing of the baseline composite consisting of the outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner establish the pass/fall criteria for the reinforced shoulder and knee areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMYfTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-85 (Log #69). (Log #61) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 83 - (5.1.23): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete word rc':'£c.rzcd. Change last sentence to read, by adding: 10 seconds ffeater than between the words than and the. SUBSTANTIATION: Current wording implies that if knee or shoulder or other compression areas are not reinforced with external reinforcements or internal extra padding no testing is required. If compression areas are same materials as baseline no testing needs to occur because all would pass, etc. Need to correct and close this loophole. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action "on Comment 1976-85 (Log #69). wom. 6-12.2.3 All samples shall be first be preconditioned as specified in 6-1.2. The outer shell shall be omitted from the samples for the preconditioning in accordance with 6-1.2, but shall be reintroduced to the samples following the preconditioning in the proper order and orientation as intended to be worn. 6-12.3 Specimen Preparations. 6-12.$.1 A minimum of six specimens for testing shall be taken from the samples after the preconditioning specified in 6-12.2.3. 6-12.3.2 Specimens shall measure 150 m m x 150 mm (6 in. x 6 in.) and shall be cut from the sample excluding the sewn areas so that the composite layers comprising the specimen are not sewn together at any point. Specimen composites shall include the outer shell. 6-12.3.3 Specimens, includinl~ the outer shells, for both wet :ondition testing and dry condition testing shall then be conditioned as specified in 6-1.$. 6-12.3.4 For wet condition testing only, the innermost layer of the composite specimen shall then be further conditioned as follows prior to tesung: (a) Blotter paper measuring 225 mm x 225 m m (9 in x 9 in.) shall be saturated in distilled water. (b) Two sheets of the saturated blotter paper shall be run together through a wringer that meets the requirements of paragraph 10.2 of AATCC Test Method 70, Water Repellency: Tumble Jar Dynamic Absorption Test. (c) The innermost layer of the composite specimen shall be placed between the two sheets of blotting paper. (d) The innermost layer of the composite specimen, between the two sheets of blotting paper, shall be placed into a 4 L (1 gal) size air and liquid tight bag and the bag shall be sealed closed. (e) The innermost layer of the composite specimen, between the two sheets of blotting paper, shall be condition in the air and liquid tight bag at room temperature for at least 24 hours, and shall not be removed from conditioning more than 5 minutes prior to testing. (f) After removal from conditioning, the innermost layer shall be removed from the blotting paper, and the composite specimen shall be resembled with all layers arranged in the same order and orientation as intended to be worn. 6-12.4 Procedure. 6-12.4.1 A minimum of six specimens shall be tested for shoulder areas, three for wet condition testing and three for dry condition testing; and a minimum of six specimens shall be tested for knee areas, three for wet condition testing and three for dry condition testing. (Log #'25) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 84 - (5-1.23, 6-12): Reject SUBMITTERa Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-36 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 4-1.2.3 and the Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance (CCHR) Test in Section 6-12. SUBSTANTIATION: The standard establishes no minimum CCHR performance requirement for the base ~garment composite, and establishes no design requirement mandating reinforcement. If heat resistance through a compressed knee or shoulder section is a safety concern, then the Technical Committee should avoid having two levels of protection by establishing a minimum performance requirement which applies to all knee and shoulder sections (whether they're reinforced or no0. As proposed, the "dual levels of protection" problem is of even greater concern because the non-reinforced composite serves as the benchmark for evaluating the reinforced sections. Not only does the proposal have "dust levels of protection" between reinforced and non-reinforced sections, but the performance requirement for reinforced sections is different for every design. Finally, the proposed standard does not define "reinforcement", and the proposed wording in 5-1.23 erroneously implies that knee and shoulder area reinforcement is always present. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Wollan is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 2 May 1999 and asked the Committee not to consider this comment. 445 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC average CCHR rating of the shoulder area test set and t o the average CCHR rating of the knee area test set. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed requirement is based on a comparison of the garment composite performance at low pressure compared with knee and shoulder composites at relatively higher pressure. As a consequence, the requirement does not establish a minimum performance for acceptable protection. The proposed requirement sets minimum level of performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMIITEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-85 (Log #69). @12.4.2 Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM F 1060, Standard Test Method for Thermal Protective Performance of Materials for Protective Clothing for Hot Surface Contact, with the modifications specified herein. 6-12.4.$ Specimens shall be tested using an exposure temperature of 280°C, +3°/-0°C (536°F, +5°/-0°F). 6-12.4.4 For the shoulder area CCHR rating, the sensor assembly shall be modified so that the pressure applied to the test specimens shall be 8 g / c m 2, ±0.8 g / c m 2 (2 psi, ±0.2 psi). 6-12.4.5 For the knee area CCHR rating, the sensor assembl~" shall be modified so that the pressure applied to the test specamens shall be 32 g/cm2, +3.2 g / c m 2 (8 psi, ±0.08 psi). 6-12.4.6 The CCHR rating for each specimen in each test shall be the time in seconds to achieve a temperature rise of 24°C. @12.4.7 For purposes of calculating the time to a 24°C temperature rise, the room temperature in the testing area shall be determined immediately prior to starting the test and that temperature shall be used as the base temperature in determining the 24°C rise. The time shall be measuredto the nearest tenth o f a second. The time shall be measured to the nearest tenth of a second. Time ~zero ~ shall be the time that the sensor and specimen are placed in direct contact with the exposure surface. 6-12.5 Report @12.5.1 The individual CCHR rating for each specimen in each test shall be reported. 6-12.5.2 The average CCHR rating for the shoulder area wet condition test s p e d m e n s shall be calculated and reported. The average CCHR rating for the shoulder area dry condition test specimens shall be calculated and reported. 6-12.5.3 The average CCHR rating for the knee area wet condition test specimens shall be separately calculated and reported. The average CCHR rating for the knee area dry condition test specimens shall be separately calculated and reported. @12.6 Interpretation. 6-12.6.1 Pass/fail determination for shoulder area wet condition test specimens shall be based on the averal~e reported CCHR rating of all wet specimens. Pass/fail determinauon for shoulder area dry condition test specimens shall be based on the average reported CCHR rating o f all dry specimens tested. @12.6.2 Pass/fall determination for knee area wet condition test specimens shall be based on the average reported CCHR rating of all wet specimens. Pass/fall determination for knee area dry condition test specimens shall be based on the average reported CCHR rating of all dry specimens tested. 6-12.6.3 If an individual CCHR rating from any individual test set varies more than _+8 percent from the average results for that test set, the results for that test set shall be discarded and another set of specimens shall be tested. SUBSTANTIATION: Wet samples should be included in this procedure since a wetted sample more accurately reflects what a fire fighter sees in a real situation. COMMITI"EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #60) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 87- (5-1.24, 6-53): Accept SUBMITTER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-~9 RECOMMENDATION: The 1971 Thermal Task Group recommends that Paragraph 5-1.24 and Section @53 of 1971-F99 Report on Proposals not be added to the document and that the Committee's action on Log #40 of NFPA 1971 F99 Report on Proposals be changed from accept to hold for further study. SUBSTANTIATION: Although the manikin test provides useful information regarding the performance of protec~ave coats and trousers, more research is needed to I) establish the details of a test protocol specific to turnouts, 2) generate technical information across laboratories, and 3) develop a rational basis for a pass-fall criteria based on the test results produced by the method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Delete 5-L24 and Section @53. (Log #47) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 88 - (5-2.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197@29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Helmets, or helmet outer covers where provided, and shrouds shall be tested for radiant reflective capability as specified in Section @11, Radiant Reflective Test III and shall not permit a temperature rise greater than 25°C. ~ SUBSTANTIATION: Incorrect references to Test II and Test Method 6-10. COMMITYEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: References are correct. See also Committee Action on Comment 197@89 (Log #172). (Log #172) Committee: FAF_.-SFA 197@ 89- (5-2.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197@29 [ P~. COMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: HzL'r.~, ~r Helmet outer covers where provided, and shrouds... ~. SUBSTANTIATION: This test method does not apply to whole helmets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #102) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 86 - (5-1.23, @12): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEPa Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Change paragraph 5-1.25 and Section 6-12 as follows: 5-1.23 Specimens of the garment composites from the reinforced shoulder area and from the reinforced knee area shall be tested for resistance to conductive and compressive heat transfer as specified in Secdon 6-12, Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance (CCHR) Test, and shall have a CCHR rating of not less than the b~eL:.n.e gz__.-v:z..entc~mFzo!te CCHR r:'dng 30. Delete paragraph 6-12.2.2; renumber paragraph @12.2.3. Add new paragraph 6-12.2.3: @12.2.3 A total of three specimens for each reinforced area shall be tested. Delete paragraph @12.3.1; renumber paragraph @12.3.2. Add newparagraph @12.3.2: 6-12.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be 1-m (1-yd) squares of each material. Delete paragraph 6-12.4.3; renumber subsequent paragraphs. Delete paragraph 6-12.5.2; renumber subsequent paragraphs. Modify paragraph 6-12.6.1 to read: 6-12.6.1 Pass or fail determinations shall be based on the (Log #173) Committee: FAE-SFA 197@ 90- (5-2.2): Accept SUBMYI~ER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: " ~ Helmet outer covers where provided, and shrouds...". SUBSTANTIATION: This test method does not apply to whole helmets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept~ 446 NFPA 1976 ~ F99 ROC (Log #157) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #174) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 91 - (5-2.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "He!me~, er helmet outer covers where provided...". SUBSTANTIATION: This test method does not apply to whole helmets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 96- (5-2.19): A c c e p t SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "All materials utilized in the construction of helmet shrouds and helmet outer covers ~c!mct c~- c~;'cr: shall be individually tested...". SUBSTANTIATION: Shrouds are utilized in place of ear covers. Helmet outer covers should also meet this requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #175) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #41) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 92- (5-2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: " ~ helmet outer covers where provided...". SUBSTANTIATION: This test method does not apply to whole helmets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 97- (5-2.23): Accept SUBMITTER: Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 5-2.23 Helmets shall be tested for radiant reflective values as specified in Section 6-11, Radiant C~.~uc*Svc Heat Transmittance Test III, and shall not have a temperature rise of more than 25°C (45 °F). SUBSTANTIATION: The word "conductive" is an incorrect reference to what the performance and tests are intended to measure. Transmittance of heat is the primary concern involved in proximity firefighting. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #176) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 93- (5-2.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 'q4elmetsr-~ helmet outer covers where provided...". SUBSTANTIATION: This test method does not apply to whole helmets. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #162) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 98- (5-2.23): Reject SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tesdng Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete section. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no test method for this performance requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-186 (Log #46). (Log #49) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 94- (5-2.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text as follows: (Log #88) Committee: FAE-SFA l" . . . . . . . . l" . . . . . . . . . . . . . x - ~ ~ t 1976- 99 - (5-3.19): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-3.19. Replace text with: 5-$.19 Gloves shall be tested for hand function as specified in Section 6-45, Glove Hand Function Test, and shall have an average ercent increase over barehanded control less than 300 percent. UBSTANTIATION: Based on the analysis of the data collected to evaluate the pegboard test, the pin pick up test, and the two oint discrimination test, it appears that the pegboard test is the est test to use. The data analysis shows that it is least sensitive to the test subject, it has the best ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves, and-it has the best ability to discriminate between gloves. It also shows that including a second test does not significandy improve the ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves. The knot tying test and the grip test were not further evaluated and should also be dropped until further work is done to determine if they produce more or better information. A minimumperformance value of 300 percent is proposed for 1992 gloves. This would allow all the 1992 styles be evaluated up to and including 1971 structural gloves. A minimum performance value of 600 percent is proposed for 1991 style gloves. This would allow all the styles we evaluated up to and including the current 3 layer gloves used for 1991 compliant gloves. Note: Supporting material available for review upon request at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-100 (Log #107). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBSTANTIATION: No design requirements have been assigned to address this performance requirement. All other performance issues are tied to specific design delivecables. In addition, this performance requirement is potential for substantial heat stress due to the TPP requirement for the hood and collar. A single layered shroud in conjunction with a dead air space and the hood will generate a TPP without additional TPP mandates for construction of multi-layered shrouds. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Stout, was present at the Report on Comments meeting on $ May 1999 and asked the Committee to reject this comment. ~ ~ (Log #CC9) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 95 - (Table 5-2.10): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add a tide to Table 5-2.10 to read: "Impact Testing." SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 447 NFPA 1976 - - in.L T h e o e ~ b o a r d shall have 25 holes with each hole having a d i a m e t e r o f (0.39 inA a n d a d e n t h of (0.5 i n 3 . T h e holes shall be in a 5 ~ 5 p a t t e r n a n d each h o l e shall have a separation of 25 m m (1 in.) f£om o t h e r holes. 6-45.5 Procedures. 6-45.5.1 Each available size of gloves shall be evaluated with at least o n e separate test subject with t h e same pair of gloves f=r *&e each =f "~e h a n d f--nc*:~== :Fee!fled "n ~- A.SA.2, ~ 15.13, a n a § (Log #107) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 100- (5-3.19): Accept SUBMITTER: C a t h e r i n e IL D o d g e n , Intertek T e s t i n g Services, NA C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text: 5-3.19 Glove s p e c i m e n s shall be tested for h a n d f u n c t i o n as specified in Section 6-45, Glove H a n d F u n c t i o n Test, a n d shall m ................ ~ . ~,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . have a n average p e r c e n t o f b ~ r e h a n d control n o t e x c e e d i n g ] 0 0 nercent. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : C o n t i n u e d work by t h e Glove Task G r o u p has d e t e r m i n e d that t h e p e g b o a r d test is t h e m o s t appropriate, a n d r e c o m m e n d s deletion o f t h e Gross Dexterity Test A ( k n o t tying), Fine Dexterity Test, a n d Tactility Test. T h e p e r f o r m a n c e criteria is based o n r o u n d r o b i n testing of several glove styles. C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Accept. Committee: 1976- 101 - (5-3.19, 6-45): F99-ROC A~AA 6-45.5.2 A m i n i m u m of five different g l o v e p a i r s shall be evaluated. W h e n less t h a n 5 different sizes of gloves are available, different pairs of t h e s a m e sized gloves shall be p e r m i t t e d to be tested by different test subjects to m e e t t h e m i n i m u m five glove pair testing r e q u i r e m e n t 6-45.5.3 Test subjects shall be selected s u c h t h a t their h a n d d i m e n s i o n s are as close as possible to t h o s e specified in a c c o r d a n c e with m a n u f a c t u r i n g glove sizing guidelines. 6-45.5.4 Each test subject u s e d to p e r f o r m this testing shall practice of t h e h a n d f u n c t i o n s a m i n i m u m o f 3 times before c o n d u c t i n g actual testing. 15.!.5 Cro'~ D c x t c - ~ / P r c c c d ' - r c .~ FAF__~F A Reject SUBMITTER: Harry W i n e r , U.S. Navy C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete 5-3.19 a n d Test M e t h o d 6-45 (645.1 t h r o u g h 6-45.6.4). S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : H a n d f u n c t i o n tests can be m a n i p u l a t e d by test subject. T h e tests are very d e s i g n restrictive: (a) 6-45.4.5 P r o c e d u r e A is n o t appropriate for a multi c o m p o n e n t test. (b) 645.4.6 P r o c e d u r e B a glove with stiff p o i n t i n g fingers will p e r f o r m best. (c) 645.4.7 same as Item B above. (d) Tactility test will n o t allow a separate p a l m for g r i p i n g p u r p o s e be a d d e d . C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Reject. C O M M I T T E E STATEMENT: T h e submitter, Mr. W i n e r is a C o m m i t t e e m e m b e r a n d was p r e s e n t at t h e Report on C o m m e n t s m e e t i n g o n 3 May 1999 a n d asked t h e C o m m i t t e e to reject this comment. --.~ . . . . . =- ........ '1"1..^ (b ..... ~ ..... I.^II I~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ............................ t,~ v ......... ~J~ 1/"u~ I~^ 1clAPt --^--l~ .:..1-. . . . . CJ£1~ ---- J.¢)~ .^_. .k^--I +I~^ -g" ~I.. . . . . . . .1 p. . . . . . . . fA~'I ---- . . . . . :~ t..--ll . . . . . . . . . l ~-1 :-- I~. . . . . ~ :~ I^----.I~ #.*^A ----A 1.1^.1. A~ A ~ A "rl~^ +:--^ ~^ ~:^ ---A ..--~:^ .11 I.--^~..1L...ll 1-. . . . . . . . . . A f~r cac.h te:t :'-~jcct : n d :h~2l ~ : '.;:c:'.n ^.z "&c dc::ta-.~" te:t "-me. g I~.I.~.5 E a c h tczt :'aEjact :h^2! Fc:'f:rrr. ~ . : ~ : t fc.!!::'~ng ~ c . . . . . . A ^. '. I~.* +I- . . . . . . . I~-^^I:--^ +I~^ ~^--A...*_.I 1976- 102 - (5-3.19, 6-45): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeffrey o . Stull, Int'l P e r s o n n e l Protection, Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise p a r a g r a p h 5-3.19 a n d Section 6 4 5 as follows: 5-3.19" Glove s p e c i m e n s shall be tested for h a n d f u n c t i o n as specified in Section 6-38, Glove H a n d Function Tests, a n d shall m c c t "&c f~llc:;~.ng rcqu:.rcmc=~z: --^ • ~=/r^x -re.^ . . . . ~.~.~-' . . . . .~v~z:n. .. .. .. ... . .1.. . .^ 1.1 have a n average p e r c e n t of b a r e h a n d control n o t e x c e e d i n g 300 p e r c c m !~-0 p e r c e n t f o r t h e C r o ~ Dcxtzr~t 7 Tc=t A; : . . . . ..'.^ / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I..~I! D^C~.. +1~^ :---I n.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . choe!acos into a shoe!ace !:net a t c ~ ! cf t e n fimc:. T h e tczt :~a2! .... ~1 . . . . . . . . if. Q +^ IL. . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . ^1 . . . . A A~ 1~.,~-- (Log #104) Committee: FAE-SFA 'Tq.-.^ I~II__I...I~-II x ....... .1~ +I.-+ X I-- ~ . mar. x . . . . . . ~ : A^..~^..I'~. ...i+1-.^.., +~. . . . . . . ~.+ +1--^ ...I~.^..~^ ~.~ : . . . . . . . . /Th"IW'IP ~ .I^A--^ 1. . . . . *I~-~ 0 + .I~^II I~^ ~.+ ~..1~ ^C . . . . . . ,1.~^ A^..~^.'.~. t^.+ 6 15A.5.~ Each tczt :'-Sjcct :ha!! "&on F c f f c r m "&c tc:t fcllc':dng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: . . . . ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~'a. g, . . . . . ( r ~ ' r T ) Th ...... Ual' ~ . . . . . . . . . . ! ~ a r c ~ a a d co=try. ~.I A ~ I £ . . . . . . . . + ^C Ol .1~11 ¢^- "&c E n c Dexterity diam.ctcr c.f 5 mr... t~ x. . .on . . . .:_ . ,~ .^ . . . .t.^ _:~,.^a - . . . . . up .~. .*-1 0 1. . . . I~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ! *-^1 " . x. . . . . . . . . . . . D'£@ ~ . . . . . . . . . T~...~^.:~, . . . . . . . . . . . . . A:~----*--. .... a "'~"hc . . . . u^ :'2212.:'~.=.L,,'~i.:2...T2.,2^ -, .~:.~Z?A:'3Z:.:?2:':~::'LYL-;^2: 7 I) . . . . A....-~^ D . . . . . . . . . . . .--A . . . . ^CA E l ---- . . . . . . k ^ . . A [A y ~'/E . . . . ~'--.k :-- X x ....... .t^:--I ~--.-I . . . . I_----+I-. ~^^1 ^C ~.*~ JE1 -- I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . be in a 5 x 5 p a t t e r n a n d each h e l d :hall ha;'c a : c p a r a f i c n of 25 ..'x...'x. (! "n.) f r o m oxher h~!e:. !5.1.~.2 6-45.5,5 Before each test, t h e pegs shall be placed on a hard, s m o o t h surface adjacent to t h e p e g b o a r d ( o n the r{ght side for r i g h t - h a n d e d test subjects a n d o n t h e left side for left-handed test s u b j e c t s ) . 15.1.5.$ 6-45.5,~ In starting t h e test, each p e g shall be grasped n e a r its e n d a n d shall be placed in the peg board f r o m left-to-right a n d top-to-bottom. ~.SA.§.d 6-45.5.7 T h e time to place all pegs in t h e p e g board shall be m e a s u r e d for each test subject a n d shall be know as the dexterity test time. 5 !5.!.6.5 6-45.5.8 Each test subject shall p e r f o r m t h e test following t h e steps in § !5.!.~.2 ~ r c u g h ~ !5.!.6.4 645.5.5 t h r o u g h 645.5.7 until d~e three dexterity test times o f that p e r s o n ' s last *&rcc total repetitions varies n o m o r e t h a n 8 1 0 percent. T h e !~:':e=t average dexterity test time of t h e ~ selected t h r e e repetitions shall be u s e d as t h e baseline dexterity test time (DTTb). Each test shall be c o n d u c t e d without t h e test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each test. Revise T e s t M e t h o d as follows: 6-45 Glove H a n d F u n c t i o n Tests. 6-45.1 Application. 6-45.1.1 This test shall apply to gloves. 6 4 5 . 2 Specimens. 645.2.1 A m i n i m u m of t h r e e gloves pairs each for each size provided with t h e ~'-'t shall be used for testing. 645.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a c o m p l e t e set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-45.2.3 Glove pair s p e c i m e n s shall n o t receive special s o f t e n i n g t r e a t m e n t s prior to tests. 6-45.3 Sample Preparation. 6-45.3.1 Glove pair s p e c i m e n s shall be p r e c o n d i t i o n e d as specified in 6-1.3. 6-45.3.2 Samples for c o n d i t i o n i n g shall be whole glove pairs. 6-45.4 Apparatus. 6-45.4.1 A n e g b o a r d a o n a r a t u s shall be u s e d which consists of 25 stainless steel nins a n d a n e g board. Each stainless steel n i n shall have a d i a m e t e r of 9.5 m m (0.375 in.) a n d l e n g t h o f 45.1 m m (1.5 448 NFPA 1976 - - 6 45.4.~.§ 6-45.5.9 Each test subject shall t h e n p e r f o r m the test following the steps in § Ar A ~ ~ .u . . . . . I" 5 15.1.§.I ~-4~,5.5 through 6-45.5.7 with the pair of test gloves. The testin~ shall be conducted until three dexteritv test times o f that nerson's total renetitions varies n o more than 10 oercent. T h e ~m.e~ured average dexterity test time of the selected-three renetitions shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (DTI's). T~e Each test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each test. A.5.A..5.7 6-45.5.10 The dexterity test times with gloves shall be c o m p a r e d with the baseline dexterity test time for each test subject. The percentage of b a r e h a n d control shall be calculated as follows: Percent of = DTT (100) b a r e h a n d e d control DTT g F99 ROC discrimination, these additional test do n o t add any additional value as discerned in a statistical analysis of the data. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept in Prindple. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on C o m m e n t 1976-105 (Log #108), 1976-104 (Log #101), 1976-105 (Log #109), 1976-106 (Log #110), 1976-162 (Log #116), 1976-165 (Log #118), 1976-184 (Log #117), 1976-165 (Log #119), 1976-166 (Log #120), 1976.167 (Log #129), 1976.168 (Log #151), 1976-169 (Log #150), 1976.170 (Log #132), 19.76-171 (Log #121), 1976-172 (Log #122), 1976-175 (Log #125), 1976-174 (Log #155), 1976-175 (Log #124), 1976-176 (Log #125), 1976-177 (Log #126), 1976-178 (Log #154), 1976-179 (Log #127), a n d 1976-180 (Log #128), (Log #108) Committee: FAE-SFA x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l, . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . i, x ~'~ . . . . . . . . n ~ - - ~ rr~ m o ;n.X,j __a n ,~ m m x. . . . . . . . . . 't;n,X, . . . . . . I, 1976- 103- (5-$.25): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire paragraph and r e n u m b e r appropriately• SUBSTANTIATION: Experience with this test p r o c e d u r e in NFPA 1977 proves that the test is highly subjective, excessively stringent, and contradictory so that it would be difficult if n o t impossible for any glove to meet all o f the p r o p o s e d criteria• Measurements are n o t m a d e in an accurate or reproducible m a n n e r , confounding the results and making interpretation highly variable. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. . . . . . . . ":'t':O'-""~". . . . . , 6 A ~ A 7 2 ~ , % ~ e a c h ef ".&e me'~-2 p!n: !:;~.ng ^~ " n . . . . . . . Is u r f a z c a t a : p a c ! n g c ¢. . .~. . ¢. . .~. .n ~ , *o - . 0 m... ~ ( l ! n . , .am . . . o. . .in.), . . . . "~ . . . . . - ~ - - -~L"\-.~=°~;"~'L ",:~ o. ~--. - = . -~. o- ~-. . . . . ~. . . . . . ~.. . . . . . . . . . . ,~, ........ . . . . . . . . . t" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . t" . . . . . . . . t" . . . . . ~,-. . . . . . . . . . . . ~.5.~.~ Tacdl.L7 Precedure. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . X~.* • t...,=~) 1, . . . . . . . . . . X~.~ . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,, ,u./) • (Log #101) Committee: FAF~FA . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . I 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1976- 104 - (5-$.25, 6-$2): Accept in P r i n d p l e SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O• Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 5-$.25 and Section 6-$2. SUBSTANTIATION: The test m e t h o d for measuring glove fit cannot be conducted reproducibly and requires ditticult inside the glove measurements. Further the test is d e p e n d e n t on test subject with ideal sized hands and will consequently vary between laboratories. Lastly, fit is a subjective m e a s u r e m e n t , partly based on individual preferences. The test m e t h o d is best standardized as a r e q u i r e m e n t for the selection o f gloves in NFPA 1851. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on C o m m e n t 1976-105 (Log #108). Section 6-$2 will n o t be deleted as it is n o t the glove fit test. . 57 a v-'~'~d'd:n cr c',hcr ;'mi!~r m,.~n;. . .". . "22~E2..:_" 37,l, T T f L : T J ~ _ Y Z ' _ : = J ' Y P 2 7 2 2;L~ ^Z*L.2-L:TT;L%%v . . . . . . . . . . . . . l~ A K A 0 ~" q) ~. . . . t"t" . .^_~ ml~^ . . . . . . . . . . ~A--:---*.*.-*~. . . t" . ~ k . I I . . . . . . . :--..l:~+^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~.. +~ adm!n!:trater :':he'~er t h e y c~_n fe:! e n e c r *:.':e #:'m. 645.6 Report. 6-45.6.1 For C r ~ Dcxtcn,~" Prccc~urz .% The p e r c e n t of b a r e h a n d e d control shall be r e p o r t e d for each test subject The average p e r c e n t of b a r e h a n d e d control for all test subjects shall be calculated. (5 ~5.5.2 Fer C r c = Dexte.~.~• o . . . . a .... r, .u . . . . . . . . . ¢ ~d:cragc p e r c e n t af smallest ~in . . . . . . . . . . . Lhat . . . . c a n ~ ......... ¢ . . , . . J . . . . . . . . . . . (Log #109) Committee: FAE-SFA centre! f~r --2)It ~ t ;'abjcc'm :hall bc "varchandcd . b . . . ~:~.^a . . . . ) . ~ , I- . . . . . . . . A .... . . . . . -1976- 105 - (5-4.8): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Catherine R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "5-4.8 The footwear u p p e r material composite, u p p e r seams, and vamp, seams, and :clz =cam: shall be tested for resistance to liquid penetration...". SUBSTANTIATION: Makes text consistent with committee consensus (through Formal Interpretation) for NFPA 1971, 1997 edition to only require testing o f footwear upper, u p p e r seams, a n d vamp seams because many footwear sole seam geometries make testing using the s p e c i f i e d a p p a r a t u s impossible. C O M M I T r E E ACTION: Accept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . picke2 u p 57 a!! tczt :'.:~jczt~ :h~Ml bc ~.!c'alated. l ~,;~"~i.7=""A:7 oo~2: "Zx."c~;)-:T.~S'~-" :~;~o-.:t~ IG" "-2( L:_x....... .~.# ...l~:.~#..I-,-II . . . . . . . J . . . E . . . . .. . . . ^ I . . . I ~ # ~ A . . . . . . . . . 6-45.6 Interpretation. 6-45.6.1 F c : C r c : : D c x t c - W P r c z c ~ = : c A , T h e average percent o f b a r e h a n d control shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. the :m~2lcct F ~ n ".-~at ca,.n 5c ~:^''^" . . . . -IV--"/ .... ~.^1' ~... . . . . ~ .~ ,4 . . . . . (Log #110) Committee: FAE-SFA :~^ 1976- 106- (5-4.9): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Catherine R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "5-4.9 The footwear u p p e r material composite, u p p e r seams, and vamp, seams, tuna_.:ele : e : m : shall be tested for resistance to liquid penetration... ". ~UBSTANTIATION: Makes text consistent with committee consensus (through Formal Interpretation) for NFPA 1971, 1997 edition to only require testing o f footwear upper, u p p e r seams, a n d 1" . . . . . . . . . . . . . detectc~ 5)" tc:t :-,:~czt~ : h ~ l b c v.~cd to dctcrra':c pa::/f---I SUBSTANTIATION: Evaluation of the p r o p o s e d test requirements based on testing conducted at a Hazardous Materials Protective Clothing a n d E q u i p m e n t Technical Committee meeting showed the p e g b o a r d test provide the best discrimation o f h a n d function consistent with user observations. While both the pin pickup test a n d the two-point discriminator also provides some 449 NFPA 1976 - - F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: This is strictly a radiant conditioning test. There is no true convective heat that will affect the conditioning of the helmet in this test. The use of the word convective implies that there is some additional heat conditioning other than radiant. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. vamp seams because many footwear sole seam geometries make testing using the specified apparatus impossible. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #39) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #146) Committee: FAE,SFA 1976- 107- (5-5): Reject SUBM1TYEPa Dennis IL Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Insert Section 5-5 from NFPA 1971 Protective Hood Interface Component Performance Requirements. SUBSTANTIATION: A design requirement for protective hoods is identified in Chapter 4-5 but does not have a performance requirement. Adopting the NFPA 1971 Section 5-5 will eliminate the problem. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Hoods are not included in is standard. See Committee Action on Comment 1976-1 (Log #8). 1976- 111 - (Figure 6-1.6.1): Accept SUBMITTER= Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add Figure 6-1.6.1 as shown below: Rear vertical Top test area / Front vertical transverse plane.~,..~ [ ,_ /transverse piano 7 ~,~i/ Front test area (left and right) . ~ " Rear test area ./=! ~ Front test line (85 mm ~n~.-,l ~n~..-~ above basic plane) Rear test line (60 mfi~ I i'~?.] i - r ~ ] above basic plane) .~4--~....... e--~ ....... f Twosidetest~s (Log #23) Committee: FAE-SFA Sas~~e)' 1976- 108- (5-5.7, 5-5.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: In 5-5.7 change to Newtons (lbf) fi'om kg (lb). 227 N 51 (lbf). 5-5.8 should read "and shall have a b'.:~t breaking strength". SUBSTANTIATION: kg (lb) are not the correct units, correction. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. IJ ~ , , ~ M Front test area ~ (Log #57) Committee: FAE-SFA [ id-sagittal plane ~ Left side test a r e a - ~ ' - - ' ~ ' ~ r - P ~ Right side test area 30 mm radius " ~ [ I - - ~ - ~ " ~ ....... ~ . . . . Coronal plane 1976- 109 - (6-1, 6-12): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ERa Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-~9 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-12.1 Application add "the baseline." between the words to and the reinforced. 6-12.3.3 Add wet conditioning as follows: All soecimens shall be conditioned as snecified in 6-1.11.8. 6-1.11.8 New text: Step one - saturate 2 9 x 9 inch squares of AATCC blotting paper. Step two - run the 2 saturated 9 x 9 inch sheets of blotting paper through a lab wringer ( see Paragraph 10.2 of AATCC Test Method 70 Water Repellency Tumble Jar Dynamic Absorption test for description of wringer) weighted to 60 lbs./linear inch. Step three - Place the innermost lining material between the two damp sheets of blotting paper and place this composite in a zip lock bag. Step four - Condition this composite sample in the bag for 24 hours. Step five - After 24 hours remove innermost lining material from bag, put together with the other components of the baseline, knee or shoulder composite as appropriate and perform the test per 6-51, 6-12.5.2.3 and .4 add the word rating after CCHIL 6-12.6.1 Add another sentence as follows: Failure occurs when the CCHR rating for the shoulder comnosite or the knee composite is less than the CCHR ratln~ for the baseline composite. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial and change from dry testing to worst case wet testing. COMMITI'EE ACTI()N: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-85 (Log #69). \t~.~:~.-~:~¢'~ ~ TOPtest area Roar test area F'~ure 6-1.6.1 Helmet test areas and landmarks. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. The headform used to mark the test line on a helmet is the ISO size J headform. This revised drawing clarifies the positioning of the test line by locating the test line based on the basic plane, not the reference plane. The location of the test line is not changed, the change effects only the point of reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #112) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 112 - (6-1.6.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "...an iron wire of the same diameter shall be silver soldered aear ~hc edge: 15 mm, +1 mm, from the edges of the copper sheet on the same side..." SUBSTANTIATION: The current text for the transducer does not provide sutticient information to ensure that all transducers are uniform, which contributes to greater interlab variability. Detail should be provided to provide better correlation and reliability. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #40) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 110- (6-1.6): Accept SUBMITTER; Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-1.6 Radiant :..~d Ccnvccd:'c Heat Environmental Conditioning Procedure for Helmets. 450 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC (Log #147) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #44) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 113- (6-2.1.1): Accept SUBMYrTER= Dennis IL Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-2.1.1 This test method shall apply to proximity protective garment textiles, wristlets, hc!r...ct ca= c ~ ' : ~ , helmet outer covers, shrouds, and faceshields. SUBSTANTIATION: Helmet ear covers are not applicable due to the use of the shroud required for proximity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #113) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 118- (6-3.5.1): Accept SUBMrIq'ER= Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Helmets shall be seated on the ISO size 1 : ~ ¢ : : x c : headform specified in Figure 6-16.4.1 and shall be nositioned according to the helmet's positioning index ~ :p¢-fi~£~ "n ~he m~_nca-~-~-~2rer': i~t.'uc~c..~= .cr.: ..k: :Fez-tic kcl..'~cL The test setup shall be as shown in Figure 6-3.5.1." SUBSTAN~I~IATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 114- (6-2.1.1): Accept SUBMITTEPa Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "This test method shall apply to protective garment textiles, wristlets, 1 ~ helmet outer covers, shrouds, and faceshields." SUBSTANTIATION: Need to include gauntlets for consistency with 5-3.12, which specifies that gauntlet materials are to be tested per Section 6-2. COMMI'ITEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #148) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 119 - (6-3.7.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Helmets shall be seated on the ISO size I r ~ c : = : : c headform specified in Figure 6-16.4.1 and shall be positioned according to the helmet'spositioning index :z :p¢-fi=~ ".~ ~.c m..----zu~'cr-r=r': ................. v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The helmet shall be positioned under the radiant heat source...". SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #165) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 115 - (6-2.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as shown: "This test method shall apply to proximity protective garment textiles, wrisdets, he!met car cc.;':r~, helmet outer covers, shrouds, and faceshields." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, helmet ear covers have been replaced by shrouds. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC15) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 120 - (Table 6-4.5.8.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add a title to Table 6-4.5.8.3 to read: "Determining Tearing Weight". SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #114) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 116- (6-2.10.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, !ntertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Samples for conditioning shall be ~t !c==, :. ! :... (!)'~) :qu=r¢ ~.f c:.c.k. m:.:c~:2 include material that is a minimum of 75 m m x $05 mm (3 in. x 12 in.)." SUBSTANTIATION: Many nonwoven materials (i.e., leather used on gannflets) may not be readily available in the dimensions specified; the proposed language does not prohibit larger samples for conditioning, but also does not require a manufacturer to submit samples that may not represent production material. Also, the proposed wording is consistent with 6-2.9.2, which modifies sample sizes for knit materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #164) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 121 - (6-6.1.1): Accept SUBMITIXR: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "This test method shall apply to proximity protective garment textiles, hardware, moisture barrier seams, wristlet, helmet shroud materials, helmet outer cover materials, innermost glove liner materials, and label materials...". SUBSTANTIATION: Helmet outer covers should be required to meet this performance requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC13) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 117- (6-3.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting (Log #'27) Committee: FAE-SFA Appfi~fions Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Correct the reference to Figure 6-16.4.1 which refers to NFPA 1971, 1997 edition. Change to read Figure 1976- 122 - (6-6.9.1): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-6.9.1 Samples for conditioning shall be a minimum of I linear m (1 linear yd) with a minimum of 150 mm (6 in.) of material on each ¢'~her side of the seam. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies requirement. Current wording would allow for 6 in. on one side only. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 6-19.4.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 451 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC (Log #165) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #28) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 123- (6-6.9.3): Accept SUBMITTEPa Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-6.9.3 Specimens shall be tested with the sealed seam oriented vertically, and shall be tested both before and after being subjected to the procedure specified in 6-1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Dripping is more easily detected with the seam oriented vertically. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 126- (6-10.1.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows: "This test method shall apply to garment outer shell materials, gloves, helmet faceshields, footwear, helmet outer covers, and helmet shrouds." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification, Section 5-2.1 requires helmets, helmet outer covers and helmet shrouds to be tested. Since these items are required to be tested, they should be included in the application section of the test method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #149) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 124- (6-6.12.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L NO: 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows: "Sample helmets with shrouds, and faceshield component(s) in the stowed position, shall be seated on the nonconductive headform specified in Figure 6-6.12.5 and shall be positioned accordin~ to the helmet's vositionin~ index m~.unt:~ "n I ...... =c ......... he ...... ~.. . . . on.-~, . . . . . . . n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ .~c:A_..q..-Ta:~n.%...-----:gt~ "..h¢~'..-=cn:';~==~-"==.~,'-~r¢ ~ ~.!2.~. The [ headform with the helmet attached...". SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #166) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 127- (6-10.2.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read as follows: "Samples for conditioning shall be garment and glove outer shell material, whole footwear, helmet faceshields, helmet outer covers. ~-ld helmet shrquds." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification, Section 5-2.1 requires helmets, helmet outer covers and helmet shrouds to be tested. Since these items are required to be tested, they should be included in the lication section of the test method. E ACTION: Accept. (Log #7) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #115) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 128- (6-10.3.3): Accept SUBMITrER: HarryWiner, U.S. Navy C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text: ~6-10.3.3 insert all specimens excluding helmet faceshields shall be... etc." SUBSTANTIATION: Only flexible materials can be placed on abrasion tester. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 125 - (6-6.13.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L NO: 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text: "The glove body shall be filled with dry vermiculite, takln~ care to tightly oack the vermiculite into the fimrers of the ~love and ~love body. The opening of the glove shall be clamped together, and the specimen shall be suspended by the clamp in the oven so that the entire glove is not less than 50 m m (2 in.) from any woven surface or other specimen, and airflow is parallel to the plane of the material. Not more than six ~love suecimens and not less than 3 ~love svecimens shall be vlaced in the test oven at one time." SUBS'I~ANTIATION: Results for thermal shrinkage can be highly variable, depending upon the amount of vermiculite added, the total number of gloves in the oven during the test run, and the positioning of the specimens with respect to the airflow (i.e., samples facing the airflow tend to have more shrinkage than samples in the middle). The proposed wording attempts to standardize the test so that more reproducible results can be obtained. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #71) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 129- (6-10.4.4, 6-10.4 (New)): Accept SUBMrrrER: Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1976-29 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text to read: 6-10.4.4 The sensor shall be a copper calorimeter mounted in an insulating block. The calorimeter shall conform to the specifications provided in Figure 6-13.4.1.10. The sensor shall be coated with a flat black paint. 452 N F P A 1976 m F99 R O C x,~ -- .~ 20 Hole detail and method of securing thermocouple ,, ~ Separate mm 6-11.$.1 Specimens shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.$.2. 6-11.4 Apparatus. 6-11.4.1 T h e test apparatus shall be the radiant exposure chamber as specifiedm 6-1.6, Radiant a n d Convective Heat Environmental Conditioning Procedure for Helmets. 6-11.4.2 The sensor shall be an exposed bead typeJ or K30 AWG thermocouple that will be connected to a recording device capable of reading degrees centigrade. 6-11.5 Calibration Procedure. 6-11.5.1 The chamber shall be calibrated according to calibration rocedure specified in 6-1.6, Radiant and Convective Heat nvironmental Conditioning Procedure for Helmets to obtain a stable uniform irradiance o f l . 0 + / - 0.1 W / c m ~. 6-11.6 Procedure. 6-11.6.1 One sample helmet shell, with any reflective outer covering in place as intended for use but with all shock absorbing and or thermally insulating materials removed from the interior, shall be used. 6-11.6.2 An exposed bead typeJ or K30 AWG thermocouple shall be fastened to the inner surface of the sample helmet shell in such a way that the thermocouple bead is in contact with the shell material. The thermocouple bead may be placed at any location within a 4 in. diameter of where the front rear axis of the center line of shell and the intersection of the batragion coronal are met. With the exception that there shall be no internal or external projections greater than 2 m m in height on the shell within 25 m m of the thermocouple bead in any direction. The thermocouple shall be connected to a recording device that will read degrees centigrade. 6-11.63 The sample helmet with thermocouple shall be placed in the radiant exposure chamber specified in 6-1.6. With the radiant panel adjusted to provide a stable uniform irradiance of 1.0+/IW / c m = in accordance with 6-1.6, sample shall be placed in the chamber so that the thermocouple location is in the center of the area of radiant exposure. 6-11.6.4 The sample shall be exposed to an irradiance of 1.0+/0.1 W / c m ~ for 180 seconds. 6-11.6.5 Thermocouple temperatures shall be recorded at the beginning and end of the 180 seconds. 6-11.7 Report. 6-11.7.1 The difference of the initial temperature and the temperature at 180 seconds shall be reported. 6-11.8 Interpretation. 6-11.8.1 Any rise in temperature greater than 25°C shall constitute failure of this test. SUBSTANTIATION: Current Report on Proposals copy does not have actual test method. A portion of the test method but incorrect is fund in Report on Proposals 6-56. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. s _1 I I I. 'Pl.emm I i I j " 40 mm (t .57 in.) D Sensor of electrical grade copper Position 30 ga Ok M.) o., oo 0.005in.) ~ TIC in hole, peen 18 ga copper plug in place to secure Details of calorimeter construction "7 3.2Dmm~ ('~ in.) ~ ( ~ (410.~5ri%.[~ 1.6 rnm x 1.6 rnrn (l~e in. x ~ s In.) ledge < 133.4 mm (5.25 in.) ,.-p. c tO E E = .J I ---~ ,- 9.5 mm 03 O~ In.) 1 i.I ~l ¢-12.7 mm (y= ~.) Sensor support of soft insulation board Connect 4 TIC In parallel, silver solder connections. Bring common lead out of center hole of support. Secure sensor into support with three or four sewing pins cut to 9.5 mm (% In.) long. Nots: Calorimeters should be painted with fiat black paint. Figure 6-10.4.4 Sensor assembly. 6-10.5 Specimens shall be exposed to a thermal flux of 2.0 c a l / c m 2, +/-0.1 cal/cm2 as measured with copper calorimeter. The copper calorimeter shall be the only heat sensor used in setting the 2.0 cal/cm2/sec exposure condition. The total heat flux shall be calculated directly from the temperature response of the copper calorimeter constants. Other heat sensing devices shall not be used to reference or adjust the heat flux read by the copper calorimeter. The response of the calorimeter shall be r e c o r d e d f o r at least 10 seconds. The lowest temperature point on the curve where the response is linear shall be chosen, and the increase in sensor temperature for 10 seconds of heating shall also be determined. The initial reading from the 10-second reading shall be subtracted to obtain the increase. The response shall be 148°C, + 4°C (267°F, +__7°F), equivalent to 7.86, + 0.20mV for an ironcontantan thermocouple for an exposure heat flux of 83 kW/m2, +2 k W / m 2 (2.0 cal/cm2/sec, -+0.05 cal/cm2/sec). SUBSTANTIATION: Need description of copper calorimeter used in RPP test for test facility reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #105) Committee: FAF_~FA 1976- 131 - (6-12.2, 6-12.3): Accept SUBMITI"ER= Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Replace Sections 6-12.2 and 6-12.3 with the following: 6-12.2 Specimens. 6-12.2.1 Specimens shall consist of composites representative of the reinforced knee and reinforced shoulder areas, including all layers uses in the construction of the reinforced area. Specimens shall be prepared by sewing along two adjacent sides, material layers that measure 200 m m x 305 m m (8 in. x 12 in.) to form a reinforcement area composite specimen. 6-122.2 A minimum of three specimens shall be tested for each reinforced area. 6-12.3 Sample Preparation. 6-12.3.1 Samples for conditioning shall be the reinforcement area composite specimens. 6-12.3.2 Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to the conditioning as specified in 6-1.2; SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed requirement uses only room temperature conditioning. The conductive heat resistance of a reinforcement area will change with subsequent exposures. Some materials, particularly leather, may become embrittled and change in their conductive heat transfer characteristics. The proposed conditioning requirement simulates repeated e x p o s u r e s and use of protective clothing [in a m a n n e r similar as used for moisture barriers (Sections 6-28 and 6-29).] A larger specimen size is required to accommodate the conditioning requirements. COMMI~q'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #38) Committee: FAE~FA 1976- 130- (6-11): Accept SUBMITrER= Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-11 Radiant Test 6-11 Applicadon. 6-11.1.1 This test shall apply to helmet shell systems. 6-11.2 Specimens. 6-11.2.1 One sample helmet shell, with any reflective outer covering in place as intended for use but with all shock absorbing and or thermally insulating materials removed from the interior. 6-11.3 Sample Preparation. 453 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: As shown in the actual drawing, 3 thermocouples are used. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #167) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 132- (6-13.1.1): Accept SUBMITrEPa Karen F~ Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "This test method shall apply to multilayer proximity protective garment composites, ~ . ~ : shrouds, wristlets and gloves." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification, Section 5-2.6 requires helmet shrouds to be t e s t e d p e r this section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #169) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 138 - (6-15.11): Reject SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: 6-13,11 Specific Requirements for Testing Garments 6-13.11.1 Snecimens shall consist of materials from the Dortion of the prgtective hood that covers the neck and facial area. Specimens shall n o t include seams. Snecimens shall not be ~titched to hold individual layers together durin~ testing. 6-13.11.2 Samnles for conditionin~ shall include shroud material that is a minimum of 178 m m (7 in_~ so. 6-13.11.3 Testin~ shall be oerformed as described in 6-13.2 through 6-13.7. SUBSTANTIATION: Shrouds are required to be tested to this performance requirement and modifications for testing shrouds are required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The document does not cover hoods a n d shrouds are now covered in 6-13.8. Also see Committee Action o n Comment 1976-133 (Log #168). (Log #168) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 133- (6-13.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Add text to read as follows: 6-13.1.2 add "and shroud" between garment and compsites. 6-13.8 add "...and shrouds" to rifle. SUBSTANTIATION: Shrouds are required to be tested to this performance requirement and modifications for testing shrouds are required. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #29) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 134- (6-13.4.1.1): Accept SUBMrITER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "6-13.4.1.1 The specimen holder assembly shall consist of upper and lower mounting plates. Specimen holder r;-.~'~'='~g mounting plates shall be...". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #111) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 159 - (6-14.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-14.1.1 Application. This test shall apply to sewing thread used in the construction of all proximity protective elements. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no corresponding performance requirement that thread used in construction of helmets must not melt below 500°F. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #53) Committee: FAE-S FA 1976- 135 - (6-13.4.1.2): Accept SUBMIT1T~R: Julie Beilar, Lion Apparel COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Specimen holder assembly support shall be securely clamped at the edges such that specimen shrinkage is prevented." SUBSTANTIATION: This sentence had previously been removed from this standard. Clamping cannot be reproduced accurately and therefore produces varying results between labs or even within labs. Also, clamping can artificially compress composites beyond that seen in the field a n d therefore eliminate some otherwise acceptable composites. The 1000 weight requirement also currently in the standard was put there to replace the d a m p i n g method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #170) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 140 - (6-14.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBM1TTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "This test shall apply to sewing thread used in the construction of proximity protective garments, wristlets, footwear, helmet shr0o~s, and helmet outer covers : n ~ .kc!mctz." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification, per Section 5-2.20 thread used in helmet shrouds and helmet outer covers must be tested to this requirement. Thread used in the construction of helmets are not required to be tested. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-159 (Log #111). (Log #30) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 136- (Figure 6-13.4.1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete depiction of "Spacer". SUBSTANTIATION: A spacer is not intended to be used. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #32) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 141 - (6-14.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-14.2 Specimens. -~;'c Three different specimens shall be used. SUBSTANTIATION: Determination of pass/fail is based on visual obse .rvadon and does not involve averaging of results. Experience has shown that three specimens would be sufficient to determine pass/fail. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #31) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 137- (Figure 6-13.4.1.10): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Connect 4 3 T / C in parallel...'. 454 NFPA 1976 E F99 ROC (Log #73) Committee: FAF_~FA T 1976- 142 - (6-15.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Charles Thomas, Celanese Acetate, PBI Group COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 6-15.1 Application. This test shall apply to woven and nonwoven materials used in proximity protective garments, helmet outer covers, and helmet shrouds. 6-15.2 Sample Preparation. 6-15.2.1 Samples for conditioning shall be at least 1 m (1 yd) square of material. 6-15.2.2 The moisture and thermal barriers of samples shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.2. The outer shell component shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.3. 6-15.3 Specimens. 6-15.$.1 A minimum of five specimens in each of the warp, machine or coarse direction and the filling, cross-machine or wales direction shall be tested. 6-15.$.2 If the material is non-anisotropic, then ten specimens shall be tested. 6-15.4 Procedure. 6-15.5 Report. 6-15.6 Interpretation. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 6-15 should include nonwovens, knit composites and moisture barriers given that many of the proximity garments include these constructions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. S Y Reference piano X L__ Basic plane / Hoadform A B J M S'=e ( m m ) 500 540 570 600 620 X(mm) 24 26 27.5 29 30 Y(mm) 90 96 102.5 107 110 (Log #171) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 143- (6-15.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: =This test shall apl~ly to woven materials used in proximity protective garments, wristlets, helmet outer covers and helmet shrouds." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification, per Section 5-2.7 helmet outer covers and helmet shrouds must be tested to this requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Figure 6-19.4.1 Location of reference plane (all dimensions in ram). SUBSTANTIATION: Reflect changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #158) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 146- (6-20.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 6-20 to read: 6-20 Faceshield Component Impact Resistance Test. 6-20.2.1 A minimum of four complete faceshield components shall be tested. Delete 6-20.2.2 and 6-20.2.$. 6-20.4.2.1 Only one faceshield component shall be tested at a time. 6-20.5.2.1 Only one faceshield component shall be tested at a time. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, should reference all sections in 620.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #150) Committee: FAE~ FA 1976- 144- (6-18.4.1): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: " A ziz: 7 :J::::'.-c.:::-.. ~:adfc:'m. zcmmccJ-- kac','..~ a~ "..~: = ~ * = ,4 ALI A,C ~ i ] J~..7..~_:.r_ ..~=_c..r==-.." An aluminum ISEA size 7 headform shall be [ used. The headform shall have a mass of 3.6 kg + 0.5 kg. I "k'cr"4"=%"r'"and shall be of the nominal dimensions of the headform I in Table 6-18.4.1 and Figure 6-18.4.1 (a) through (c)." SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #152) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #151) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 147 - (6-20.4.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197629 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: =An Aiderson 50th percentile male head.form ~ , g L i l R ~ L I I 1 1 ~ 6-17.4.1.1 shall be used to hold the protective device...". SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 9000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 145 - (6-19.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen F, Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "TLc hc~a...Zcr.'..:h~Al bc == An ISO size J headform conforming to the manual dimensions in Figure 6-19.4.1 shall be used. The ISO size J text headform shall exhibit no resonant frequencies below $000 Hz, and it shall be made of any low-resonance alloy, such as magnesium K-1A." Replace existing Figure 6-19.4.1 with the following Figure 6-19.4.1. 455 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC (Log #56) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #153) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 148 - (6-20.5.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: ."An Alderson 50th percentile male headform ~ d , ~ r L . F ~ 2 L ~ 6-17.4.1.1 shall be used for mounting the helmet with faceshield component...". SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 153- (6-31.7.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: 6-$1.7.2 should be corrected to read: "Soecimens shall consist of a composite of layers that act as a barrier, and seam areas. All layers shall be arranged in oroDer order." SUBSTANTIATION: It's ok ... need to include sealed seams too! Paragraph 6-31.7.2 of NFPA 1971-F99 Report on Proposals does not read per the NFPA 1971 Committee's action on Log #7. Either add the above sentence or delete and use the above text. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #159) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #59) C ommittee: FAE-SFA 1976- 149 - (6-22.5.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, lntertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "...A total of two penetration tests for each of the feur flY.g environmental conditions specified in 6-1.3, 6-1.4, 6-1.5, 6-1.6, and 6-1.7 shall be conducted in such a manner...". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, section references four conditions not five. COMMrI'rEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 154- (6-$2.4.1): Hold SUBMI~ Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Liquid Penetration resistance testing for moisture barriers and moisture barrier seams, gloves and footwear, add goggles and faceshields and wherever applicable make it composite vs. component testing as follows: Delete from: :h.~!! be c~n~'.:'ctc~ "n ~cc~=~^-xcc ".' ".' ~. ". . . •. .e-r~a .... v '~~ S t z , . - z d z . . - 5 . v . ^ . , ~.~.^.~ ¢ ^ , D^,: . . . . . . . ¢,,1^,^_-^~ ..... ~ in Add: ~hall be conducted in accordanc~ with appropriately modified ASTM F 1862. Standard Test Method for Resistance of ~edical Face Masks to Penetration by Synthetic Blood (Horizontal prqiection of fixed volume at Known Velocity). See attached article from the February 1999 issue of ASTM Standardization News for a description of ASTM F 1862. SUBSTAN'I'IATION: The current test method cannot test composites that represent the PPE (Structural Protective Clothing, footwear and gloves, add goggles and faceshields) as worn by emergency responders. ASTM F 1862 will allow for blood penetration testing to be conducted on conditioned material specimens oriented in the same way as worn in the field. The test method (ASTM F 1862) can be modified to project synthetic blood at a selected worst case velocity at worst case conditioned composites of protective clothing, gloves, footwear and headwear used by fire department emergency responders. This new test method appears to better replicate field exposures experienced by emergency responders than ASTM F 1671 which can only manage the moisture barrier components of FF PPE. The current text method, ASTM F 1671, does not accommodate inline production quality control testing of barrier materials or sealed seams on a timely basis. A modified ASTM F 1862 appears to accommodate quality control testing on sealed seam samples in the plant as they areproduced. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #2) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 150- (6-25): Accept SUBMrrTER: Charles L. Barber, DuPont COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "6-25.1.2 ...shall be specified in $2~.~ 6-25.7 7 "6-25.1.3 ...shall be specified in 625.9 6-25.8." "6-25.6.1 The average cut f~rc= distance shall...". SUBSTANTIATION: When the "cut resistance test" was revised, changes were not made correctly to the draft document. The above changes correct these errors. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #45) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 151 - (6-26): Accept SUBMrrTER: Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire test method 6-26. SUBSTANTIATION: Abrasion test for faceshield is not substantiated by a performance requirement. In addition, it is a foregone conclusion that current technology (gold coated processes) have no abrasion resistance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #24) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #34) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 152 - (6-29): Accept in Part SUBMYITER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-29 Water Absorption Resistance Test Delete this test method and utilize the water absorption resistance criteria and method specified in the 1992 edition. Note. The Report on Proposals has no Chapter 5 performance requirement proposed for the 6-29 test method. SUBSTANTIATION: No evidence has been presented that the proposed method offers any improved product discrimination or reproducibility. [ COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Delete Section 6-29. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The TC agrees and will delete 6-29 but will not replace it with that from the 199 2 edition. See Committee Action on Comment 1976-69 (Log #68). 1976- 155 - (6-33.1, 6-$5.2, 6-36.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Replace all three paragraphs with "Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to the procedure specified in 6-1.3." SUBSTANTIATION: Reference to the Federal Test Method for preconditioning isn't necessary with reference to 6-1.$. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 456 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC Dielectric test line (Log #CC19) Committee: FAE-SFA Test line (60 mm ~ 1976- 156 - (Figure 6-34.2): Accept SUBMrr'FER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976.29 RECOMMENDATION: Add a caption to Figure 6.34.2 to read: ~ T e s ! lin? 85 mm above above basic plane -[~. . . . . . . . . ~ _ b l : ' C P'ane ~ / ~ Basleplane "Cuts". SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ] Mid-sagittal plane Coronal plane (Log #161) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 157 - (6-38.5.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976.29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "...The helmet shall be placed on the ISO-size I a c : c c : ~ u c ' d v : headform specified i n Figure 6-16.4.1 6-6d-g~cand positioned according to the helmet positioning index...". SUBSTANTIATION: Test line should be drawn using the ISO size J headform to be consistent with all other sections requiting test lines. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. F'~rure 6-38.5.1.2 Test setup. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. The headform used to mark the test line on a helmet is the ISO size J headform. This revised drawing clarifies t h e p o s i t i o n i n g o f the test line. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #154) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #155) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976. 158- (6-38.5.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "...The sample helmet shall be placed on the nonconductive headform specified in Figure 6-6:12.3 and positioned according to the helmet positioning index for ~ i : tc:,...". Dielectric lest line ~ J, 1976- 160- (6-42.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "An ISO size I headform conforming to the manual dimensions in Fiuure 6-19.3.,1 shall be used, A :':~z 7 I / 2 .k.~'~a.4~%.'7...~h:2! ~z 5 I~A.I." SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. . Test line (60 mm ~ T e s ! line 85 mm above above basic plane ~ . . . . . . . . . ..~__blaS.'° P'ane Bastc plane (Log #89) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 161 - (6-45): Accept in Principle S U B ~ Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-45. Replace with new 6-45 as follows: 6-45 Glove Hand Function Test. 6.45.1 Application. 6-45.1.1 This test shall apply to gloves. 6-45.2 Specimens. 6-45.2.1 One glove pair for each size provided with the suit shall be used for testing. 6-45.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a complete set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6.45.2.3 Glove pair specimens shall not receive special softening or flexing treatments prior to this test. 6-45.3 Sample Preparation. 6-45.3.1 Glove pair specimens shall be preconditioned as specified in 6-1.$. 6-45.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be whole glove pairs. 6-45.4 Procedures. 6-45.4.1 Each glove size shall be evaluated by a separate test subject. 6-45.4.2 Test subjects shall be selected such that their h a n d dimensions are close to the middle of the range given in Table 4-2.2 for the glove size they are evaluating. 6-45.4.3 A minimum of five different glove pairs shall be evaluated. When less than five different glove sizes are available, different pairs of the same size gloves shall be permitted to be tested by different test subjects, so that a total of at least five different glove pairs are tested. ] Mid-sagittal plane Coronal plane - - F'~mre 6.38.5.1.2 Test setup. SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consistent. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #160) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 159- (6-58.5.1.2): Accept SUBMITrER= Karen F- Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise figure as shown: 457 NFPA 1976 ~ F99 ROC (Log #116) Committee: FAE-SFA 6-45.4.4 Each test subject shall be familiarized with the test apparatus and procedure by practidng the test three times before conducting actual testing, but not on the same day of the actual testing. 6-45.5 Pegboard Procedure. 6-45.5.1 A pegboard apparatus that consists of 25 stainless steel pins and a pegboard shall be used. Each stainless steel pin shall have a diameter of 9.5 m m (3/8 in.) and a length of 38 m m ( 1 1/2 in.). The pegboard shall have 25 holes, each hole having a diameter of 10 m m (13/32 in.) and a depth of 13 m m (1/2 in.). The holes shall be a 5 x 5 pattern and each hole shall have a separation of 25 m m (1 in.) from any adjacent hole. 6-45.5.2 Before each test, the pegs shall be placed on a hard smooth surface adjacent to the pegboard (on the right side for right-handed test subjects and on the left side for left-handed test subjects). 6-45.5.3 In conducting the test, each peg shall be picked up from the test surface along its long dimension (not by its ends) and placed in the pegboard from left to right a n d top to bottom. 6-45.5.4 The dexterity test time shall be the time it takes from grasping the first peg to placing the last peg in the pegboard. 6-45.5.5 Each test subject shall perform the test barehanded according to 6-13.5.2 through 6-13.5.4. The test shall be repeated until the last three repetitions have dexterity test times with a coefficient of variance less than 8 percent. The average of the last three repetitions shall be the baseline dexterity test time (DTT=) for that test subject. Each repetition shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge o f the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions. 6-45.5.6 Each test subject shall then perform the test according to 6-13.5.2 through 6-13.5.4 wearing the pair of test gloves. The test shall be repeated until the last three repetitions have dexterity test times with a coefficient of variance less than 8 percent. The average of the last three repetitious shall be the dexterity test time with gloves (DTTs). Each repetition shall be conducted without the test subject's Knowledge of the dexterity test time for any of the repetitions. 6-45.5.7 The dexterity test time with gloves ( D T r , ) shall be compared with the baseline dexterity test time (DTT=) for each test subject. The percent increase overbare-handed con~ol shall be calculated for each glove size as follows: 1976- 162- (6-45.3.1): Accept SUBMITFER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ~A minimum of three glove pairs each for size small and size large e~.c=k. 0":: Frc;-~z~ v.-'.,k. "..~: :u': shall be used for testing." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording makes the dexterity/hand function test consistent with other whole glove tests (i.e., water tight integrity, liner retention, donning/doffing, grip). Testing using all five sizes as in the current 1997 edition is extremely time consuming and labor intensive, and has not provided additional useful information. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #118) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 163 - (6-45.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and r e n u m b e r appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Since the h a n d function test has been narrowed down to one procedure (the peg board test), the section is unnecessary. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #117) Committee: FAF~FA 1976- 164- (6-45.4.2): Accept SUBMITrEI~ Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ~A minimum of fi;'e a : ~ . . . . . three gIe;'= pairs each for size small ig/d siz~ large gloves shall be evaluated." SUBSTAN'FI[A;rION: Proposed wording make the dexterity/hand function test consistent with other whole glove tests (i.e., water tight integrity, liner retention, donning/dofifing, grip). Addition replicates or sizes is extremely time consuming and labor intensive, and would probably not provide additional useful information. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Percent increase over barehanded control = DTTg X 100 DYr 6-45.6 Report. 6-45.6.1 The percent increase over barehanded control shall be reported for each glove size. The average percent increase over barehanded control for all glove sizes shall be calculated and also reported. 6-45.7 Interpretation. 6-45.7.1 The average percent increase over barehanded control for all glove sizes shall be used to determine pass/fail performance. SUBSTANTIATION: Based on the analysis of the data collected to evaluate the pegboard test, the pin pick up test, and the two point discrimination test, it appears that the pegboard test is the best test to use. T h e data analysis shows that it is least sensitive to the test subject, it has the best ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves, and it has the best ability to discriminate between gloves. It also shoes that including a second test does not significantly improve the ability to explain the variation in performance among gloves. Note: Supporting material available for review upon request at NFPA headquarters. The knot tying test and the grip test were not further evaluated and should also be dropped until further work is done to determine if they produce more or better information. A minimum performance value of 300 percent is proposed for 1992 gloves. This would allow all the 1992 styles be evaluated up to a n d including 1971 structural gloves. A minimum performance value of 600 percent is proposed for 1991 style .~loves. This would allow all the styles we evaluated up to and including the current 3 layer gloves COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-102 (Log #104). (Log #119) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 165 - (6-45.4.3): Accept SUBMrVFER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete a n d substitute as follows: "Test subjects shal! be selected such that their hand dimensions fall within the range for hand and dk, it length and circumference as specified in Talkie 4-$.7.B(b~ or Table 4--3.7.3(d). For digit len~,.h a n d circumference, a maximum of three Ineasurements shall be _permitted to fall outside of the range snecified, prgyi~¢~ that no measurement exceeds the snecified range bv more than 25 nercent. Three test subjects shall be selected for testin~ size large gloves, and three test sublects shall be selected for testln~ size small ~loves." SUBSTANTIATION: "As close as possible" is too subjective, and could lead to inappropriately sized test subjects (i.e., based on availability rather than making sure that the correct size subjects are identified). Since dexterity/hand function is critically affected by fit of the glove, it is important to specify the h a n d size of the subjects to be used. Also, experience has shown that test subjects falling into all specified ranges are rare, so application of a "25 percent rule" as proposed would provide guidance in correcdy conducting the test. Use of more than on test subject per size also helps minimize bias due to subject-to-subject variability in the test. COMM1TrEE ACTION: Accept. 458 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC baseline dexterity test time (DTI'b), and shall be between 25 - 45 sec. The E:ck test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each repetition t~m+." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to darify the procedure and to provide for greater reproducibility and more meaningful data by setting limits on the baseline dexterity times to attempt to remove subject-to-subject bias. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #120) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 166 - (6-45.4.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45-4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #132) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 170 - (6-45.4.6.6): Accept SUBMIT[Eli: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Each test subject shall then perform the test with one oair of ~rloves following the steps in 6-45.4.6.2 through 6-45.4.6.4 ;~-uht.h: until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's fastest three repetitions does not exceed w_-'c: ~)" r.o m ; r c ~ _ 2 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated as in 6-45.4.6.5. The ~vera~e of the three fastest repetitions m ~ u r : ~ ~cxtcr'~" tc:t "dr...: shall be used as the dexterity test time with gloves (DTI'g). The iest shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each renetition t~st~" SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to clarify the procedure and provide for ~reater reproducibility and more meaningful data. Modificauons to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #129) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976. 167- (6-45.4.6.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Before each test, the pegs and peg board shall be placed on the ~est surface ~. ~.r~, ::'...~.~t~ ~. r.~=."f..~c:.~.~j.~Cc~:t.~ . k : _^_ ~.^~_.~ /^~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,^r~ ~.~a ^a . . . . . . . ~ ' : ~ which shall be a nominally 600 m m x 900 mm (24 in. x $6 in3 sheet of 1.6-ram (0.0625-in.] l~leonrene havin~r h~rdness of 50 + 5 Shore A and a thickness of 1.57 mm (0.06~ inA + 10 tJercent. The ne~s shall be randomly scattered in the working area most comfortable to the test subiect (i.e. right side for ri~rht handed subiects, left side for left-han-ded test subiects, directly in front, etcA." SUBSTANTIATION: Since the working surface can significantly impact the dexterity times observed, the proposed language would standardize this variable to allow better reproducibility of the test. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #131) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 168 - (6-45.4.6.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "In starting the test, each peg shall be ~grasped near its end and shall be placed in the peg board be~inmng at the upper left comer and Droceedin~ from left-to-right and top-to-bottom. The p e ~ shall not be tricked un from any surface other than the specified test surface. ~md shall not be tricked up bv sliding, standing, or otherwise SUDDOrfin~the t)eg with another obiect (such as the De~ board, anotl{e-r De~. or the test subject's free handL Only onehand shall be used durin~ the test. and only one De~ shall be ~rasned at a time. The test subject shall not alternate hands durin~ the test series. The ne~ board shall be nermitted to be prevented from movin~ during-the test bv the test-subiect's free hand or other means as necessary." SUBSTANTIATION: Modifications to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test for the data to be meaningful and reproducible COMMITTEE ACTION~, Accept. (Log #121) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 171 - (6-45.4.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity testprocedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45-4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMIT1T~ ACTION: Accept. (Log #122) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 172- (6-45.4.8): Accept SUBMITTER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory • results is the peg board test (6-45-4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #130) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 169 - (6-45.4.6.5): Accept SUBMITFER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Each test subject shall perform the test ~ilhp_o_Lglp_y~following the steps in 6-45.4.6.2 through 6-45.4.6.4 until the variance of the dexterity times of that person s last three repetitions does not exceed :~'~.:: ~7 n~ ='a.::: =.~.:.'=8 percent. Variance shall be calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the average of three repetitions, and muluplying by 100. The lowcot dcxtcz:v/tc:t "dmc ef 2+-.eI ~ t three averag_e of the three repetitions shall be used as the (Log #123) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 173- (6-45.5.1): Accept SUBM1TrER: Catherine P, Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION" Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45-4.6). The other three proposed 459 N F P A 1976 m F99 R O C (Log #134) Committee: FAE-SFA techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 178- (6-45.6.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Fer Crc=: De."-~r~.v/Procedure E. The average percentage of bare-hand control for size small and size large shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. Failure of either size shall constitute failure of the test" SUBSTANTIATION: Modifies the interpretation criteria to reflect other proposed changes to this test procedure and performance criteria. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #183) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 174- (6-45.5.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "Fer Crcz~ DcxtcH W Pr~cc~urc B. The average percentage of bare-hand control shall be reported for each test subject The average percentage of bare-handed control for all test subjects shall be .~!culatcd renorted for cgch size." SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies reporting requirements based on other proposed changes to this section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #127) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 179- (6-45.6.3): Accept SUBMI'Iq'ER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental a n d inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the bet correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the use in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #124) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 175 - (6-45.5.$): Accept SUBMNq'ER= Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove a n d laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45-4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either n o t reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #128) Committee: FAF~ FA 1976- 180 - (6-45.6.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine 1L Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and r e n u m b e r appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental a n d interdab work o n the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the bet correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the use in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #125) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 176- (6-45.5.4): Accept SUBM1TTER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and r e n u m b e r appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45-4.6). The other three proposed techniques, are.either, not reproducible,, too cumbersome, or do not proxade a stgntficant contrtbuuon to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #135) Committee: FAF~FA 1976- 181 - (6-52): Reject SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete section in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: Experience with this test procedure in NFPA 1977 proves that the test is highly subjective, excessively stringent, and contradidtory so that it would be difficult if not impossible for any glove to meet all of the proposed criteria. Measurements are not made in a n accurate or reproducible manner, confounding the results and making interpretation highly va~'able. Also, test method is not provided in NFPA 1976 - F99 Report on Proposals. COMMI'I*rEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 6-52 will not be deleted as it does not apply to a glove test. (Log #126) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 177- (6-45.6.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-45-4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information about the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #156) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 182- (6-53.4.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: "The shroud shall be positioned on the ::,:c 7 1/~ ISO size I headform specified in Figure 6-19.4.1 so that the shroud is around the neck area...'. 460 NFPA 1976 -- F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: Reflects changes made to NFPA 1971, 2000 edition to restructure helmet sections in order to make procedures and testing more consisten~ COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. 6-11.3.2 The sample helmet shall be placed in a radiant exposure chamber conforming to the requirements specified in 6-1.6. With the radiant panel adjusted to provide a stable uniform irradiance of 1.0 W / c m 2, +/-0.1 W / c m 2 according to the method specified in 61.6, the sample shall be placed in the chamber so that the thermocouple location is in the center of the area of radiant exposure. The sample shall be exposed to an irradiance of 1.0 W/cm2, +/-0.1 W/cm2 for 180 seconds. Thermocouple temperatures shall be recorded at the beginning and at the end of this exposure. 6-11.3.3 The difference between the beginning and end temperatures shall not exceed 25°C. Delete 6-56. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #35) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 183 - (6-54.8.3, 6-54.10.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read as follows: 6-54.8,3 The coat collar shall be placed in the up position on the mannequin with the collar closure system fastened in the closed position. The head of the mannequin shall be sealed offwith a plastic bag. The plastic bag shall extend downward over the collar b y a distance of not greater than 25.-4 mm (1 in.) and shall be taped down using duct tape or similar waterproof tape. The tape shall nor; extend downward more than 75 mm (3 inA from the tot) of the collar. The bottom edge of the tape and the plastic bag shall not come closer than 25 mm (1 in.) of hte collar seam where a collar seam is present. Where present the collar neck seam shall not be covered. 6-48.10.3 The coat collar shall be placed in the up position on the mannequin with the collar closure system fastened in the closed position. The head of the mannequin shall be sealed off with a plastic bag. The plastic bag shall extend downward over the collar hy a distance of not greater than 25.-4 mm (1 in.) and shall be taped down using duct tape or similar waterproof tape. The tat)e shall not extend downward more than 75 mm (3 in.I from the ton of the collar. The collar neck seam shall not be covered. SI]BSTANTIATION: Clarifies current practice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #46) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 186- (6-56): Accept SUBMITrER: Dennis K. Stout, E.D. Bullard Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 J RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire Section 6-56. SUBSTANTIATION: Incorrect location and incorrect wording. Correct location, wording and test method should be 6-11, which renders 6-56 useless. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #1) Committee: FAF_~FA 1976- 187- (A-l-S): Reject SUBMITI'E~ Richard S. Kraus, American Petroleum Inst. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: (Log #85) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 184 - (6-54.8.3, 6-54.10.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the last two sentences and replace with the following: "The nlastic bag shall extend over the collar by a distance of not greater-than 50.8 mm (2 in.) and shall be taued glgWrl using 50.8 mm (9 inA duct tane or similar watert)roof tape. The tat)eshall extend ut) over the bottom edge of the nlastic ba~ by at least 19 mm (3/4 in,) and down onto the surface of-the collar" between the collar seam and the bottom e4g¢ of the bag by ~ least 19 mm (3/4 in.). The bottom edge of the tane or nlastlc bag shall not come within 25.4 mm (1 in_) of the collar seam." SUBSTANTIATION: The current wording is unclear and has to be interpreted by each lab. Each lab is taping differently, thus getting different results. The above wording should remove any reason for interpretation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1976-183 (Log #35). CC,m : . . z = . y producc c::~-c~..c.=5'c.=...". g~]#i'~'Ji~ib-#,il ". There is no definitive way to measure a difference between "extreme" and "high". This is very poor code language. • There is no need to have these definitions further explained in the appendix as they are well defined in the text. • The requirement for defining types of fire fighting is not in the scope of th~s technical standards committee. The committee has been directed and has agreed that its requirements do not apply to the use of proximity equipment. Therefore there is NO NEED to define types of fires as it is misleading (a person will think that only these types of fires a n d / o r all of these types of fires require use of proximity gear.) COMMITIT~E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The appendix is not part of the requirements of the document and only gives information to aid in understanding the document. (Log #CC18) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #CC1) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 188 - (A-I-$ Accessories (New)): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Move the following to new Appendix item: "Such accessories include, but are not limited to, utility belts, harnesses, back packs, tools, tool packs, radios, radio packs, suspenders, lights, and heat sensing devices." SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 185- (6-56): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting cA,oPMMlicationsProtective Clothing and Equipment ENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Move text of 6-56 to 6-11 as shown below: 6-11.2 One sample helmet shell, with any reflective outer covering in place as intended for use but with all shock absorbing a n d / o r thermally insulating materials removed from the interior, shall be used for this test. 6-11.3 An exposed bead typeJ or K 30 AWG thermocouple shall be fastened to the inner surface of the sample helmet shell in such a way that the thermocouple bead is in contact with the shell material. The thermocouple may be placed at any location above the test line, with the exception that there shall be no internal or external projections greater than 2 mm in height on the shell within 25 mm of the thermocouple bead in any direction. 461 NFPA 1976 m F99 ROC (Log #CC27) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #CC24) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 189 - (A-3-1.1.1, A-3-3.1.3, A-3-3.2.4, A-3-4.1.1, A-3-4.1.3, A-3-4.2.4, A-3-5.1.3): Accept SUBMYI'TER= Technical Committee o n Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing and Equipment OMMENT ON PROPOSAL lqO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Delete A-$-I.I.1, A-$-3.1.$, A-3-3.2.4, A-3-4.1.1, A-3-4.1.3, A-3-4.2.4, A-3-5.1.3. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review a n d action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 192- (A-6-33.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing a n d Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-35.4.1. 6-33.4.1 is now 6-40.4.1. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC20) Committee: FAE-SFA (Log #CC25) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 193- (A-6-40.4.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting Applications Protective Clothing a n d Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Add A-6-40.4.1 to read: A-6-40.4.1 An example of an inner glove fabric is a lightweight, tightly woven medium- or dark-colored, 100-percent polyester fabric without surface treatment. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 190- (A-4-1.15.3): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting ~g/~. Protective Clothing a n d Equipment O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-2~ RECOMMENDATION: Delete A-4-1.15.$. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the p.amphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review a n d action. . COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #CC12) Committee: FAF_~FA (Log #136) Committee: FAE-SFA 1976- 191 - (A-6-1.8 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Specialized Fire Fighting cApplications Protective Clothing and Equipment OMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1976-2g RECOMMENDATION: Add new text A-6-1.8 The conditioning requirement of 6-1.8 does not test for cold/wet conditions. The whole glove integrity requirements found in 5-$.25 and Section 6-40 have been found to be reliable predictor of cold/wet performance. Fire fighters' dexterity and tactility can be severely diminished during cold/wet exposures. The following test procedure can be used to evaluate a n d distinguish glove performance in cold/wet exposures. If desired, this performance and test requirement can be included by the authority having jurisdiction in purchase specifications. Gloves that allow fingertip temperatures to fall below 10°C (50°F) in these exposures severely diminish dexterity and tactility and fail the test. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review a n d action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1976- 194- (A-6-45.4.6.2): Accept SUBMITFER= Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1976-29 RECOMMENDATION: Insert new text: "The test surface specified is identical to the calibration material specified in the cut resistance test found in 6-25 (ASTM F1790)." SUBSTANTIATION: Explanatory material/source a n d detail for the test surface specified. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 462 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC PART IV COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed b~vthe Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #3O) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 1 - (1-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Kerry W. Gordon, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 1-1.1 This standard specifies the minimum design, performance, certification requirements and test methods for structural protective ensembles that include protective coats, trousers, coveralls, helmets, gloves, footwear, and interface components. SUBSTANTIATION: Grammatical correctness - delete extraneous "and" between "performance° and "certification", delete extraneous "protective" before "trousers" and "coveralls". COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee Scope has the appropriate format and text. (Log #27) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 5 - (1-3 Basic Plane): Accept SUBMITFER= MichaelJ. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Basic Plane. A .k.=!=n..eth e a ~ o r m term for the anatomical plane that includes the superior rim of the external auditory meatus, the upper edge of the external openings of the ear, and the inferior margin o f the orbit, which is the lowest point of the floor of the eye socket. This corres~)onds to a distance of 130 mm from the top of the ISOJ Headfor/n (Figmre 6-16.4.1~ and 154 mm for the AIderson 50th-Percentile Headform (Fit~ure 4-2.7~. SUBSTANTIATION: The Basic Plane is used to locate the Reference Plane on the headform, and measure peripheral vision and eye/face coverage. The Basic Plane rarely intersects a helmet. Since the ISO J headform does not include ears or eyes, a dimension should be referenced. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: ( LF°AgE#~ 1971- 2 - (1-1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. WoUan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 1-1.2 This standard shall apply to the design, manufacturing, and certification of new protective ensembles, new replacement liners. or new individual elements of the protective ensemble. SUBSTANTIATION: The fire service has expressed the need for certified replacement liners. To certify such products, the scope of this standard need to reflect the acceptability of this practice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. See Committee Action on Comment 1971-12 (Log #101). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The comment introduces the concept of "component" certification. It is not the intent of certification apply to parts or components of individual elements of the [)rotecdve ensemble. Only individual element of the protecuve ensemble can be certified. (Log #258) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 6 - (1-3 Basic Weight): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "The weight of the helmet, including all components specified in 2.! 4-2.2." SUBSTANTIATION: Section 4-2.2 contains the components of a helmet used to determine the basic weight. Section 4-2.1 does not mention anything about the component of a helmet. COMMITIY__~ ACTION: Accept. (Log #34) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- ~- (1-1.7): Hold SUBMITrER= Kerry W. Gordon, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 1-1.7 The requirements of this standard ~ n~: apply to all accessories that can be attached to any element of the structural firefighting ensemble unlc~ ~,pecLqc.72!yad.~r':~:,c~ ~crc'n. SUBSTANTIATION: At present accessories fall outside the purview of the performance, test and certification requirements of this standard which allows products that in of themselves may not alter the performance of the component that they are attached to but may create significant hazards themselves (e.g., helmet mounted flashlights that may not degrade the performance of the helmet but may outgas, melt or explode. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #73) Committee: FAE.SFF 1971- 7 - (1-3 Caronal Plane): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Coronal Plane. The anatomical plane perpendicular to both the basic and midsagittal planes and containing the midpoint of a line connecting the superior rims of the right and left auditory m e ~ u r : : meatuses. SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, correct terminology for definition is meatuses. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #207) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 8 - (1-3 Grading): Reject SUBMrITER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: (Log #31) Committee: FAE-SFF B. If grading is to be maintained change tO: l?a~i'n Grading, Takin~ the nroduction pattern pieces made in the sample size for a style and creatin~ a set of pattern pieces for each of the sizes listed on the garment (element: t,arment, glove, boot. ete3 specification sheet. SUBSTANTIATION: A. Delete; this is a performance standard not a design document or a "How to Do" booklet. B. Grading in this context is specific to clothing; therefore, use a term and definition that relates to clothing items. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that the definition given in the ROP is adequate for this document. 1971- 4 - (1-3 Accessories): Hold SUBMITrER: Kerry W. Gordon, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Accessories.* Those additional items that are attached to a protective ensemble element 5ut ~ c f g n c ~ - - ~uch ~. m-.~ncr to. ~c . . . . . . ~.)^ ¢ . . . . u . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . KI_ and that are n o t necessary for that element to meet the requirements of this standard. Such accessories include but are no limited to, utility belts, harnesses, hack packs, tools, tool packs, radios, radio packs, suspenders, lights, and heat-sensing devices. SUBSTANTIATION: "Design in such a manner to be removable" is vague and misleading. Proposed verbiage more adequately defines "Accessory". COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. 463 NFPA 1971 - - F99 ROC (Log #208) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #190) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 9 - (1-3 Recall System (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition to read: Recall System. The action by which a manufacturer identifies an element, provides notice to the users, withdraws an element from the marketplace and distribution sites, and returns the element to the manufacturer or other acceptable location for corrective action. SUBSTANTIATION: Recall system is not defined within the standard yet the certifying organization must verify that a recall system is in place. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 13 - (1-3 Separation): Accept SUBMITTER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Separation. A material response evidenced by splitting or delamination or fia~:g. SUBSTANTIATION: Delete the phrase "or flaking". It is not part of the standard definition of the term separation used in the project. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #24) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 14 - (1-3 Top): Reject SUBMITFER: Michael J. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Top. A helmet term for the intersection between he midsagittal plane and the bitra~ioncoronal arc extended to the helmet surface. SUBSTANTIATIO~I: The words "bitragion-coronal arc" was absent in the F99 Report on Proposals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-15 (Log #76). (Log #25) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 10 - (1-3 Reference Plane): Accept SUBMITTERa Michael J. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Reference Plane. The plane that is 28 m:.. 27.5 mm (7/~4 in.) (15/64 in.) above and parallel to the basic plane on an ISOJ headform (rgfer to Figure 6-10.4.1). SUBSTANTIATION: The dimension 28-mm does not convert to 7/64 in. The dimension of 28 m m converts to 1-7/64 in. Figure 6-16.4.1 specifies the Reference Plane to be 27.5 mm (1-5/64 in.) from the Basic Plane. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #76) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- 15 - (1-3 Top): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strnmlock, Lutertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Top. The intersection between the midsagittal plane and the coronal plane extended to the helmet surface. SUBSTANTIATION: Wording has been omitted. The top location is indicated by the intersection of the midsagittal plane and the coronal plane. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #74) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 11 - (1-3 Reference Plane): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Reference Plane. A headform term for the plane that is 28 : ~ : ' c 102.5 mm down from the ton of the head and parallel to the basic plane on an ISO sizeJ heacfform. SUBSTANTIATION: The proper dimension specified in BS EN 960-1995 "Headforms for use in the Testing of Protective Helmets" for the location of the reference plane on an ISO J headform is 102.5 mm down from the top of the head. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-10 (Log #'25). (Log #200) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- 16 - (1-3 Vapor Barrier (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition to read: Vapor Barrier. An internal reinforcement for compression or other areas designed to reduce the burn injury risk by blocking the conductive heat transfer hot liquids and expanding vapors and gases. SUBSTANTIATION: The establishment of a "heat loss" requirement which relies solely on the use of highly vapor permeable moisture barriers dictates the inclusion of an old term for materials within the standard for use in compression areas or other areas where scale and hot vapor or gas burn injury are a concern, Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-77 (Log #202). (Log #101) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 12- (1-3 Replacement Liner): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition to read: "Renlacement Liner. A removable innermost comnonent of the ~arment comnosite contalnin~ the thermal a n d / o r moisture barrier. SUBSTANTIATION: The fire service has expressed the need for certified replacement liners. To certify such products, the certification provisions of this standard need to reflect the acceptability of this practice. The proposed standard is seeking to introduce a significant amount of new testing. Several of the tests (including the Total Heat Loss Test and the Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test) include lengthy procedures that are exttemely restricted with respect to their commercial availability. There is not sufficient laboratory capacity to evaluate currently certified products within a 6 month period. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This standard does not apply to replacement components and only applies to new elements. (Log #100) Committee: FAF~FF 1971- 17- (2-1.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 2-1.5 The certification organization shall not cerdfy any structural protective ensembles, or individual elements of the structural rotective ensemble, to the 1997 edition of NFPA 1971 on or after 1 ept~mber 2990. March. 2001, SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed standard is seeking to introduce a significant amount of new testing. Several of the tests (including the Total Heat Loss Test and the Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test) include lengthy procedures that are ~ 464 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C ~[fments of the structural nrotective ensemble, as compliant with any edition of NFPA 1971,NFPA 1972, NFPA 1973, NFPA 1974 that is dated prior to 1997 on or after I March 2000. SUBSTANTIATION: Revise the text in order to provide consistency with the definition sin Section 1-3, and the first sentence of paragraph 2-1.6. COMMITI~E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Text is correct as given as the terms protective clothing and protective equipment were the terms used in editions prior to 1997. extremely restricted with respect to their current commercial availability. There is not sufficient laboratory capacity to evaluate current certified products within a 6 month period. The compliance timeframe for implementation of a new standard should also allow for manufacturers to react to new requirements, performing product development work as necessary. There is not sufficient time in a six month implementation window to allow for this work. Finally, past experience indicates that printed copies of the NFPA standard won't be available until late March 2000 at the earliest. The selection of a suitable compliance deadline should be based in part upon the availability of printed standards for purchase. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Six months is the maximum time the Committee is comfortable with before requiring all PPE to be certified as compliant with the 2000 edition. It is unacceptable to have production of PPE certified as compliant to the 1997 edition for the period of one year. (Log#101a) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 20 - (2-1.6): Reject SUBMITTER= Thomas L Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 2-1.6 With the excention of reulacement liners, the certification organization shall require manufacturers to remove all certification labels and product labels indicating compliance with the 1997 edition of NFPA 1971 from all protective ensembles, or individual elements of the structural protective ensemble, as compliant with the 1997 edition of NFPA 1971 on or after 1 ~ : F t z ~ 5 : r 2 ~ 0 March 2001. The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any structural protective clothing or protective equipment as compliant with any edition of NFPA 1971, NFPA 1972, NFPA 1973, or NFPA 1974 that is dated prior to 1997 on or after 1 March 2000. SUBSTANTIATION: The fire service has expressed the need for certified replacement liners. To certify such products, the certification provisions of this standard need to reflect the acceptability of this pracdce. The proposed standard is seeking to introduce a significant amount of new testing. Several of the tests (including the Total Heat Loss Test and the Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test) include lengthy procedures that are extremely restricted with respect to their commercial availability. There is not sufficient laboratory capacity to evaluate currently certified products within a 6 month period. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-12 (Log #101). (Log #I 99) Committee: FAE~FF 1971- 18 - (2-1.5, 2-1.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Marilyn Wright, Lion Apparel Inc~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text= 2-1.5 The certification organization shall not certify any structural protective ensembles, c.r ."n~;~uz2 c~.cmcntz c.f "...hc :'..--~c~r-.7.1 v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to the 1997 edition of the NFPA 1971 on or after 1 September 2000. The certification organization may cerdfv individual elements of the structural Drotecfi-ve ensemble to the 1997 edition of the NFPA 1971 for those elements manufactured with comoonents certified to the 2000 edition of NFPA 1971 only. 2-1.6 The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any structural protective ensembleg, or compliant with the 1997 edition of the NFPA 1971 on or after 1 September 2000. The certification o~anization may certify individual elements of the structural protectivf ensemble as comoliant with the 1997 edition of the NFPA 1971 for those elements manufactured with components certified to the 2000 edition of NFPA 1971 only. The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any structural protective clothing orprotective equipment as compliant with any edition of the NFPA 1971, NFPA 1972, NFPA 1973, or NFPA 1974 that is dated prior to 1997 on or after 1 March 2000. SUBSTANTIATION: This modification would allow elements to be replaced due to material defects, workmanship defects or as a result of other extraordinary occurrences to conunue the use of the structural protective ensemble for its intended and reasonable wear life. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The recommended text addition is unnecessary. The certification organization can evaluate any element, regardless of components, to the standard to determine compliance, ff an element exceeds the requirements of the standard, then it can be listed and labeled. The edition in effect at the time of certification would be the edition used by the certification organization. Also the Comment could introduce the concept of "component" ce~Jfication. It is not the intent of the certification to apply to parts or components of individual elements of the protective ensemble. Only individual elements of the protective ensemble can be certified. (Log #305) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 21 - (2-2.7): TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this Comment is to change the TC action to ~Accept in Principle ~ as follows: 1971-21 Item 1: Accept 1971-21 Item 2: Accept in Principle. Add new 2-3.1, 2-8.2, and 2-3.3 to read: 2-3.1 For both certification and recertification of ensembles, ensemble elements, and components; the certification organization shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section. 2-3.2 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for certification or for recertification shall be conducted by the certification organization or a facility accredited by the certification organization for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in [SO Guide 25, (ieneral requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories. 2-3.3 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing conducted by a product manufacturer shall not be used in the certification or recertification process unless the facility for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, or testing has been accredited by the certification orgamzation in accordance with all requirements pertaining to testing laboratories in ISO Guide 25, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories." For Item 2, the TCC is correcting its own Comment (1971-21) to change the proposed text in 2-3.2 and 2-3.2 to recognize the TC's action on Comment 1971-30 (Log #213) to accommodate the submitter's recommendation but to modify the requirement to add the reference to ISO Guide 25 as a basis for determining the qualifications of the testing laboratory. It is the TCC's position to (Log #29) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 19- (2-1.6): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Michael J. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 2-1.6 The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any structural protective ensembles, or individual elements of the structural protective ensemble, as compliant with the 1997 edition of NFPA on or after 1 September 2000. The certification organization shall not permit any manufacturer to label any :w~=t~r~ prctec~:.e clc*..~!ngcr . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . :. . . . . structural orotective ensemble, or individual 465 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC 2 3.2 All incpez~en:, e;~2u:Sc='=, cen~':-'en:.==g, : h a tezeng fer ccr':~q~-'2c~ ar far rcccr'-fic.:'-o: zh-2! ~-occcn5".:c=c~ 5)" "..~.c now make this the ~boilerplate" text for Section 2-$ in all documents within this Project. 1971-21 Item $: Accept in Principle. Add new 2-$.13 to read: 2-3.13 The manufacturer shall maintain all design and performance inspection and test data from the certification organization used in the certification of the manufacturer's compfiant product. The manufacturer shall provide such data, upon request, to the purchaser or authority having jurisdiction. For Item 3, the TCCis correcting its own Comment (1971-21) by replacing its proposed text for a new 2-3.13 in favor of the TC's action on Comment 1971-36 that uses the text of 2-4.3 with modification. SUBMITrER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Item 1. Revise 2-2.7 to read: 2-2.7* The certificatibn organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturing facilities of the certified product, with at least two r a n d o m a n d u n a n n o u n c e d visits per 12month period. As part of the follow-up inspection program, the certification organization shall select sample product at random from the manufacturer's production line, from the manufacturer's in-house stock, or from the open market. The certification organization shall have a statistically validated process for determining the critical inspections and tests to be conducted through this follow-up program to verify the continued compliance of the product or component. Item 2. Add new 2-3.1, 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 to read: 2-3.1 For both initial certification a n d recertification of ensembles, ensemble elements, and components; 4he certification organization shall conduct both inspection and testing as specified in this section. 2-3.2 All inspections, evaluations, conditioning, and testing for certification or for recertification shall be conducted by the certification organization. 2-3.3 Any inspection, evaluation, conditioning, or testing conducted by a product manufacturer shall not be used in the certification or recertification process. Renumber 2-3.1 through 2-3.9 (Report on Proposals text numbering) to become 2-3.4 through 2-3.12. Item 3. Add new 2-3.1~ to read: 2-3.13 The certification organization shall maintain records of all pass/fail tests for initial certification. Pass/fail records shall indicate the disposition of the failed material o r product. SUBSTANTIATION: The TCC has revised 2-2.7 to reflect the current text being used in the documents in this Project for consistency of certification requirements. T h e T C C has provided the new text for 2-3.1, 2-3.2, and 2-3.3 for the TC to add to Section 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements. The TCC has provided the new text for 2-3.13 for the TC to add to Section 2-3. This text is being used in the documents in this Project and needs to be added for consistency of certification requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ,^--...1..,,,A . ^~:£1..^~1 k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~i..,~ ~:g: . . . . . .^~." C,~-~ . . . . . I~.II --~. k . . . . . A :-- *h^ . . . . . . . . . ~'~¥f~}~.7"~%'g;~.-~-g requirement in 2-2.7 contains no requirement relative to the confidence level to be established. Without a specific statistical, requirement, "statistical validation" has no meaning. A testing organization could require extensive lot testin~ and still not establish 100 percent statistical confidence of conunued compliance. The TCC needs to either leave this requirement as worded in the 1997 edition, or be more specific regarding the confidence level desired and the means to be used to determine that level. Also, the TCC's stated rationale for 22.7 is invalid as the proposed wording has not yet been published in any of the documents in this Project. Accordingly, it isn't "correlation" that is being'performed, it's the drafting of new text. The requirements in 2-3.1, 2-5.2, and 2-3.3 needlessly invalidate data from manufacturer's laboratories that have been evaluated by the certification organization to nationally recognized laboratory operation standards. Manufacturer's test data that is generated under an ongoing comprehensive system of confidence building, audit testing, and on-site review is currently used by certification organizations around the world and accepted by national accreditation bodies. Elimination of manufacturer's data will translate to higher product costs with no net benefit to the firefighter. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. See Committee Action on Comment 1971-21 (Log #306). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee wil/follow the policy for this text from the TCC. (Log #181) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 23 - (2-2.9): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-13~ RECOMMENDATION: Define or delete the requirement for a "recall system". SUBSTANTIATION: If we cannot define what a recall system is - - we should remove the requirement for a recall system from the standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-9 (Log #190). (Log #212) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 24 - (2-$.1): Reject SUBMITTER= Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Move paragraph 2-$.1 from Section 2-3 to Section 2-4. SUBSTANTIATION: Sampling and testing frequency are (~C issues. Paragraph 2-2.5 mandates the certification organizauon establish a n d require the manufacturer to maintain an inspection and testing program that the certifier audits. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Section 2-3 is the appropriate section for this requirement as it applies to all inspection and testing by the certification organizauons. (Log #128) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 22 - (2-2.7, 2-3.1, 2-3.2, 2-3.3 (TCC NOTE)): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the TCC Note: 2-2.7 The certification organization shall have a follow-up inspection program of the manufacturing facilities of the certified product, with at least two r a n d o m and u n a n n o u n c e d visits per 12m o n t h period. As part of the follow-up inspection program, the certification organization shall select sample product at random from the manufacturer's production line, from the manufacturer's stock, or from the open market, wt. . . . . . :~._,: . . . . . . :_^,:^_ .~.~,, h . . . . . . . . :o.:~,, . . . . , ' . , ~ . . . , ~ L ~ ' ~ 2 £ ' ~ Y ~ Z Y 2 L 7 . : . 2 : " 2 " - ~ " . -~ (Log #102) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 25 - (Table 2-$.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Update Table 2-$.1.1 to: 1. Specify garment, not "clothing", 2. Reflect washing/drying of seam strength samples, add new tests for Total Heat Loss, Overall Heat a n d Flame Performance Test, etc. SUBSTANTIATION: The table is inaccurate/incomplete as presented. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Accept. cv..~Fv.~e.~t. Sample nroduct shall be insoected and tested bv the certification ort,anization to verify the nroduct's continued comnliance. 466 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #139) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #179) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 29 - (2-3.2): Accept in Princ!ple SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, I n t / P e r s o n n e l Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: 2-3.2 Unless otherwise specified, a new set of specimens shall be used for all tests, induding testing where multiple sample conditioning is used. SUBSTANTIATION: In some cases, specimens that are conditioned for one type of exposure could be tested and then be tested for a different condition under the same test or even a different test. While conditioning can adversely impact specimen performance, there are situations where certain conditioning can actually improve a specimens performance. It was not the intent of the Technical Committee when preparing these test methods to permit specimen testing after one condition to be reconditioned and retested, unless specified in the testing. COMMrlWEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 2-3.9 to read as foUows: 2-3.9 The certification organization shall not allow any modifications, pretreatment, conditioning, or other such special processes of the product or any jproduct component prior to the product's submission for evaluauon and testing by the certification I organization. The certification organization shall not allow test specimens that have been conditioned and tested for one test I method to be reconditioned and tested for another test method i unless specifically permitted in the test method. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed with the submitter but incorporated the wording into the existing 2-3.9. 1971- 26 - (Table 2-3.1.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Diane B. Hess, Celanese Acetate - Advanced Fiber Materials COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: The Test Matrix needs to better reflect testing stated in the current document. Short of retyping the entire table, the following tests and reference numbers need to be added and/or changed: * Delete X in Winter Liner category for Breaking S~rength Test (6-50) • Add Total Heat Loss Test (6-34) • Add Conductive and Co'mpressive Heat Resistance Test (6-51). SUBSTANTIATION: Table needs to accurately reflect the required tests that each material a n d / o r component is required to undergo. The table could be misleading if glanced at and not reading the entire document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #75) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 27 - (Table 2-3.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Sections 6-4 and 6-5 under the column entitled "Flame". SUBSTANTIATION: This table refers to helmet testing, Section 64 and 6-5 cover flame testing of gloves and footwear respectively. COMMITrFAE ACTION: Accept. (Log #213) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 30 - (2-3.2, 2-3.3 (TCC NOTE)): Accept in Principle TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this comment is to leave the TC's "Accept in Principle~ action in place and revise the Commlttee-A~tion to read: "See action taken on Item 2 of Comment 1971-21 (Log #$06). ~ The TCC is agreeing with the TC's action to accommodate the submitter's recommendation but is modifying the TC's proposed text for 2-3.2 and the submitter's proposed text for 2-3.3 to add the reference to ISO Guide 25 as a basis for determlnin~ the ~uallflcatlons of the testing laboratory. (See the new text in the CC action on Comment [971-21.) It is the TCC's position to now make this the *boilerplate ~ text for Section 2-3 in all documents within this Project. SUBMITTER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add to paragraph 2-3.2: "or the qfrtification organization's accredited facility for inspections, ¢valuations. con~litionin_g, and testing." Add to paragraph 2-3.3: "unless the fadlitv for insnecfion, evaluation, conditioning, or testing has been accreditecf to do this work by the certification or~,anization." SIJBSTANTIATION: Data from independent third party accredited labs owned and operated by manufacturers should be allowed to be used for certification and annual recerfification processes. Third party certifiers must now be accredited to ANSI Z 34.1, Standard for Third-Party Certification Program for Products, Processes, and Services. Certification and annual recertification are processes that can include the use by the third party certifier of laboratory test data from the third party certification organization's accredited lab network as well as from their own lab. Bottom line, the ANSI Z 34.1 accreditation for third party certifiers ensures that no fly by night certifier is able to accredit a fly by night manufacturer's lab. This practice of using data from vendor labs is not new or unique across most industry. It can be structured like UL's "Client Data Test Program" so that the third party certifier meeting the requirements of Sections 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 routinely audit these test fadlities by visits to check calibration methods and practices but, also so that the data is generated by both labs. This checking of each other for accuracy, etc. creates a continuous lab to lab round robin which should be welcomed by the Fire Service customer as it makes the testing part of manufacturer's QC Program stronger. Paragraphs 2-3.2 and 2-3.3 as currently written and unchanged mandate redundancy and extra costs without delivering any benefit to the Fire Service whatsoever. (Log #37) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 28 - (2-3.1.5): Hold SUBMITrER: Alleta S. Williams, Anne Arundel County EMS/Fire/Rescue, MD COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Address the flammability of the trim. SUBSTANTIATION: On December 14, 1998, two of our fire fighters suffered burns while attempting to locate as trapped victim at a dwelling fire. One fire fighter was on disability leave for over a month. During the injury analysis, their gear was thoroughly inspected. While completing this process, there appeared to be a correlation between the damaged liner of the turnout coat and the location of reflective trim. I spoke with Ms. Patricia Freeman, a Technical Services Manager for Glove who also serves on the technical Committee for NFPA 1971. She reported that several other customers have identified a similar correlation and the flammability of the trim may be an issue. In reviewing the Report on Proposals, there is debate on reflective trim, but the issues seem to be whether or not to make it optional. Ironically, the recommendation to make trim option is based upon he fact that the submitter wimessed burns under the trim. I am glad to see the committee rejected these proposals, but am concerned that there appears to be little effort to address what may be a flammability concern. I am aware of the Heat and Thermal Resistance Test that "exposes the trim to 500°F for five minutes. However, as indicated on page 1181 of the Report on Proposals, the committee dearly states this is not intended to duplicate a fire fighting environment. It appears that a test that does duplicate a fire fighting environment is necessary for the reflective trim. I am aware of the new testing protocol for full manikin flame testing of turnout clothing, but am concerned this would not have prevented our injuries. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. 467 NFPA 1971 - - COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Modify 2-3.2 to add: "...or a facility accredited by the certification organization for inspections or the certification organization's accredited facility for inspections, evaluations, conditioning, a n d testing." Accept 2-3.3 as submitted. COMMITYEE STATEMENT: T h e Committee modified the text to make more d e a r that the laboratory needs to be accredited by the certification organization to d o their testing. F99 ROC a test method.(s) in some cases. It also appears when asking about some accessories and or materials a n d if testing has b e e n done, the response is n o a n d or maybe.with the e l e m e n t dearly marked with a certification organization mark. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: This c o m m e n t r e c o m m e n d s issues that can n o t be properly h a n d l e d a n d processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #257) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #9) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- $1 - (2-K$): Accept S U B M r ~ E R : Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Inspection by the certification organization shall include a review o f any graphic representations used o n p r o d u c t labels, as permitted hve I ] ~ • q 1 g e e 1 ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~--.~ • ¢.1 ~ R-I ~ tn engure 1971- 34 - (2-4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Judi Russell, Phenix Technology COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-7 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: -- 1971- $2 - (2-$.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Inspection by the certification organization shall include a review o f the user information required by ~ !.2, ~ 2.2, 9..~.2, ~ ~-.2, a':a-~-.~ $-2 to ensure that the information has been developed a n d is available." SUBSTANTIATION: Sections $-1.2, 3-2.2, $-$.2, $4.2 a n d ~-5.2 do n o t contain the correct reference for Section 2-3.4. Section 3-2 is the correct reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #38) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 33 - (2-3.7, 2-3.8, 2-3.9): Hold SUBMITTER: Cy L o n g , Texas Comm. on Fire Protection COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Chapter 2 Certification: 2-3 Inspection a n d Testing. 7~.~C~. t 9 c=c.~. r.ccc=~.~.~" =~r2; ~c c c r " ~ . o ~ .92! - r ' v . . . . . . . . "I . t2 = .L.."-g:25:~-'^b."~.~-Y X.%. 2%;ET'..'ZYL~.~Y:~.."2L'3::L2-2L'~ZY.::~- .^ :¢'" cC.'~,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBSTANTIATION: Annual recertification a n d testing is extremely expensive a n d the standard requires that we have at two or m o r e inspections during each year. Requiring annual testing o n items that have n o design or material change in unwarranted a n d costly. We have certification r e q u i r e d o n materials as part o f quality control a n d surprise inspections in place already. T h e b u r d e n of cost increases associated with this r e q u i r e m e n t will effectively eliminate all but the largest manufactures from the market place. T h e r e is no data at p r e s e n t that proves that annual testing will increase firefighter safety a n d it will definitely increase the cost o f protective clothing to the e n d user. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 2-4.1 to read: 2-4.1 All individual, elements o f the protective ensemble that are labeled as being compliant with this standard shall u n d e r g o recertification o n an annual basis. This recertification shall include the following. (a~ inspection a n d evaluation to all design requirements an~.. : ~ n g to. all pc=fc..'-~'.~nce r c q u ' r e m : n ~ as required by this standard on all manufacturer models a n d components. (b~ testln~ to all o e r f o r m a n e e r e a u i r e m e n t s as reouired by this ~tandard on all manufacturer models a n d c o m o o n e n t s with the followin~ nrotocoh 1. W h e n a test m e t h o d incorvorates testim~ both before a n d after laundering nrecondition soecified in 6-1.9 a n d the test ~enerates ouandtative results, recerdfication testin~ shall be lilltjted to the conditionin~ which yielded the worst case test result durin~ the initial certification for the m o d e l or c o m n o n e n t . 2. W h e n a test m e t h o d incorDorates testin~ both before and after launderin~ oreconditionin~ soecified in 6-1.2 and the test ~enerates non~uantitative results 2e.~.. pass/fail for m e l t / d r i v l . reeertification shall be limited to a single conditioning orocedurg in any ~ v e n year. Subseouent annual recertifications shall cycle t h r o u e h the remainin~ conditionine nrocedures to ensure tfiat all roauired conditionin~s are i n c l u d e d over time. 3. Where a test m e t h o d reouires the testin~ of t h r e e soecimens. a m i n i m u m of o n e snecimen shall b e tested for annual (Log #260) Committee: FAE-SFF .... r in:Foemen = . ~ e:=J:-'.~2n t~ .721~-.e='gn :¢q'-'!:emen2 =n~ t ~ n g the symbols are consistent with the w o r d e d statements, readily understood, a n d clearly communicate t h e i n t e n d e d message." SUBSTANTIATION: Within the NFPA 1971 - F99 Report on Proposals, t h e r e is n o section 3-1.1.5, $-2.1.5, $-$.1.5, ~-4.1.5, or $-5.1.5. The correct reference for Section 2-3.3 is Section $-1.5. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ~ c c c ~ . ~ , " o r =cc.c==~.ric= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l~Sclc~ ~ 5 ¢ ' = - ¢om-.v~nt ~:-~h t.h'~, ~.m=-4-~-:~~h~! =nA-.cr-c. that . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ~t. . . . . w~: . . . . . . . :~:~-':^~ -¢'-" ~'^ z~nducted ~.^t^_^ l=~eE.".g @.e m~a-.~ea-, pr~a-.uct = ~-e:ng . . . . . v ". .~. .-.". wit'- ~ ' ~ 2-$.9 T h e c ¢ = * ' ~ . ~ a n ~rg~.x':='2o~ :h=2! mat =!!~.v: m=7 4. Where a test m e t h o d reouires the testint~ of five or m o r e snecimens, a m i n i m u m o f twost)eeimens shall be tested for gBoual recertification. Modify 2-4.2 in the ROP to use first phrase in 2-4.2 (ROP): "Samnles of... be acouired as oart of the follow uo oroLrram, in accordance with 2-2.7. shall be p e r m i t t e d to be ~s~d-~;gward aot~ual t~ "2-.: ~ : ~ ' ~ f i n ~ Fr=~..=ct ~r ~r=d.--ct c~..~.~.gnenL The c e r t f i c a d o n organization shall n o t allow the substitution, repair, or modification, other than as specifically p e r m i t t e d herein, or any p r o d u c t or any p r o d u c t c o m p o n e n t during testing. SUBSTANTIATION: With regards to above three sections there are some accessories a n d materials being a d d e d to a n e l e m e n t of protective clothing that are n o t being tested or can n o t be tested uniformly be a certification organization in accordance to the above three sections. I have b e e n told by some certification organizations that this is due to subjective test m e t h o d s leaving it up to the discretion o f that certification organization or the lack o f COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T h e Committee modified the submitters r e c o m m e n d a t i o n so as n o t to delete the recertification but to reduce the a m o u n t to testing required for recertification. 468 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C continues to be manufactured and delivered to the marketplace. The ISO 9000 program evaluates the product against the NFPA standard to which ~t originally was certified as compliant with. ISO is the internationally recognized quality assurance plan. (Log #103) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 35 - (2-4.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-132 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text: 2-4.1 All individual elements of the protective ensemble that are labeled as being compliant with this standard shall undergo recertification on an annual basis. This recertification shall include inspection and evaluation to all design requirements and testing to all performance requirements as required by this standard on all manufacturer models and components. In a,~dition ~;o comDlvin~ with the design and performance requirenlents o ( ~ i s s~tandard, all TPP and ;rilL test results shall ¢qual or exceed the values nrinted on the oroduct label. SUBSTANTIATION: Including the TPP ~nd THL values on the label will provide a form of assurance to the end user that the garments being purchased meet or exceed the label values. If this labeling requirement is included in the standard, recertification needs to encompass product conformance to the label values. The most recent test data developed by the certification organization needs to be used in label marking required by $-1.70). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971.47 (Log #242). (Log #262) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- $8- (2-6): Reject SUBMITrER= PanlJ. Conway, Paul Conway Shields, Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-152 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : None. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. This is the fast step toward setting requirements on manufacturers rather than on the product. It is a dangerous step which can easily lead to other requirements that are socially or politically correct such as: (a) Smoking in the workplace. (b) Health care. (c) Ethnic balance of the work force. (d) Drug testing. 2. ISO 9000 is one of a number of quality plans. I am not ware of any NFPA study or public review of the various quality plans in an effort to determine if ISO 9000 is the best for thts industry. The insertion of ISO 9000 into NFPA 1971 will require a very expensive step for a number of companies that may or may not be beneficial. It will be even more expensive if 5 years from now NFPA changes its mind and derides to change quality requirements. 3. Insertion of ISO 9000 into NFPA 1971 could be considered a restraint of trade. It has been heard at NFPA meetings that some of the larger companies are in favor of this in order to push out or keep out smaller companies. The net result will be the squelching of innovation and reduction of competition. This will have a very definite detrimental long term effect on this industry. 4. The quality requirements are already well covered in Section 25. 5. The Committee's reason for the rejection of Log #$5 applies Ually to this situation. MMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-37 (Log #46). (Log #182) Committee: FAF,-SFF 1971- ~6- (2-4.3): Accept TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this C o m m e n t is to leave the TC's "Accept ~ action in place and revise the Committee Action to read: ~See action taken on Item 3 of C o m m e n t 1971-21 (Log 306) ~ SUBMITTER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-132 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Copy 2-4.3 and make it a new 2-3.10 so that this requirement applies to certification as well. SUBSTANTIATION: I believe that it is the intent of the committee to require initial certification as well as recertification records. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #10) C ommittee: FAE-SFF (Log #46) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- $9 - (2-6.2, 2-6.3, 2.6.4, 2-6.5): Reject SUBMHq'ER: Judi Russell, Phenix Technology C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-132 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete the following: 1971- 37- (2-6): Reject SUBMITTER: Abbott Lane, Firequip Helmets, Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-152 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete the following text: a.-:~ _c:.'c':=g. SUBSTANTIATION: 1. This is the first step toward setting requirements on manufacturers rather than on the product. It is a dangerous step which can easily lead to other requirements that are socially or politically correct such as: (a) Ethnic balance of work force (b) Smoking in the work place (c) Drug testing (d) Health care (e) etc. 2. ISO 9000 is ONE of a number of quality plans. I am not aware of any NFPA study or public review of the various quality plans in an effort to determine if ISO 9000 is the best for th~s industry. The insertion of ISO 9000 into NFPA 1971 will require a very expensive step for a number of companies that may or may not be beneficial. It will be even more expensive if 5 years from now NFPA changes its mind and decides to change quality program requirements. $. Insertion of ISO 9000 into NFPA 1971 could be considered a restraint of trade. It has been heard at NFPA me.etings that some of the larger companies are in favor of this in order to push out or keep out smaller companies and to make it very difficult for new companies to enter the arena either as prime manufacturers or suppliers to the prime manufacturers. The net result will be the squelching of innovation and reduction of competition. This will have a very definite detrimental long term effect on this industry. 4. The quality requirements are already well covered in Section 2-5. 5. The committee's reason for the rejection of Log #35 applies equally to this situation. C O M M r V r E E ACTION: Reject. COMMITI"EE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that ISO registration is a necessary part to assure compliant product cl R ~ All ^1 . . . . .. ~4P #1~ . . . . .^..." . . . . . . . . kl~ -k--II k . . . . . . .'__~1 ~ 2 ~.5 Unfi! 1 .~.~ch 2002, cr "-='.+-!+~e d z t : *~: .n'-~"~ac"~rer I. . . . . . . . . . . . l ~ .~.-:'.+^--^.4 C'-++ . . . . . . k~il . . . . ...1~1~1I., ..... +.s^+ . . . . . . . . .,,,.,:++h + ^ + + : ^ ~ £~.~ +I+,.^ c} K SUBSTANTIATION: Requirement of a manufacturer to obtain LSO registration is an unnecessary burden u p o n an industry with substantial checks/balances, testing and review. ISO registration and annual fee is very costly, excessive and burdensome. No data released to date would indicate nay increase in safety because of this registration. It would create a restraint of trade by placing the burden of the cost increase associated with the requirements of ISO that would effectively eliminate all but the largest manufacturers from the marketplace. Many new and innovated ideas could be eliminated from the fireservice because of this requirement. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C O M M I T r E E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-37 (Log #46). 469 NFPA 1971 - - F99 ROC considered compliant and thus offer no further value. For anyone who is interested, TPP a n d THL values would be readily available. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #157) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 40- (2-6.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 2-6.3 and renumber balance of Chapter. SUBSTANTIATION: Requirement for ISO 9002 registration for assembly of elements is redundant to requirement for ISO 9001 registration for the manufacturer. ISO 9001 (p 4.6, Purchasing; 4.6.2, Evaluation of Subcontractors; 4.6.4.1, Supplier verification at subcontractor's premises; 4.6.4.2 Customer Verification of subcontracted products; 4.8 Product identification a n d traceability;, 4.9 Process control; 4.10, Inspection and Testing, et al) mandates quality process and documentation controls which make the requirement for ISO 9002 unnecessary. The requirement for ISO 9002 registration may unnecessarily restrict the opportunities for an ISO 9001 registered manufacturer to use skilled partners in the provision of diverse products at reasonable costs to the consumer a n d authority having jurisdiction. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #155) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 44- ($-1.7): Accept SUBMITTER: NicholasJ. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Change minimum type size requirement from "2 mm" to "1.5 m m ' . SUBSTANTIATION: 1.5 m m type is legible, and requiring larger type drives larger and more cumbersome label size. T h e minimum requirement for all type size has heretofore been 1.6 m m and this is more than adequate. Labels using 1.6 m m type have been widely tested be h u m a n factor engineers a n d design focus groups and meet all requirements for legibility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #195) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #158) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 45 - ($-1.7): Accept SUBMITrER= Steven Witt, Cy-Fair Voi. Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete: $-1.7 TPP a.':~ THL ".:2uc: for :a=7...cntz c!emc~tz ~.nl-: SUBSTANTIATION: The THLb~x;d TPP labeling willbe misleading. Even if the garment has a THL and TPP label in it that was exact this will change in a short time due to general use, washing, ultraviolet exposure, a n d or chemical exposure to the garment. The labeling will or may give a false sense of security with the ongoing use of the garment. We are AGAINST the labeling. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 41 - (3-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-1.1 as follows: "Each element of the protective ensemble shall have at least one product label permanently located inside, and at least one product label shall be conspicuous when the element(s) are properly assembled with all layers and components in place. SUBSTANTIATION: As currently written, labels on all elements must be conspicuous when they are all assembled together. This is unnecessary, and diminishes the ability to design the elements in a rotects the labels. E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Curtis was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 29 April 1999 and asked the Technical Committee not consider this comment. (Log #226) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 46- (3-1.7): Accept SUBMITrER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete requirements for TPP a n d THL numbers on the garment product labels. SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement is too ambiguous and the numbers reported will always be changing, so that the information on the label will never be correct. The TPP test is required to be run on material composites as received and again after wash, and the value changes with each preconditioning. Which of these two values should be reported? The THL test is run after 5 wash/dry preconditioning cycles, and the n u m b e r will change after every one of the 5 wash/dry cycles. Any THL value reported on the label would not b e p e r t i n e n t until the garment has been washed and machine dried, which will never h a p p e n if the e n d user follows the manufacturer's instructions to not machine dry. Any information which was gathered from the label would not be pertinent until the n u m b e r of times the garment had been laundered was determined. Finally, since materials are notperfect, any of the values obtained by testing can and will change from test to test, from composite to composite, and from lab to lab. Given the variabilities of the tests, this information could become extremely confusing with different manufacturers offering the exact same composites, but providing values that are considerably different. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #104) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 42- (3-1.6): Reject SUBM1TrER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "3-1.6 The following compliance statement shall be printed legibly on the product label. The appropriate term for the element type - gx."m.zn'., coat. trouser, qoverall, helmet, glove, footwear, h o o d .... ". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies the requirement. "Garmenff is not a specific element term. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The term "garment is the defined term for coat, trouser, and coverall and is appropriate for label use. (Log #16) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 45- ($-1.7): Accept SUBMITTER= William Grob, Aldan Industries, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete: (j) (TPP) .~.-:d (THL) :v2uc: for (Log #242) Committee: FAE-SFF ~UBSTANTIATION: TPP and THL are not necessary to include on the label. By virtue of a garment being NFPA 1971 compliant, it has passed the minimum requirements established. Worse, numbers/values could be used for product marketing a n d be misleading to the e n d user. Due to overlap, trim, pockets, reinforcements, etc., true "garment elements" represent only a portion (<50%?) of the garment a n d refer to a design test r u n u n d e r static conditions. In the case of THL, a National Fire Protection Research Foundation study has shown physiological responses to heat stress are insignificant for garments that would be 1971- 47- ($-1.7): Accept SUBMITrER= MichaelT. Stanhope, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "3-1.7 The following information shall also be printed legibly on the product level with all letters at least 2 m m (1/16 in.) in height. (a) Manufacturer's name, identification, or designation (b) Manufacturer's address... (i) Cleaning precautions /:'~ 470 f'r'T)OX --~,.I I"T'I_J-T X =~1 .... C. . . . . . . . ~ ^! . . . . ~ ~1., n NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC garment constructed of other/additional layers beyond the three basic components that are tested for TPP and M V T . Time and again this committee has discussed the issue that these tests were designed to distinguish materials from one another, NOT whole systems. To put these values on the label will mislead the end users as they will equate these values to overall garment performance indicators. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: We do not understand the need to include these particular test values on every label of every garment certified to this standard. Specific concerns are listed below:. 1. The data requested on the label is readily available without this requirement. Section 2-4.$ of the standard already requires that "The manufacturer shall maintain all design and performance inspection and test data from the certification organization used in the recertification of manufacturer models and components. The manufacturer shall t)rovide such data. unon reouest to. the oruchaser or authoritv havimr iurisdiction." Also, the tracking system required by the standard in Section 2-2.9 makes the information easily obtainable in case of an accident investigation. 2. The TPP and THL on the label is unlikely to be the actual value for a garment that has been used. As determined through the efforts of this committee both TPP and THL values change as materials are worn. They probably change inconsistently. The values required by the standard are only snapshots of actual values over the life of a garment. Only testing the used garment will provide the true TPP and THL. the numbers on a label may not he meaningful. 3. Why are only these specific test results listed? Addingonly certain test results to the label is inconsistent. TPP and THL give only parts of a broad and carefully crafted set of requirements including vertical flammability, oven shrinkage, tear strength, etc. Are the other tests unimportant? If so, why are they included in the standard. 4. How does adding these particular values to labeling improve the safety of fire fighters? Minimum requirements for fire fighter ~.rotectlon are already included in the standard for ~I'PP" and THL'. Going over and above the minimum may be a marketing issue for makers of these garments, but we do not understand the impact of this label on fire fighter safety. 5. Adding the TPP value to the label may mislead the wearer. TPP is not the only indicator of thermal performance. In fact, results from TPP testing may be less reliable now, more than ever, as a predictor of protection. Certain materials have been developed that may essentially "trick" the test by producing slightly higher TPP values without providing more protection either during flashover of during routing operations and exposures. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #177) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 50 - ($-1.70)): Accept SUBMITrER: Diane B. Hess, Celanese Acetate - Advanced Fiber Materials COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ~The following information shall also be printed legibly on the product label with all letters at least 2 m m i n height: (j) TPP and THL values for garment elements only." Delete the entire (j) TPP and THL values for garment elements onlv.. SUBSTANTIATION: Believe that these values could be misleading or confusing to the end user. There is no designation that this value is for the base garments and does not reflect areas with pockets, under trim, etc. Nor does does the label impart the information if the values reflect pristine or after laundering (worn) conditions. Both test results are impacted by laundering/wearing and after time the values stated will not be representing the actual garment condition, potentially c~Ving the firefighter a false sense of performance. OMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #203) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 51 - ($-1.7(j)): Accept SUBMITTERa Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete: (j) (TPP) =,u~ (THL) ::2uc: for g~..--~cr,t c!cmz,';~ cr!7. SUBSTANTIATION: Delete $-1.7(j). Both TPP and THL values are derived from test methods that have variables which can cause the values to differ from test to test and lab to lab. Each manufacturer could show different values for the same composite and a manufacturer could have different values for certification and recertification. In other words, a manufacturer could have 5 TPP and 5 THL values; one each for certification (year 1) and one for each recertification year (4 years) of a revision's life cycle. Which TPP and THL value does the manufacturer put on the label? Does the manufacturer update the value annually that is printed on the label? If so, a fire deparunent could end up with gear in service that is of the same composites but showing a multiplicity of values. What the chief say to the man that has the lowest values shown on labels? COMMrVI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #57) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 48 - ($-1.7(j)): Accept SUBMITTER: Peter Wirth, FireGear Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: 3-1.7 (j) (TPP) :.rid (THL) =~u:.:. fez g~-mc.ntz c!c..-:cnt: ~.n!)'. SUBSTANTIATION: TPP and THL testin$ performed over the past year has shown that there is a large variation in test numbers especially with respect to Total Heat Loss values within the same lots of material composites using the same test apparatus. Also TPP and THL numbers change after washing. Stating these values on the product label would be inaccurate and misleading. Buyers of protective clothing should know prior to purchase what values of TPP and THL theyare specifying. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #243) C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 52 - ($-1.7(j)): Accept SUBMITTEI~ Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: ~$-1.7 The following information shall also be printed legibly on the product label. (Log #170) Committee: FAE,SFF 1971- 49 - (3-1.7(j)): Accept SUBMITTERa Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete item "(j)" requiring listing of TPP and MVTR values on garment label. SUBSTANTIATION: Inclusion of the results of some and not all performance criteria can lead to false conclusions, expectations and invalidated comparisons between systems. Results for any performance criteria do not belong on the garment label but should be presented as a package to the knowledgeable end user/authority having jurisdiction as part of the bid/selection process. Both of these tests are done on specimens of the composite and their correlation toperformance of the whole garment is not always direct. The design, fit, addition of trim, reinforcement, pockets, winter liners are just some of the items that can affect the performance of the whole garment for both of these criteria. It is not beyond normal to have 25 to 30 percent of the SUBSTANTIATION: • NFPA is a minimum performance standard with pass-fail criteria. It is therefore, illogical to single out THL and TPP for reporting on the labels. If one were to follow the logic of the proposed requirement, the next step would be to report on the label water penetration resistance of the moisture barrier or tearing strength of the component fabrics. • The TPP or THL value reported in the label will be for the composite tested during certification - - or will be the best result obtained by a manufacturer after repeated retesting - - and that is not necessarily the same value that would be obtained for the composite in the garment being received by the end-user. • There is a wide variation in THL (Total Heat Loss) values both between laboratories and within the same laboratory from one 471 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC tesdng date to the next (plus or minus nearly 15 percent). With such variability in results, little faith can be put in the significance of the THL number found in the label. Similarly, TPP results have a variability of plus of minus 5 percent. • The NFPA Breathability Study concluded that "...no significant differences in physiological heat stress response can be found in systems having total heat loss values within the range of 146 to 251 W/m2." It may, therefore, be irrelevant, and perhaps misleading, to report any THL number in a garment with a breathable moisture barrier. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. [ For compliance with NFPA 1971 this hood can only be used with I the above noted face~pleiece(s)'." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees but has modified the text to follow the same style for other product labels and to omit warning language. (Log #172) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 56 - (4-1.2.1, 4-1.2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete these paragraphs in it's entirety, and deleteprotective uniform term from definitions. SUBSTANTIATION: No aspect of the protective performance of the structural ensemble should be delegated to an element not under the umbrella of this document. Such a situation could create reduced levels of protection for the end user if the performance requirements of the independent element were to be changed. In order to preserve the co-dependency of all the elements of the ensemble to provide expected levels of protection, the performance of all elements must remain under one standard. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #259) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 53- (3-1.7(i)): Accept SUBMITTER: Douglas Dafter, Veridian Ltd. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENI~TION: Delete the following text: SUBSTANTIATION: Each garment labeled as being compliant with NFPA 1971 has met the minimum performance reqmrements of the standard. TPP and THL results are among the many performance requirements required by the standard. Rather than requiring the reporting of only TPP and THL on each garment label, the fire fighter has the option of requesting results of any, or all, of the performance tests performed on the materials used in the construction of their garment. It is also not consistent to require labeling of TPP for garments only, when the TPP test is also performed for other elements like gloves and hoods. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #183) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 57- (4-1.3): Hold SUBMITTER: William L. GriUiot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Garments shall have a means of securing the moisture barrier and thermal barrier to the outer shell in such a means as to permit the visual insnection of both the interior and exterior surfaces of each barrier." SUBSTANTIATION: The user must be able to access the barrier and tape portion of the moisture barrier and the insulation portion of the thermal barrier in order to inspect the barriers for damage (Log #264) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 54 - (3-1.7(i)): Accept SUBMITTEI~ Michael W. Wade, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete (j). SUBSTANTIATION: With the large variation in test results for TPP and particularly THL, within the same lots of material composites, using the same test apparatus makes this requirement invalid. In addition, the TPP and THL numbers change after washing. Requiring these test results to be put on the label of the garment will be misleading and inaccurate to the end user. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. and wear. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed dme frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #105) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #206) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 55 - (3-1.10 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: 3-1.10 For hoods only, the hood manufacturer shall add (k) to Pwiaragraph 3-1.7 if the hood face opening is designed to interface th a specific SCBA facepiece (see paragraph 4-5.4) as follows: 3-1.7(k) 1971- 58 - (4-1.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: -~'-" Snan tabs. hook and loon closures, a n d / o r zioners used to attach t h e l i n e r system at or adiacent to the end of a coat sleeve or trouser leg shall not be greater than 25 m m (1 in.) in length...". SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies requirement to reflect the acceptability of the constructions discussed by the Technical Committee members at the Raleigh and Charlotte meetings. Also, this requirement was not intended to apply to other attachment points within the garment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 4-1.4 to read: "4-1.4 ...within 75 mm ($ in.) of the bottom outer shell hems. The liner system shall be attached at or adiacent to the end of the coat sleeves or the end of the trouser let's. Any mechanism used to attach the liner system at or adlacent to the end of the coat sleeves and the end o f ~ e trouser l e ~ s h a l l not be creater than 25 mill (1 in.~ between the attachment ~oints. and shall not be expandable. Moisture barriers and thermal barriers...all closures." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee modified the text to include more specific language. This hood shall onlv be worn with SCBA faceDiece model name number T SUBSTANTIATION: A hood's face opening designed to be worn with a specific facepiece could be hazardous if worn with other SCBA facepieces. The label needs to warn the firefighter. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add a new 3-1.10 to read: "For hoods only, where the hood is designed to interface with a specific SCBA facepieee(s), the hood manufacturer shall add an item (k) to the items specified in 3-1.7." Add a new 3-1.10.1 to read: "The hood manufacturers shall designate the specific SCBA facepiece(s), model(s) and size(s) in that item (k)." Add a new 3-1.10.2 to read: "Where the hood is designed to be used with a specific SCBA facepiece(s), the h o o d manufacturer shall add to the hood product label the following statement: "This hood is designed to be used only with [INSERT SCBA FACEPIECEfSL MODEL(SL and SIZEfS~ HERE1 472 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC (Log #106) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #225) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 59- (4-1.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Snaps shall at ! e ~ t meet *2".er ~ : . r e m e n ~ cf F~te.~e~:, Sr.aF, be Style 2 and shall comolv with the design and construction reouirements of, cf .x/-S2798OE, F=te='.er, S.--.z~.MIL-F-10884F. The construction of the snap shall be permitted to wary from the drawings with regard to the attachment means and use of lo~os on the cans." SUBS~'ANTIATION: MIL-F-1084F contains additional requirements which are not relevant to the NFPA 1971 standard. By limiting the incorporation of the MIL sp.ec to design and construction requirements, additional flexibility is permitted without any loss to the NFPA minimum standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 62- (4-1.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to MIL-F-21849G, Fastener Tapes, Hook and Pile, Synthetic. In its place, insert the following: "Aramid'hook and pile fastener tapes shall not be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: This is intended to provide for specific performance requirements, rather than a general reference to a mii specification and is in keeping with TCC directive. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #5) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 65- (4-1.12.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Robert L. Jensen, SM COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Change to read: "...surface of !.%90 50 m m 2 / l i n e a r m m (2 in. 2/linear in.) of trim". SUBSTANTIATION: The English units were incorrectly converted to metric units. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #15) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 60- (4-1.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Kevin J. Canty, VELCRO USA INC. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: ..................... v~-, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : c~c A-A55126A. Commercial Item Description. Fastener tanes. Hook and Pile. svnthetic. SUBSTANTIATION: The U.S. Government is in the process of converting military specifications to commercial item descriptions. The commercial item descriptions require suppliers to provide products that are tested using industry standard test procedures (i.e., ASTM, AATCC) and that these products are defined and tested to commercial performance requirements and not construction requirements. These changes allow less control on the construction arf~ecUirements, more flexibility in physical requirements that don't t application needs, a greater ability to use environmentally safe dyes, and more emphasis on application performance (i.e., adding a peel strength test). This CID AA-55126 A will be published shortly and contains the following changes from the MIL-F-21840 G. Section 3.4.1 Modified by deleting the following sentence: "The hook tapes shall conform to the minimum requirements listed in Table 1 when tested as specified in 4.4". "Table I - Construction requirements for hook tapes (minimum). (This contains - "Hooks per linear inch of tape", "Picks per linear inch of tape", "Ground ends per tape", "Hook ends per tape"). Section 5.4.2 Modified by deleting the following sentence: "The tapes shall conform to the minimum requirements listed in Table II when tested as specified in 4.5". Table II Construction Requirements for the loop - DELETED. (This contains - "Picks per inch", "Ground ends per tape", "Loop pile ends per tape"). Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-62 (Log #225). (Log #131) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 64- (4-1.12.1): Reject SUBMITrER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text: A 1.12.1 T~r... ~ = ~ =c m=¢'. ~ = rein'mum "..-m pat=crn rc.~u'rzmem~ : ~ I ! h a " : r. m'~n'mum fiu:r.mzznt zu:Szzz : f 12W2 ................... ,............ in.) cf aim. SUBSTANTIATION: This section prohibits the use of a trim that is approved for EMS (two inch 3M triple trim). This trim would provide some cost saving, a weight reduction, and increase the breathability for our protective ensemble. There are two dominant suppliers for reflective trim - Reflexite and 3M. Both provide excellent products and have contributed to the fire service. I feel that reduced visibility at night presents a greater hazard than visibility restrictions during the daytime. The intent of the fluorescent color is to attract attention during the daytime. In observations with samples the fluorescent/retroreflective trim more easily nodced under all conditions. Two-inch fluorescent trim is ermitted, yet the two-inch triple trim is more easily noticed. I elieve that an ensemble completely covered with two-inch triple trim would not meet the standard. I propose that by deleting this section (4-1.12.1) the fire service will be provided an option that enhances our protective ensemble and increases competition among our suppliers. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The possible benefits outlined in the Substantiation do not outweigh the advantages of increased visibility. Visibility has been identified as a primary safety concern in risk based surveys performed relative to structural firefighting protective clothing. g (Log #107) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 61 - (4-1.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Fastener tape shall meet the nerformance requirements of MIL- . F-21840G, Fastener Tapes, Hook and Pile, Synthetic. Class 2 hook and pile fastener tapes shall not be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: MIL-F-21840G contains additional requirements which are not relevant to the NFPA 1971 standard. By limidng the incorporation of the MIL spec to performance requirements, additional flexibility is permitted without any loss to the NFPA minimum standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-62 (Log #225). (Log #6) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 65 - (4-1.12.2): Accept SUBMITFER: Robert L. Jensen, 3M COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Change to read: "...surface of !290 50 mm2/linear m m (2 in.2/linear in.) of trim". SUBSTANTIATION: The English units were incorrectly converted to metric units. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 473 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #2) Committee: FAF~FF (Log #129) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 69- (4-1.14.5): Accept SUBM1TTER: Robert L. Jensen, 3M COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-152 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Change paragraph 4-1.14.5 to read: "The trim configuration for the coat shall be in accordance with Figure 4-1.14.5. The minimum trim pattern for the coat shall :c,~z'z: ~.f have one circumferential band of trim or a staggered 360degree visibility pattern meeting or exceeding the surface area of a continuous circumferential band around the bottom of the coal Where a staggered nattern is used in the lower circumferential trim band. the lower edge of the unver trim piece shall not be higher than the upper edge of the lower trim piece. The lower edge of the circumferential band on the lower part of the coat shall be within 25 mm (1 in.) of the coat hem's highest point. The front of the coat shall also have at least one band of horizontal trim at the chest level. No vertical stripes of trim shall be permitted on the front of the coat. The back of the coat shall also have a minimum of either two vertical stripes of trim, perpendicular to the bottom band and with one strip located on both the left and right sides of the back of the coat, or a minimum of one horizontal band of trim at the chest/shoulder blade level. The minimum trim configuration for each sleeve shall be one circumferential band, or a staggered $60degree visibility pattern meeting or exceeding the surface area of a continuous circumferential band, between the wrist and elbow level. Where trim on the coat intersects a tipper, a maximum gap in the trim of 25 nun (1 in.) shall be permitted." SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes clarify how the design requirement is to be achieved. COIVlMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 66 - (4-1.14): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-132 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Add new text: "Thermal reinforcement shall be provided in the shoulder area. The reinforcement shall measure approximately 6.5 in. in length; width of the medial aspect shall be approximately 6.5 in. tapering to a width of approximately $ in. at the lateral aspect. These dimensions are based on a size 40 coat and shall be properly raded proportionally for all other sizes." UBSTANTIATION: I support extra thermal padding in the shoulder area to compensate for the compression from the SCBA. I also support the CCHR testing as required in 5-1.25 and specified in 6-51. I believe that a loophole may exist in the text of 5-1.25. If reinforcements were not utilized, would a garment be exempt? NFPA 1500, 5-2 Protective Clothing for Structural Fire Fighting does not address shoulder padding. It appears that this document (1799 Report on Proposals) addresses performance and testing without requiring a design. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). ~ (Log #173) Committee: FAE-SFF " 1971- 67 - (4-1.14.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 4-1.14.$ Coats shall have a composite collar at least 100 mm (4 in.) in height ~it any point, measured from the top of the collar down to the collar neck seam. Coats shall have closure system. (The collar and closure system shall consist of an outer shell, a moisture barrier, and a thermal barrier, or of materials that meet all applicable performance requirements as specified in Section 5-L SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph gave a starting point for measuring the collar but not an end point. Addition of the words "to the collar neck seam" should better address the intent of this paragraph. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Submitter, Ms. Brehm is a member of the Technical Committee and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 30 April 1999 and asked that this comment not be considered. (Log #108) C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 70 - (4-1.14.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971452 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text: 4-1.14.5 (Add to the end of paragraph) "Where a staggered S66degree visibility pattern is used, the staggered tiers of trim shall touch. ~ SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies intent of requirement by preventing a separation of staggered tiers. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-69 (Log #2). (Log #185) Committee: FAF~FF (Log #184) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 71 - (4-1.14.6, 4-1.14.7): Accept SUBMITTER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-13~ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text: 4-1.14.6" In order to label a protective coat or coverall as corn.pliant with this standard, the manufacturer shall provide, as a minimum, mens and womens chest sizes, in increments no greater than 50 nun (2 in.), and sleeve lengths, in increments no greater than 25 mm (1 in.), in the ranges as specified in Table 4-1.14.6. (Table is shown below.) 4-1.14.7 Mens and womens siting shall be accomplished by mens and womens individual patterning. 1971- 68- (4-1.14.3): Accept SUBMITrER: William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L NO: 1971-132 I llECOI~iENDATION: Revise text: "Coats shall have a composite collar at least 100 m m (4 in.) in height at any point when measured from the top of the collar down and shall have a dosure system. The collar a n d closure system...~. SUBSTANTIATION: Does not read well as written. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Chest Sleeve Waist Inseam Table 4-1.14.6 Available Coat/Trouser Size Ranges Mens Womens ' 865 mm - 1525 m m 710 m m - 1270 m m (34 in. - 60 in.) (28 in. - 50 in. / 820 mm - 965 mm 710 m m - 865 mm ($2 in. - $8 in.) (28 in. - $4 in.) 760 m m - 1525 mm 710 m m - 1270 mm t30 in. - 6O in.) I~S in. - 50 in.) 660 m m - 915 mm 610 mm - 865 mm (26 in. - 36 in.) (24 in. - 34 in.) 474 Increments 5Omm' 2 in.~ 5 mm I(2I in.) in.) 0 mm 50 mm (2 in.) N F P A 1971 m F 9 9 R O C (Log #186) Committee: FAE-SFF Add new Appendix item to read: A-4-14.6 Goat length is not addressed in this document as it must be determined by the individual donning both coat and trouser and proceeding through the directions contained in NFPA 1500 to insure adequate overlap between the coat and trouser. Overlap is a significant safe~ issue and can be best addressed by careful overlap evaluation and insuring only those coat/trouser combinations are worn that are recommended by the manufacturer of those ensemble items. SUBSTANTIATION: Garment sizing is not addressed within the standard. All other elements - - helmets, gloves, and boot sizing are addressed within this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 75 - (4-1.15.4, 4-1.15.5 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: William L Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: 4-1.15.4 In order to label a protective trouser or coverall as compliant with this standard, the manufacturer shall provide, as a minimum, mens and womens waist sizes, in increments no greater than 50 m m (2 in.), and inseam lengths, in increments no greater than 50 mm (2 in.), in the ranges as specified in Table 4-1.14. 4-1.15.5 Mens and womens sizing shall be accomplished by mens and womens individual patterning. SUBSTANTIATION: Garment sizing is not addressed within the standard. All other elements - - helmets, gloves, and boot sizing are addressed within this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #303) Committee: FAESFF 1971- 72- (4-1.14.6, 4-1.14.7 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER= Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-18 RECOMMENDATION: The TCC directs the TC to revisit the issue of garment sizing and the sizing requirements that would provide consistency with other elements in this document as well as other documents in this Project. SUBSTANTIATION: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-71 (Log #185) and 1971-75 (Log #186). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #304) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 76 - (4-1.15.4, 4-1.15.5 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-20 RECOMMENDATION: The TCC directs the TC to revisit the issue of garment sizing and the sizing requirements that would provide consistency with other elements in this document as well as other documents in this Project. SUBSTANTIATION: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-71 (Log #185) and 1971-75 (Log #186). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #302) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 73 - (4-1.14.6, 4-1.14.7, 4-1.15.4, 4-1.15.4 (New)): Accept SUBMITEER: Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-17 RECOMMENDATION: The TCG directs the TC to revisit the issue of garment sizing and the sizing requirements that would provide consistency with other elements in this document as well as other documents in this Project. SUBSTANTIATION: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-71 (Log #185) and 1971-75 (Log #186). COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #202) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 77- (4-1.17 (New)): Reject S U B M I ~ R : Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text 4-1.17 Comnression areas or other desimaated areas of the ~arment nrotective ensemble comt~osite shall be permitted to include a v a n o r barrier comnonent. See Public-comment on definition of Vapor Barrier. SUBSTANTIATION: The establishment of a new ~heat loss" requirement which relies solely on the use of highly vapor permeable moisture barriers dictates the need for a liquid and hot vapor impermeable material for use in compression areas or other areas where scale and hot vapor or gas burn injury are a concern. See supporting material that accompanied prevtous public comment for adding a new definition for vapor barrier. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Nothing in this document would prevent a manufacturer from using this method in a compression (Log #156) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 74- (4-1.15): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:. "Thermal reinforcement shall be provided in the knee area. The reinforcement shall measure approximately 8.5 in. in width and approximately 10 in. in height. It shall be placed such that the knee is completely covered when the wearer is kneeling or crawling. While in a crawling position the patella shall be centered in the reinforced area. These dimensions are based on a trouser with a $6-in. waist and a 34-in. inseam. The dimension of the reinforcement and its exact placement shall be graded as needed to assure complete coverage for all other sizes." SUBSTANTIATION: I support extra thermal padding in the knee area to compensate for the compression from the wearer. I also support the CCHR iesting as required in 5-1.23 and specified in 651. I believe that a loophole may exist in the text of 5-1.25. If reinforcements were not utilized, would a garment be exempt? NFPA 1500, 5-2 Protective Glothing for Structural Fire Fighting does not address knee padding. It appears that this document (F99 Report o n Proposals) addresses performance and testing without requiring a design. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). area. (Log #26) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 78 - (4-2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITEER: Michael J. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-2.1 A sample helmet shall have at least the applicable design requirements specified in this section where inspected by the certification organization as specified in Section 2-3. The ~ertification ort,anization shall reuort on the compliance of the samnle helmet to all of the Desitm Reouirements-snecified in Section 4-2. SUBSTANTIATION: The current standard does not require the certification organization to report on the results of the inspection of the Design and Labeling requirements, only the Performance Requirements. COMMIT]FEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. I evise 2-3.5 to add a new second sentence to read: "The certification organization shall report on the compliance of each element to each design requirement specified in Chapter 4 for that element." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The text is more appropriate in Section 2-3 where it will apply to all elements. 475 NFPA 1971 ~ (Log #32) Committee: F ~ F F F99 ROC at least one full revolution on the centr'dl vertical axis and is viewed form a vosition level with a~)" m=glc ---tc.r ~.~ovc the reference plane and at a distance of 2.44 m (8 ft). 4.2.6.2 A minimum of 26 cm2 (4 in.2) of the fluorescent area of the trim shall be constantly visible when the helmet, with the faceshield/goggle component in the stored position, is rotated at least one full revolution on the central vertical axis and is viewed from a Dosition level with a=y =~g!c ~ or = ~ ; ' c the reference plane and at a distance of 2.44 m (8 ft). SUBSTANTIATION: "When this subject is discussed with some manufacturers and some testing laboratories, there seems to be confusion over exactly what the requirement is for the visibility of retroreflective and fluorescent trim on helmets. I believe the intent is that no matter which way a firefighter is facing, and observer should be able to see four square inches of trim on his helmet. This proposal is intendL-cl to clarify this issue. I also believe that if a manufacturer modified a helmet or adds and accessory to the helmet, the modification or accessory can not interfere with the visibility of the trim. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMII1T.E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-80 (Log #$9). 1971- 79 - (4.2.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kerry W. Gordon, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-2.4 The helmet, with faceshield/goggle component(s) stowed, shall provide peripheral vision clearance of at least 105 degrees to each side of the midsagittal plane -::~er¢ ae2.tz~ when positioned according to its helmetpositioning index on the .......... r . . . . . . . . . . . . v. . . . . . . . . . . Alderson 50th percenale male headform soecified in Fimare 6-17.4.1.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Change in verbiage to make sentence agree. Change to Alderson from ISO ']" to agree with 4.2.7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 4-2.4 to read: 4.2.4 The helmet with faceshield/goggle component(l), stowed, shall provide peripheral vision clearance of at lest 94 degrees to each side when measured from the center of the eye with the helmet positioned according to its helmet positioning index on the Alderson 50th percentile male headform specified in Figure 617.4.1.1. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The Committee agreed and added text to specifically fix where the measurements are made. (Log #22) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 82 - (4-2.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: MichaelJ. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-2.7 The faceshield/goggle component, when deployed in accordance with its helmet eye/face-positioning indexes on an Alderson 50th-percentile male headform specified in Figure ~I.~./.A. . .I . .1 4-2.7, shall provide at least the following field of vision where measured from the center of the pul~il. SUBSTANTIATION: For clarity and consistency in testing, the ISOJ Headform in Figure 4-2.7 was replaced with the Alderson 50th-percentile male headform. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-8~, (Log #77). Committee: ( L / ~ E ~ 1971- 80 - (4-2.6.1, 4-2.6.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Cy Long, Texas Comm. on Fire Protection COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Chapter 4 Design Requirements. 4-2 Protective Helmet Design Requirements. 4-2.6.1 A minimum of 2580 m m 2 (4 in.2) of the retroreflective area of the trim shall be visible when the helmet, with the faceshield/goggle component in the stowed position, is viewed from r,n)" tragic the back or either side. at or above the reference plane at a distance of 2.44 m (8 ft). 42.6.2 A minimum of 2580 m m 2 (4 in. 2) of the fluorescent area of the trim shall be visible when the helmet, with the faceshieid/goggle component in the stowed position, is viewed from =n7 ~.ng!c the back or either side. at or above the reference lane at a distance of 2.44 m (8 ft). UBSTANTIATION: Some traditional style helmets with an identification shield do not allow for a helmet to have a minimum of 2580 m m 2 (4 in.2) of the fluorescent area at the reference plane perpendicular to the front of the helmet. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 4-2.6.1 and 4.2.6.2 to read: 4-2.6.1 A minimum of 2580 m m 2 (4 in.2) of the retroreflecfive and fluorescent trim shall be visible above the reference plane when the helmet, with the faceshield/goggle component in the stowed position is viewed: (a) At the left intersection of the coronal plane and the reference plane at a distance of 2.4 m (8 ft). (b) At the right intersection of the coronal plane and the reference plane at a distance of 2.4 m (8 ft). (c) At the rear intersection of the midsagittal plane and the reference plane at a distance of 2.4 m (8 it). 4-2.6.2 A minimum of 2580 ram2 (4 in.2) of the retroreflective and fluorescent trim shall be visible when the helmet, with the faceshield/goggle component in the stowed position, is viewed at the intersection of the midsagittal plane and the coronal plane at a distance of 2.4 m (8 ft). COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees and added specific evaluation criteria to the text. ~ (Log #77) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 83- (4-2.7): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "The faceshield/goggle component, when deployed in accordance with its helmet eye/face-positioning indexes on an Alderson 50th percentile male headform specified in Figure 6-17.4.1.1, shall provide at least the following field of vista ~ n :;~crc when measured from the center of the eye: (a) A dihedral angle of at least 85 degrees (b) An upper dihedral angle of at least 10 degrees (c) A lower dihedral angle of at least 40 degrees." SUBSTANTIATION: Since the method for performing field of view was change to use the Alderson head, the pass/fall must be changed to reflect the method. The existing pass/fail is based on using the [SO headform for field of view, this revision provides pass/fail based on the Alderson headform. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #23) Committee: FAE~FF 1971- 84 - (Figure 4-2.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITFER: Michael J. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Replace the ISO J Headforrn in Figure 4-2.7 with the side (Figure 6-17.4.1.1) and top profiles of the Alderson Headform. T h e figures of the Alderson headforms must containplanes L and K, and a depiction of the requirements specified[in paragraph 4-2.7(a), (b), and (c). Planes L and K must be fully dimensioned. SUBSTANTIATION: The Reference (L) and Basic (K) planes on an ISO Headform should correspond to the Reference and Basic (Log #41) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 81 - (4-2.6.1, 4-2.6.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kenneth R. Ethridge, Texas Commission on Fire Protection COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-2.6.1 A minimum of 2580 m m 2 (4 in.2) of the retroreflective area of the trim shall be constantly visible when the helmet, with the faceshield/goggle component in the stowed position, ~ rotated 476 NFPA 1971 m F99 ROC (Log #$3) Committee: FAF_~FF Planes on the Alderson Headform. Since the helmet is being placed on the Alderson headform, all figures and dimensions should reference that headform, not the ISO J headform. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-83 (Log #77). 1971- 88- (4-2.9): TCC NOTE: The TCC action on this Comment is to change the TC action to ".accept in Principle ~ as follows: Accept in Principle, Revise 4-2.9 to read: 4-2.9 Where helmets are provided with a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) faceplece that is attached or integrated with the helmet, the helmet, with the SCBA facepiece installed, shall meet all applicable design and performance requirements o f this standard. It is not appropriate for this standard to dictate how another standard (in this case, NFPA 1981) would require an item to be tested. The TC should concern itself with how the helmet will be tested as a element o f the structural fire f l g h t i ~ ensemble. The TCC's modified text provides the correct direction for evaluating this helmet element if provided with an SCBA facepiece. SUBMITTER: Kerry W. Gordon, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-2.9 Where helmets are provided with a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facepiece that is attached or integrated with the helmet, the helmet, with the SCBA facepiece installed, shall meet all applicable design and performance requirements of NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service and NFPA 1971. Standard on Protective Ensemble for S~ructural Fire Fighting. SUBSTANTIATION: The present text reads as if the helmet must only meet the requirements of NFPA 1981. Added verbiage darifies intent. COMMYFrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #78) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 85 - (Figure 4-2.7): Accept SUBMITI'EI~ Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Figure 4-9.7. SUBSTANTIATION: The ISO headform is no longer used to measure field of view for helmet faceshield/goggle components. This figure should be deleted since it is no longer relewant to the test method to be utilized. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #79) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 86- (4-2.8): Accept SUBMITrER= Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ~(a) 95 m m 92.5 nun where measured 50 m m forward of the coronal plane (b) 102m..:.. 117.5 m m where measured 25 m m forward of the coronal plane (c) !~0 r...m 127.5 m m where measured at the coronal plane (d) I ~ mz. 127.5 m m where measured at the midsagittal plane at the rear of the headform." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, distances were rounded when taken from the public proposal and inserted into this draft of the document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #53) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 89- (4-3.2): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Larry Horn, Portland Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-67 RECOMMENDATION: Add a sentence: "If the ~love is made UP of multinle layers, all layers of the ~love shall be individually minded t)er size." SUBSTANTIATION- This wording was accepted by the Technical Committee, but omitted from the Report on Proposals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #8) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 87- (4-9.9): Reject SUBMITTER: Kees Smeehuyzen, CQF Helmets, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-139 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: 4-9.9 Where helmets are provided with a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facepiece that is attached or integrated with the helmet, the helmet, with the SCBA facepiece installed, shall meet all applicable design and performance requirements of NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Serf-Contained Breathing Apparatus for the Fire Service, with exception of the partial eye and face nrotection. SUBSTANTIATION: The standard NFPA 1981 and NFPA 1971 do not have the same requirements for the faceshield of a mask and a helmet. There is no substantiation to hold the faceshield of a helmet to the higher requirements of the SCBA mask, when the mask is attached or integrated with the helmet. The issue has reviously been discussed at the NFPA committee meedng in ortland in July 1998 and met no objection from the committee members. Was it an error that the text remained unchanged or was it not referred to the NFPA 1981 committee? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The provisions applying to testing of SCBA, which a helmet that incorporates an SCBA facepiece would become a part of, is u n d e r the jurisdiction of NFPA 1981. (Log#06) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 90- (4-3.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-29 I RECOMMENDATION: Add a sentence: "If the glove is made up of multiple layers, all layers of the glove shall be individually graded per size." SUBSTANTIATION: See 1971-29 in the Report on Proposals. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #205) Committee: FAE-SFF ~ 1971- 91 - (4-3.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Oaange paragraph 4-3.2 to read: "Gloves shall consist of a composite of an outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner. This composite shall be permitted to be configured as a single or multiple layers." SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 4-3.2 as currently written with the words continuous or joined imply that removable and replaceable glove components or composites are not permitted. This implication is design restn'ctive. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Nothing in the ROP text would restrict what the submitter is requesting. 477 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC (Log #58) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #266) Committee: FAF_.~FF 1971- 96 - (4-4.8.9): Hold SUBMITrER: Peter Wirth, FireGear Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-4.8.2 Manufacturers shall be required to establish sizing =rid F r c ; ' ~ : f:.r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . : ^ - ~---" for each model or style of protective footwear based on toe length, arch length, and foot width as measured on the Brannock Scientific Foot Measuring Device. SUBSTANTIATION: Under the current standard manufacturers of footwear are required to provide upon request a conversion chart for each style or model based on the Brannock Measuring Device. Getting proper fit is an issue with a few of the footwear manufacturers since the last NFPA revision, because they aren't required to size using the Brannock Scientific Foot Measuring Device. Requiring all footwear manufacturers to use this nationally accepted measuring device as a means to size their footwear would eliminate a lot of the sizing problems that we are seein[g in the field. Brand A's size would be the same as brand B's size. This would also eliminate some manufacturers that provide the required three widths but don't provide a narrow size, to manufacture using this accepted device as the base line for sizing. Some of the footwear manufacturers already use this system. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITYEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. 1971- 92 - (4-$.$): Accept SUIhMITTER: Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 4-$.B The sample glove body, not including a gauntlet or a glove wristlet, shall extend drcumferentiaUy not less than 50 mm (2 in.) beyond the wrist crease where measured from the tip of the middle finger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~, . . . . . . r ...... ~, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBSTANTIATION: The determination of "close fitting" is highly variable and subject to interpretation. Deletion of the wording as specified limits evaluation of the glove to objective information, omoting better uniformity in testing and certification practices. e "dose fitting' issue would be dealt with in the market by the users as necessary. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #267) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 93- (4-3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: ~4-3.4 ...the sample glove body and the gauntlet or a glove wristlet shall extend circumferentially at least 75 m m (3 in.) beyond the SUBSTANTIATION: The determination of "close fitting" is highly variable and subject to interpretation. Deletion of the wording as spedfied limits evaluation of the glove to objecfve information, omoting better uniformity in testing and certification practices. e "dose fitting" issue would be dealt with in the market by the users as necessary. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #70) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 97 - (4-4.8.2): Hold SUBMITrER: Michael F. McKenna, Sacramento County Fire, CA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-4.8.2 Manufacturers shall be required to establish and provide stzmg ~ r . . . . "1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for each model or style of protective footwear based on toe length, arch length, and foot width as measured on the Brannock Scientific Foot Measuring Device. SUBSTANTIATION: Getting the proper fit is a serious issue because manufacturers are not required to use the Brannock Scientific Foot Measuring Device. Every manufacturer's boot fits slightly different. 4-4.8.1 requires manufacturers to provide sizing in half size increments and in three widths. There is no requirement to make narrow boots. Siting and width sizing is completely discretionary to the manufacturer's. If the Brannock Scientific Foot Measuring Device is required then all boots of the same size will be comparable for fit. A few manufacturers use the device while others simply size the boots, narrow, medium and wide or extra wide. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #97) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 94 - (Table 4-3.5.3): Accept SUBM1TTER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Table 4-$.5.3(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) sizing for gloves. Change cm to mm in Table. SUBSTANTIATION: Document uses m m not cm. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. C (Log #166) ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 95 - (4-4.3.1 (New)): Hold SUBMITTER: Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept~, VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new 4-4.3.1 to read: "Footwear height shall be no greater than 400 m m (16 in.) for men's boots and no greater than 350 m m (14 in.) for women's boots." SUBSTANTIATION: Numerous manufacturer's have recognized that women as a group are shorter than men and consequently have shorter legs than men. A standard 16 in. boot is too tall for the average woman and cuts into the lower thigh when crawling, kneeling and stooping. Once boots meet the minimum height of 8 in. there is no need to increase the height to a point where it becomes a liability and a hindrance to performance. Limiting the height will not reduce performance or safety levels and may help improve performance and reduce fatigue. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed b y t h e Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #167) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 98 - (4-4.8.3): Accept SUBMITTER= Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 4-4.8.$ to read: "Full and half sizes, in each of the three rec~uired widths, shall be accomplished by individual and unique men s and women's lasts to provide proper fit." SUBSTANTIATION: It is my belief that the intent of the committee was to have men's and women's boots made on unique lasts. It has become evident not all manufacturer's are adhering to this intent as some do not even list women's sizes for some models and at least one manufacturer has "unisex" siting with a men's size and a comparable women's size printed on the boot. It seems that clarification of the committee's position is needed to insure all manufacturer's clearly understand the expectations of the committee. Research with the Brannock company dearly shows there is NOT a direct correlation from a men's size to a truly 478 NFPA 1971 - - comparable women's size. It may be possible to match overall foot length but the arch length and the width will not match. It appears that it is not possible to "match all three parameters (length, width and arch length) in the same boot. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. F99 ROC SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification of the design requirement to be placed on "accessories'. CO MITIT_~ ACTION: Hold. COMMrlTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed tame frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #40) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 99 - (4-8, 4-8.1, 4-8.2): Hold SUrBMITTER: Cy Long, Texas Comm. on Fire Protection COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following in Chapter 4 Design Requirements: (Log #140) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 102- (Chapter 5): Accept SUBM1TrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "specimens of" or "specimens" throughout the chapter. The exception is paragraph 5-1.4.4. SUBSTANTIATIOlq: NFPA 1971 Is currently inconsistent with the style of other standards. The term s p e d m e n should be relegated to Chapter 5 on Test Methods. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. er~c:n.hlc :h~'-2nc.: "ntcffcrc ;;-'~h"..hafun:'d~n ~f t.hc c!c.-..cn: .~r ;;nth ".hc func~en cf za7 cf ".hc ='cmcnt 'z ccrn..Fcncn~ Fa=zz. . . . . . l~l-- ^1~^11 _~+ A^--A^ +I..^ A ^ . : - - ^ . I _-^~^.+1 . . . . SUBSTANTIATION: With regards to above two sections there are some accessories and materials being added to an element of protective clothing that are not being testing or can not be tested uniformly be a certification organization in accordance to the above two sections. I have been told by some certification organizations that this is due to subjective test methods leaving it up to the discretion of that certification organization or the lack of a test method(s) in some cases. It also appears when asking about some accessories and or materials and if testing has been done, the response is no and or maybe with the element clearly marked with a certification organization mark. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #42) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 105- (5-1.x): Reject SUBMITrER: Theodore J a r b o e / R o n Fornatora, Montgomery Cnty Fire and Rescue Service, MD COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: None• SUBSTANTIATION: The Montgomery County (MD) Fire and Rescue Service supports the proposed total heat loss (THL) test, and the proposed associatedTHL value of not less than or equal to 115 W / m 2, for firefighter's personal protective clothing. This test and corresponding value are proposed as 1971-34 of NrFPA 1971, F99 Report on Proposals. It is our opinion that using a higher or lower THL is ultimately the decision of the local fire department, the "end user," but that this threshold THL value s h o u l d n o t exceed the proposed value of 115 ,i.~--_W/m.2"The specification of our protective clothing system is such tha~ we exceea m e proposed THL value while maintaining a thermal protective performance (TPP) value of 46 to 48. In our opinion protective clothing systems must strive for an acceptable balance between a desired THL value and a reasonable TPP value. The total heat loss data suggest, for some protective clothing systems, an inverse relationship between THL a n d TPP. That is, as the THL value increases, TPP correspondingly decreases. It is recognized and accepted that most of the incidents responded to by firefighters are EMS related. As a result, some authorities advocate that protective dothing should be more comfortable a n d less thermally protective. W h i l e comfort and an eflident sweat-evaporative system are very important to firdighters' personal protective clothing, caution is advised so as to not forget the potential impact of a reduced thermal protective performance (TPP) value. Reducing the TPP will correspondingly decrease escape time for the firdighter should he or she get caught in a dangerous reliever or deadly flashover. Escape time is defined as the difference between the time the firefighter experiences pain a n d the time to a 2nd-degree bum. The NFPA 1971 test criteria for TPP is predicated on protective clothing system samples exposed to a constant heat flux of 2 cai/cm2-sec. It is important to note here that full-scale field tests have indicated that heat fluxes could reach 4 cal/cm2-sec, or double the value required by NFPA testing of protective clothing. As a result, the escape dine could be dramatically reduced, with a higher probability of 2nd degree burn. To lower the TPP values will increase the probability of firefighters receiving serious b u m s when in the environment of a reliever or flashover. However, in the more commonly encountered incidents, where the heat flux values are substantially below the 2 cal/cm2-sec test exposure, firefighters also sustain serious bums. While firefighters cannot regulate the heat release rate of a developing, uncontrolled fire, they can attempt to control heat stress through frequent crew rotations, re-hydration, rest and medical monitoring. Also, thermally loaded (from fire exposure) protective clothing should be removed as quickly as possible. Although eat stress and rigorous physical activity are debated as being major factors contributing to fatal heart attacks among firefighters, there appears to be opposing views as to which one is the prevalent factor. Some authorities argue that a firefighter's level (Log #20) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 100- (4-8.1, 4-8.2): Hold SUBMITrER: Michael J. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-8.1 Any accessories attached to any element of the protective ensemble shall not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •-~+..h~he .~-nc~cx , f ~_nyef the e!ement': cc.mFcne~t F~'~_- prevent the element, or element comnonent harm. from meeting all of the Desima Reuuirements soedfied in Chanter 4. 4-8.2 Omit entire p a r ~ r a p h from Section 4-8. SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 4 lists the design requirements for each element of the protective ensemble. The design requirements for elements with attached accessories, which are listed in Section 4-8, do not specify that the accessory shall not affect the element's ability to meet the design requirements. This requirement should be added to Section 4-8. Paragraph 4-8.2 spedfies the performance requirement of an element with attached accessories. Any performance requirements for accessories should be listed in Chapter 5: Performance Requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed lame frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #35) Committee: FAE-,SFF 1971- 101 - (4-8.1, 4-8.2): Hold SUBMITIT_~ Kerry W. Gordon, Calms & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 4-8.1 - - v . . . . . . . . . . All accessories shall be designed that. when attached to any element of the protective ensemble they shall not interfere with the function or performance of the element or with the function or nerformance of any of the element's component parts. 4-8.2 Delete entirely and move to "Performance Requirements" as 5-7. A . . . . . . . . . . --: ^. 479 NFPA 1971 m F99 ROC used a series o f different physical tasks involving varying levels of work b u t characterized overall to be in the moderate to high work levels, as def'med by other researchers. The study employed seven different fire fighter test subjecls who were instrumented for continuous, real-dine monitoring o f core temperature, skin temperature, and heart rate through a telemetry system. Data were collected everynine seconds for each o f the 98 separate evaluations. T h e test s ubj ect nude weight loss and clothing sys tern weight gain were also measured. In addition, the participating fire tighten subjectively rated the clothing systems for different characteristics periodically during the work period. Both physiological and subjective data from this testwas compared to garment and material sys tern characteristics to determine if any relationship existed. For both work protocols, differences in physiological responses were consistent with the total heat loss values of the material s3stems evaluated. For example, regression analyses showed with greater than 90 percent confideme (based on the t-statistic for the slope of the regression line being greater than 2.5) thattotal heat loss can be used to predict core temperature rise, skin temperature rise, nude weight loss, and system wei~ghtgaitx This is true for both the extrication and ladder companysimulations. In addition, ofail of the independent variables studied, total heat loss is the b e s t o n e to use because it explains more of the differences in physiol ogical responses than a n y o f the other i n d e p e n d e n t variables. This regression also shows, in the case ofsubjective responses, that garment weight was the most sigrfificant independentvariable because it explains more of the differences o n subjective responses than other independent variables. This was true for the subjective responses of wearing comfort, heat sensation, heaviness, flexibility, and fatigue. However, for the subjective response o f moisture sensation, lubricity, or the smoothness o f the thermal barrier liner, accounted for the majority of variation. The results o f the IAFF study empha6 cally support the use of the total heat loss testas performance requirement for establishing acceptable tradeoffs between clothing thermal insulation and stress reduction. Study results show that the total heat loss test provides a more significant accotmt for the impact o f clothing on physiological stress on the fire fighter than any other garment or material system variable. The study also showed how reliance on subjective results al one coul d lead to incorrect findings since subjective ratings relate m ore to garment weight than other clothing or material system characteristics. An examinati on of heart rate established that work levels experienced by fire fighters during the study constituted moderate and high work rates. Since physiological differences were shown to be statistically significant during these work levels, the study supports that diiferences in protective clothing material system total heatloss mayactually be demonstrated at higher work rates than previously believed. Based on this study, the IAFF proposal for a minimum total heat loss o f 905 W / m ~ will provide better physiological responses for fire fighters wearing protective clothing. This requirementcreates both a realistic goal for lessening the stress effects of protective clothing o n the fire fighter and establishes the total heat loss test as a valuable tool in the fotme design of protective clothing and selection o f material systerns. of physical fimess is the single most important predictor of susceptibility to a heart attack. Others believe that heat stress arising from the inability of the firefighter to evaporate sweat at a rate suffident to keep the body core temperature below dangerous levels is the main factor. It is important to state that we strongly support proposals that enhance firefighter safety and welfare. However, we believe that local fire/rescue departments should have the latitude to decide what combination of comfort and TPP values are the most appropriate for their firefighters. Again, it is a matter of keeping desired comfort and heat stress (THL) in an acceptable balance with needed TPP. Finally, we must emphasize that if a substantially higher THL value is used in the standard, it could result in unnecessary higher costs for protective clothing and in reduced TPP values. We encourage manufacturers to continue with product research and development toward protective clothing systems that meet both optimal THL and TPP values. Heat stress reduction and reasonable thermal protection should be the ultimate goal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: No recommendation given. See Committee Action on Comment 1971-106 (Log #44). (Log #305) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 104 - (5-1.x (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEPa Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-34 RECOMMENDATION: The TCC directs the TC to reexamine the total heat loss requirement issue. The TCC feels that the Committee Statement provided by the TC does not adequately address and reflect the technical data resented by two independent studies, one conducted by the ternational Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), and the second conducted by the National Fire Protection Research Foundation (NFPRF). Both studies were conducted for the sole purpose of providing technical information to the TC regarding total heat loss. Additionally, it was reported to the TCC that the reference data for total heat loss of material composites following laundering was not distributed to all TC members. Since this seems to be a pivotal portion of the Committee Statement for justifying the minimum total heat toss value of 115 W/m2 contained in the TC action, the TCC directs the TC to provide more expansive technical or scientific data as documentation on this matter to justify the 115 W / m 2 value proposed by the TC. The TCC thinks that if the target total heat loss is intended to be 140 W/m2, the unwashed value should be 15 to 24 percent higher, because the process of washing will decrease the "breathability'. The TC applied the correction of 13 to 24 percent lower, resulting in the 115 W/m2 value proposed in the TC action, and this will reduce the "breathabifit)/' rather than retain the target value. Given the TC'sjustification, the total heat loss value should be 170 W / m 2 for unwashed material. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee Statement in the TC ROP differs with the recommendations and substantiation provided in the public proposals submitted on this issue and it is imprrtant for the TC to be extremely clear on their reasons for their action. The TC should document their action in light of the findings from the studies by the IAFF and NFPRF. The TCC is providing the Executive Summary of the IAFF study and the synopsis of the NFPRF study as a part of this ROP for blic review. Full copies of these reports are available from the PA. NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION RESEARCH FOUNDATION Fire Fighter Protective Clothing Breathability Research Project SYNOPSIS The North Carolina State University's state-of-the-art climate chamber was used to conduct wear trials to evaluate the heat stress and comfort of six NFPA 1971 compliant protective clothing systems with measured sweating hot plate heat loss values ranging from 97 to 251 watts/m~. Seven career fire fighters from the City of Raleigh, North Carolina Fire Department participated in these studies. Two different wear tests were performed to simulate different climate conditions, levels of work activity and clothing and equipment variables. One protocol featured light to moderate work activity in a mild climate [21°C (70°F), 65 percent RH] with the fire fighter wearing protective coat and trousers over a station/work uniform and underwear. A separate study was conducted to determine the heat stress experienced by fire fighters performing moderate work activities in a warm environment [39°C (102°F), 35 percent RH]. For this protocol, fire fighters wore the total protective ensemble as well as a helmet, hood, gloves, and SCBA. Objective and subjective measures of human psychological and physiological response were applied to quantify and to rate IN TERNATIO NAL ASSOCIATI ON OF FIRE FIGHTERS Field Evaluation of Protective Oothing Effects on Fire Fighter Physiology: Predictive Capability of Total Heat L~iss Test EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To evaluate the predictive capabilities of the total heat loss test, a multi-F~rtstudywas undertaken bythe IntemationalAssociation of Fire Fighters (IAFF) within the Indiampolls Fire D.eparunent to measure the physiological effects o f clothing corn prlst rg seven different material systems with a range of total heat loss values fi-om 96.5 to 439 W / m ~. Two differentl-hour work protocols were established for simulating both a vehicle extrication activityand the fire ground operations of a ladder company. Each work protocol 480 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C and reduced tolerance time to work in heat. Subjective ratings show that the 97 watts/m R system is perceived to be hotter with greater sensations of skin wetness than the other test protective clothing. All of the ~warm" experiments, regardless of the garment worn, proceeded to a point where every fire fighter complained that he could go no further giving full meaning to the parameter referred to as ~work tolerance time". The average 6.8 minute (13 percent) advantage, observed for garments ranging from 146 to 251 watts/m e in heat loss values was significant. No decisively significant differences in physiological heat stress response can be found in systems having total sweating hot plate heat loss values within the range of 146 to 251 watts/m Y. protective clothing performance in several categories. The following observations can be made: Mild Environment Protocol [21°C (70°F), 65 percent RH] • Physiological heat stress limits are not approached, regardless of the ~breathability" of the protective clothing composite. At low work loads, in a mild environment, core temperatures increase less than 0.6°C (I°F). No significant differences are seen in measured core temperature or heart rates that can be correlated with differences in protective clothing breathability. • For mild conditions, differences in protective clothing breathability surface at the comfort level: sweating plate heat loss values correlate with measured indexes that associate with protective clothin[g comfort performance (higher sweating plate scores correlate vath lower skin temperatures and less indicated buildup of moisture vapor in the protective clothing microclimate). However, fire fighters can decisively perceive and differentiate among composites on the basis of comfort sensations only in the case of the composite having the lowest total heat loss (QT - 97 waus/m~). Statistically si~mificant differences in comfort performance can be related to feehngs of warmth and skin wetness that occur in wearing protective clothing system #4. • System #4 produced the highest accumulation of sweat and lowest level of sweat evaporation through the clothing to the ambient environment. This factor undoubtedly contributed to the heightened sensation of skin wetness experienced when wearing this garment system. Caveat These scientific findings strictly reflect the specific laboratory test conditions chosen for the experiments. Wear test variables, including environmental temperature and humidity, work loads, and clothing a n d equipment variables are known to have major effect. Conclusions regarding the contribution of the composite "breathability" to protective clothing heat stress or comfort performance can vary, depending on the assumptions of the test conditions. Practical application of any laboratory observed differences related to system "breathability" must ultimately" depend on fire fighter use conditions, a n d prudent considerauon of the wide range of additional factors known to contribute to or alleviate fire fighter heat stress problems. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: In response to the TCC's direction, Technical Committee members were instructed during the Technical Committee's January 22-24, 1999 meeting to review the IAFF a n d NFPRF Studies and the TCC's note in the ROP. In addition, several members of the Technical Committee attended the IAFgs presentation on their Study during the Fire Department Instructors Conference. During the Technical Committee's Report on Comments meeting the findings of both Studies and all of the Public Comments received on is issue were extensively discussed. The Technical Committee agrees that both Studies clearly demonstrate t h a t breathable protective garments provide significant benefits. There were, however, concerns about the increased variability in test results associated with laundering.. In response to these concerns and the Comments that were received on is issue, laundering was removed as a preconditioning requirement. There were also concerns about the variability of the test. These concerns were addressed as follows: The IAFF Study recommended a minimum performance requirement in the 170 W / m 2 to 210 W / m 2 range. Public Comment 1971-109 (Log #138) proposed a performance requirement of 170 W/m2. The IAFF Study also indicated that there was an error of:t:15 W/m2. When this is applied to the roposed 170 W / m 2 the adjusted value is 155 W/m2. The echnical Committee was also presented with information that indicated that the Total Heat Loss Test has an inter-laboratory standard deviation ranging from 8.8 W/m2 to 25.7 W/m2 as reported in ASTM F1868, the test method used for measuring total heat loss. By applying the additional uncertainty of 23.7 W/m2, 150 W / m 2 is a conservative and reasonable minimum performance requirement. In addition, the NFPRF Study demonstrated a benefit between an impermeable ~non-breathable~ composite with a total heat loss (THL) performance of approximately 100 W / m 2 and permeable ~breathable ~ composites with THL performance values starting at 146 W/m2. The 150 W/m 2 performance requirement falls within this range. Finally, the Technical Committee did n o t feel that at this time there was a significant demonstrated difference in the benefits of composites with THL performance values that exceeded 130 Warm Environment Protocol [39°C (102°F), 55 percent RH] • For moderate work in heat there is no statistical significance to the slight differences observed in either core temperature or exercise heart rate and protective clothing breathability. minu'est Mean skin temperatures did not differ during the first 15 of work, but thereafter, garment system #4 exhibited significantly higher skin temperatures [but limited to 0.3 to 0.9°C (0.5°F to 1.6°F)] than any of the other garments. There was no correlation between mean skin temperature and sweating plate scores for any of the other garments. • Work tolerance time for garment system #4 was significantly less than for any of the other garments studied. The actual difference was about 6 minutes or about 13 percent less than the average for the other garments. (Note: Work tolerance time in these experiments was predominately subjective, but correlates well with mean skin temperature). • There is no significant difference, relative to sweating plate scores, in any of the objective physiological indices of heat stress during the first 50 minutes of work under these environmental conditions. Thereafter, only mean skin temperature is higher for garment system #4, and all other garments exhibit the same skin temperature - regardless of sweating plate values. • Several statistically significant subjectively perceived comfort disadvantages were associated with wearing system #4. Subjective response data show that system #4 was perceived by wearers to be hotter and to produce significantly greater sensations of skin wetness, than other protective clothing systems. • As in the mild protocol, system #4 produced the highest accumulation of sweat and lowest level of sweat evaporation through the clothing. This finding correlates with the subjective perception of higher skin wetness m this garment system. However, the total grams of sweat that evaporated through the most "breathable" turnouts averaged less than 1Opercent of the total sweat secreted during the warm climate experiments. Although measurable and statistically significant, even if this volume of sweat evaporated in a manner efficient enough to provide some cooling, it would be insignificant with respect to protecting the body from cumulative heat stress. ~ W/m2. This study shows that the guarded sweating hot plate test can be used to predict a minimum level of total heat loss that correlates with diminished protective clothing performance in some categories of heat stress and subjective comfort performance. Sweating plate test scores differentiate at the lowest level of heat loss measured among NFPA 1971 compliant protective clothing systems (97 watts/mY). Differences in the physiological heat stress performance of the 97 watts/m R system are not indicated by core temperature, but they are indicated by higher skin temperatures The end result of the Technical Committee's actions on all of the ~Breathability" related Public Comments that were received was to remove laundering as a preconditioning requirement and raise the minimum performance requirement from 115 W / m 2 to 150 W/m2. See also the Committee Action on Comment 1971-106 (Log #44). 481 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #62) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #125) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 105- (5-1.2, 648): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "5-1.2 ...Section 6-48, Whole Garment Liquid Penetration Test,...'. 6-48 Whole Garment Liquid Penetration Test. SUBSTANTIATION: To provide a more definitive identification of the whole garment procedure, and to differentiate this test fi'om the various material tests. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 108- (5-1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Sandy Harris, Greenville Fire/Rescue Dept., NC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: At a minimum, the value should not be less than 142-146 w / m 2 if in fact there is a 20 percent drop after reconditioning. UBSTANTIATION: Laundering of a garment must be considered for testingto be valid. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-265 (Log #45), 1971-106 (Log #44), 1971-266 (Log #191), and 1971-267 (Log #224). g (Log #44) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #138) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 106 - (5-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire a n d Rescue Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: 5-1.$ Total Heat Loss Test, a n d shall have a total heat loss of not less than !!5 ;;'/m 2 146 w / m 2. SUBSTANTIATION: Heat stress continues to be the leading cause Of fire fighter injuries and fatalities. Based on the NFPA Research Foundation Technical Report dated August 1998 findings of 146-251 watt/m and the International Association of Fire Fighters report on Total Heat Loss Test dated December 1998 findings of 170-210 watt/m. I recommend that 146 watt/m2 test variables be set as the minimum, which allows for variations between testing plates a n d in material composites. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. I Change the value in the recommendation from 146 W / m 2 to 150 W/m2. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Technical Committee agrees that breathable protective clothing benefits fire fighters. There were, however, concerns about the variability of the test method. To compensate for this variability, the submitters proposed performance requirement of 146 W / m 2 was reduced to 150 W / m 2 . A performance requirement of 130 W / m 2 will still provide breathable garments for the fire service. See also Committee Action on Comment 1971-104 (Log #$05). 1971- 109- (5-1.3): Reject SUBMrITER: Richard M. Duffy, Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 5-1.3 Specimens of garment composite consisting of outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal barrier shall be tested for c:xp~..~;'c h : = Lmn~'f=r total heat loss as specified in Section 6-$4, Total Heat Loss Test, and shall have a total heat loss value of not less than t 4 g 170 W / m 2 . SUBSTANTIATION: The current proposed requirement provides little benefit for achieving improvements for reducing the stressrelated impact of fire fighter protective clothing. Furthermore, the proposed requirement has no basis in either o f the two physiological studies performed to study the stress-related aspects of fire fighter protective clothing as related to total heat loss. The proposal of 115 W / m 2 was set through negotiation and for the rotection of products in the marketplace without regard to fire ghter health and safety. Based on the IAFF Indianapolis Field Study, we determined that there is a range of optimum benefits to fire fighters in reducing clothing stress by using total heat loss measurements. From our study, a range of 170 to 210 W / m 2 was determined, with 170 W / m 2 representing the optimum total heat loss value for the extrication exercise and 210 W / m 2 representing the ladder company exercise. These values are the breakpoint value for where the maximum benefit for increasing material system total heat loss would be achieved (these relationships are shown graphically on pages 70 and 71 of the IAFF report.) The breakpoint value is the predicted total heat loss where the greatest benefit to the fire fighter is achieved. There is less benefit for lower values, while for higher total heat loss values the law of diminishing returns applies. Because our study was limited to two different exercises, there are actually a large n u m b e r of possible optimum values. However, since this is the only information of its kind, we recommend the more conservative limit of 170 W / m 2 as the m i n i m u m performance requirement. Any omer recommended performance requirement outside this range would be purely arbitrary. The IAFF Indianapolis Field Study represented a carefully designed study and an extensive evaluation of fire fighter protective clothing with the intent of determining which clothing factors could best predict the physiological responses of fire fighter test subjects performing actual fire ground tasks. The task work imposed on the fire fighter varied in intensity and duration and mimicked activities that fire fighters would be expected to undertake. Based on the variables examined, total heat loss values reliably predicted fire fighter physiological response with greater than 95 percent confidence. The IAFF's position is that the total heat loss requirement must be set at a value that provides improvement in the heat stress reduction of protective clothing as based o n physiological study, We believe that we have accomplished this, providing justification for a requirement that is reasonable and that can be credited with improving the health and safety of fire fighters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-265 (Log #43), 1971-106 (Log #44), 1971-266 (Log #191), and 1971-267 (Log #224). ~ (Log #56) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 107- (5-1.3): Reject SUBMITTER= Peter Wirth, FireGear Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 5-1.3 e~^~: . . . . . ¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . :,.:~-^¢ ....... --^.'.* *^.*~A .... 1-.---; . . . . A *k . . . . 1 k~----;^..k~ll k^ £. . . . . . ~.^. . r~*;"~ ,.. . . . . . . . . , *.^^., . . . . c - ^ . , . . . . t.^_ 1!5 ;.'/m 2 Snecimens of garment moisture barriers shall be tested for Vanor P'ermeabilitv and shill be vanor vermeable as snecified in Section 6-$4 in accordance with ASTM E-96 test method. SUBSTANTIATION: ff the committee's intent is to eliminate the non-breathable moisture barriers from this standard, the proposed ASTM E-96 is a simple cost-effective test to accomplish that. Additional breathability studies conducted in 1998 by NFPA and the IAFF again found a significant difference between breathable and non-breathable moisture barriers, with regard to comfort a n d core temperature. The correlation between the breathable barriers at low to moderate work levels is not significant enough to warrant the proposed Sweating Guarded Hot Plate test. I would like to remind the committee that this standard is a minimum standard, and users of protective clothing have the option to specify products that exceed the requirements of this standard. COMMrIq'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee disagrees with the submitter and believes that the composite rather than just the barrier material must be tested fro heat loss in order to achieve a meaningful value in order to address heat stress. See also Committee Action on Comment 1971-265 (Log #45) and 1971-106 (Log #44). .~.^,, 482 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC (Log #192) Committee: FAE-SFF impossible to build the garment and impossible for fire departments to purchase the product. Remember that fire departments pay for this testing with every suit purchase. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITIT~ STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-114 (Log #14), 1971-265 (Log #43), 1971-106 (Log #44), and 1971-107 (Log #56). 1971- 110- (5-1.3): Reject SUBMI~ Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "5-1.3 Specimens of garment composite consisting of..., Total Heat Loss test, and shall have a total heat loss of not less than W / m 2 165 W / m 27 SUBSTANTIATION: Based on the Ladder Simulation of the IAFF/Indianapolis Field Study (and of the available research, this is the study with the best ability to discriminate amongensembles), the smallest difference in ensemble Total Heat Loss (THL) values that fire fighters were able to physiologically discriminate was 65.4 W / m 2 for core temperature measurements at 96 percent confidence. [Table 18 - General Linear Model Analysis of Simulation Exercise for Relation of Ending Core Temperature Rise by Ensemble - Ladder Simulation; For comparisons with p-values less than .05, Ensembles 3 and 2 have the smallest THL difference (i.e., THL#3(207.0) - - THL#2(141.6) = 65.4 W/m2).] Therefore, 65.4 added to 100 (the nominal value for the low end of the THL range of garments in the industry) = 165.4 W/m2, using pristine samples. At 99 percent confidence, the smallest difference able to be discriminated was 103.8 W / m 2 (Ensembles 3 and 5), which when added to 100, would generate a minimum value of 204 W/m2. Additionally, and again at 95 percent confidence, the FF were not able to physiologically discriminate ensembles separated by 45 W/m2. (compare p-values for Ensembles 1 and 2, and Ensembles 3 and 4). Therefore, in order to set a minimum performance requirement that will produce a statistically and physiologically valuable improvement in heat stress reduction for fire fighters, a minimum value no lower than 165 W / m 2 is justifiable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-265 (Log #43), 1971-106 (Log #44), 1971-266 (Log #191), and 1971-267 (Log #224). (Log #254) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 112- (5-1.$): Reject SUBMITrER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-58 RECOMMENDATION: No proposed change in wording. SUBSTANTIATION: Southern Mills supports the total heat loss requirement as currently proposed in the Report on Proposals for the following reasons: Extensive testing has revealed substantial variability in the measurement of total heat loss. Experts have testified that this method does not tell us all we need to know about breathability comfort, and heat stress. While studies have shown an advantage in breathable systems they have not substantiated the need for a high total heat loss requirement. We are sadsfied that 115 minimum sets a conservative initial requirement which will mandate breathable ensembles while encouraging further study of this method and its resulting database. COMMITIT, E ACTION: Reject. COMMrrl"EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-265 (Log #43), 1971-106 (Log #44), 1971-266 (Log #191), and 1971-267 (Log #224). (Log #249) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 115- (5-1.3): Reject SUBMITrER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Specimens of garment composite consisting of outer shell, moisture barrier and thermal barrier shall be tested for evaporative heat transfer as specified in Section 6-$4, Total Heat Loss Test, and shall have a total heat loss of not less than !!5 xA~/.'..~140W/m2". SUBSTANTIATION: There is an error in reasoning in setting the minimum requirement at 115 W / m 2 to allow for a decrease in THL values after preconditioning. Both the IAFF and NFPA studies showed that garment ensembles with THL values of 140 W / m 2 and higher provided stress-reducing benefits over garments with THL values of approximately 100 (i.e., neoprene). The garments used in these two studies were unwashed. If in fact, washing reduces the THL performance the minimum performance requirement should be 140 W / m 2 after ore-conditioning and never 115 W / m 2, whether before or after preconditioning• COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Cochran is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 1 May 1999 and asked that the Committee not consider this comment. (Log #194) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 111 - (5-1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Steven Witt, Cy-Fair Vol. Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 5-1 3 e~^.: . . . . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . :..:__ ^c . . . . . . . ~.^,, o~^J.2 ~^w:ca t~'^.2~ V.z^~I~--~ c.f 7.c.t !c-.~ "~^..x 1 !5 W / m ~. Specimens of ~trment moisture barriers shall be tested for vanor nermeabilitv in accordance with ASTM E-96 test method and shall not have a Total Heal Loss of not less than 115 W / m 2 through nrevious or alternate testing. SUBSTANTIATION: How does a THL value of 115 W / m correlate to TPP values? THL is inversely proportioned to TPP. It follows that a high THL value could reduce the desired TPP levels below that departments want. Since the NFPA breath ability study indicates no correlation between THL and core temperature, the proposed standard for THL is unnecessary and provtdes no real benefit. THE CFVFD switched from non-breathable neoprene to breathable moisture barrier. We have also increased our minimum TPP values from 89 to 60+. We have experienced no significant heat stress problems or seen any reductaon in j o b effectiveness or work time tolerance. We believe that there is a balance between TPP and j o b effectiveness. We also believe each department should be able to choose their moisture barrier and thermal liner to meet their j o b requirements and the current NFPA standard. NFPA should be a basic minimum and not a standard which takes decision away from the fire departments. The standard should stay at 115 W / m 2, with a test method of ASTM E-96. We are AGAINST the proposed change. NFPA should be careful! I know testing is for the good of the fire fighter. But testing is starting to be redundant and resulting in contradicting results. NFPA needs to come u p with a few good tests with certified labs so the results can be comparable. NFPA is going to cause so much redundant testing, it will be almost (Log #14) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 114- (5-1.3, 6-$4): Reject SUBMITIT_,R: William Grob, Aldan Industries, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-34 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs in entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: T h e p r e m i s e of this requirement is predicated on lowering firefighter heat stress at low to moderate work levels. Recent testing conducted by the National F'tre Research Foundation at N.C. State measured physiological responses on live subjects (firefighters) in low and moderate work environments utilizing a range of compliant systems with total heat loss values (Qt) ranging from 97 to 251 w/m2. Physiological responses such as core temperature and heart rate were found not to be discriminating factors between systems in either of the two test protocols. For instance in the mild environment protocol, the maximum rise in core temperature varied between .41 - .54°C. In the warm environment test protocol (~225 w / m 2 ave work rate), 483 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC COMMII~I'EE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. the maximum rise in core temperature ranged between .95°C to 1.28°C. The differential of ".3°C was not judged to be significant (ref pg $$) in discriminating between the efficiency of garment systems. In a 1988 study sponsored by the IAFF in Indianapolis, systems with a broader range of heat loss values were evaluated including non-compliant ones with low and very high Qt's. Two live test protocols were run designed to simulate an extrication routine (280 watt work rate target) and a more strenuous ladder company exercise (400 watt workrate target). The difference in the average peak core temperature rises between the lowest compliant system (Qt = 9.65) and the highest (Qt = 252) was .11°C for the extrication simulation (total AT peak = 1.36 and 1.25°C) and .40°C for the ladder company simulation (total AT peak = 1.47 and 1.07°C). When comparing a non-compliant system with a total heat loss value Q t " 112 (close to current Report on Proposals level) with the highest compliant system (Qt = 252) and with both systems otherwise similar in weight, thickness, and TPP, the difference in the average peak core temperature rises were .02°C and .29°C for the extrication and ladder company simulations respectively. None of these comparisons demonstrate significant enough differences for their being effective discriminators for reducing heat stress for the firefighter at low to moderate work levels. Other factors to consider when comparing breathable (Qt ~ 115) and non-breathable systems (Qt < 115) include the direction of future design development as well as other inherent qualities of a ~iven system. Eliminating the possibility of the using an impermeable moisture barrier may prove to be design restrictive for new systems to alleviate heat stress such as passive cooling and phase change technology. Recent studies in the area of Low Heat Flux Thermal Protection (LHTP) show in some instances and conditions, an impermeable moisture barrier can provide better protection over a permeable one in preventing steam bums. This is not a heat stress issue at low and moderate work levels and a Total Heat Loss requirement should not be mandated in a minimum standard. T h e choice should be left up to the end users as to which garment configuration best fits their particular conditions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-106 (Log #44) and 1971-104 (Log #$05). (Log #187) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 117- (5-1.4.1): Hold SUBMITTER~ William L Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-1.4.1 for labels. SUBSTANTIATION: Flame resistant (FR) labels are now available within our industry and should be used in an FR garment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMrrrEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can nbt be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #141) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 118- (5-1.10, 5-2.12, 5-$.8, 5-5.7, 5-6.6): Reject SUBMrrrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "All sewing thread udlized in the construction of garments shall be made of an inherently flame-resistant fiber and specimens of sewing thread shall be tested for resistance to melting as specified in Section 6-11, Thread Melting Test, and shall not melt below 260°C (5OO°F)." SUBSTANTIATION: Changes recommended for consistency in performance requirements language. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-102 (Log #140). (Log #171) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 119 - (5-1.12): Accept SUBMITTER= Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the last two sentences in 5-1.12 in the Report on Proposals. Create a new 6-1~.7 and place testing instructions currently found in 5-1.12. 6-12.7 Specific Requirements for Testing Protective Garments. 6-12.7.1 Where configured as individual barrier layers, specimens of garment moisture barriers, thermal barriers and winter liners, whereprovided, shall be tested. 6-12.7.2 Where one or more of these barriers are configures as a single barrier layer by bonding or laminating individual barriers together so that the individual layers do not retain their individuality and are not separable, they shall be tested as a composite. SUBSTANTIATION: Specific instructions for clarifying testing eCimens should be relocated to test Chapter 5. MMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #263) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 115 - (5-1.$, 6-34): Reject SUBMITTER: Michael W. Wade, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete performance requirement 5-1.3 and referenced test method 6-$4. SUBSTANTIATION: There does not appear to be any supporting data that indicates that this test will have any significant benefit to the end user, i.e., the fire fighter. According to test run by Southern Mills there is a wide disparage of the test data. There was a minimum of 16 percent variation in the test results on the identical composites tested on the same apparatus. There was a 27 percent variation on the same composites on different apparatus in different locations. With such a wide discrepancy in this test there appears to be no scientific data available at this time. No scientific laboratory would ever accept any data with such a wide variance in the dam. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-106 (Log #44) and 1971-104 (Log #305). (Log #250) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 120- (5-1.12): Accept SUBMITTER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "...and shall have a tear strength of not less than 2.27 kg (5 lb) 22 (Log #214) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 116- (5-1.4, 5-1.4.2): Hold SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the padding from the list of items to be tested in 5-1.4 and add padding to the list in 5-1.4.$. SUBSTANTIATION: There are items used in boots and gloves which protect the fire fighter but because they are inside the item they are not exposed to the flame testing. Also, elastic, hook and pile fasteners are not subject to the flame test unless they come in contact with the wearer's skin (see 5-1.4.3). COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. N ~5 lbf~,". SUBSTANTIATION: Kilograms (kg) are a unit of measurement of mass. Newtons are the correct unit for force (1 lb F = 4.45 N). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 484 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-127 (Log #109). (Log #127) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 121 - (5-1.12, 5-6.7, 5-6.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "5-1.12 ...of not less than 2.27 kg (5 !b)." 22 N (5 Ib0. "5-6.7 ...of not less than 23 kg (59.5 !b)." 225 N (50,6 Ibf). "5-6.8 ...and shall have a ~ u ~ : breakin~ strength of not less than 18.5 kg (!9.7 !b). 181 N (40.7 ibf)." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction/units were incorrect. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #251) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 126- (5-1.18): Reject SUBMITrER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-114 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "...shall not have more than g045 percent water absorption..." SUBSTANTIATION: Round robin testing conducted independently at 5 labs revealed extreme variation in results when using the dynamic water absorption test. The minimum level of performance should be increased to reflect this broader range of test results. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-127 (Log #109) and 1971-239 (Log #'235). (Log #251) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 122 - (5-1.13.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 5-1.13.1 "...demonstrate a sewn seam strength equal to or greater than 575 N 667 N (150 lbF) force for Major A seams ~ 7 . 5 N S M N (75 IbF) for Major B seams and...". SUBSTANTIATION: The conversion factor for lb F tp N used was 4.50 instead of 4.448. The difference is significant. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #109) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 127- (5.1.18, 6-26): Accept SUBMITrER: Thomas L. WoUan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 I RECOMMENDATION: 5-1.18, 6-26 Water Absorption Resistance Test. Delete this performance requirement and test method and utilize the water absorption resistance criteria a n d method specified in the 1997 edition. SUBSTANTIATION: No evidence has been presented that the proposed method offers any improved product discrimination or reproducibility. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #252) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 123- (5-1.14): Accept SUBMITrER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 5-1.14 "... and shall have a minimum water penetration resistance of !.75 kg/~.--m.~ 172 kPa (25 psi)." SUBSTANTIATION: kPa are the correct si unit for pressure (1 psi = 6.895 kPa). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #253) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 128 - (5-1.19): Accept SUBMITrER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 5-1.1.9 %. shall have a breaking strength of not less than ~ . 6 kg 623N (!~0 .w,"--~(1~9 .~,'k~(140 IbF).SUBSTANTIATION: The correct unit (SI) for force is Newtons. In the U.S., the unit is Ib F not lb. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #215) Committee: FAF.-SFF 1971- 124- (5-1.15, 6-28): Reject SUBMITrER= Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph 5-1.15 and Section 6-28. SUBSTANTIATION: This requirement gives the user a false sense of protection from chemicals exposure and chemical attacks. With the new effort by the Federal Government to develop protection from chemical warfare attacks this false sense will increase. These garments are not chemical protection garments. Because of neck openings and materials hoods are made from these garments rovide limited splashprotection at best. OMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Chemical and biological terrorism agents are clearly identified and the requirements for protection are covered in NFPA 1991 and the proposed NFPA 1994. None of the chemicals listed in the test method are considered to be chemical or biological terrorism agents. Paragraph 1-1.4 in the Scope also reinforces that this document does not provide requirements for all biological agents or from all hazardous chemicals. (Log #189) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 129- (5-1.22): Hold SUBMrrrER= William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add a requirement for the degree of fluorescence in trim and a test method. SUBSTANTIATION: Fluorescence is required for trim but there is no test or pass/fail criteria+ COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed tame frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #188) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #65) C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 125 - (5-1.18): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William L Gdlliot, Morning Pride Mfg Co. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Retain the old water absorption test. SUBSTANTIATION: Not enough data has been presented to the committee for a realistic evaluation of the new test or a pass/fail to be set. The few reports I have seen show a 2 - 2 1 / 2 times difference in percent absorbed between the old test this new test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. 1971- 130 - (5-1.23): Accept in Principle SUBMITI3ER: Sandy Harris, Greenville Fire/Rescue Dept., NC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: What constitutes the shoulder area or knee area of a garment? There needs to be a more descriptive definition as one garment manufacture may say it's 2 x 2 and another 4 x 4. SUBSTANTIATION: None. C O M M I T I T ~ ACTION: Accept in Principle. 485 N F P A 1971 . - - F99 R O C COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). SUBSTANTIATION: Certain composites of outer shell, moisture harrier and thermal liner are thicker, hea~ier and more insulating than others. The CCHR performance re.guirement however, ignores this possibility and mandates additional insulation at reinforced knees and shoulders of a garment irrespective of how much thermal insulation the baseline garment composite is offering. Not only is this illogical it also goes against efforts to reduce garment/induced heat stress. The following is an example of this problem (all CCHR ratings are hypothetical). * Let's assume that the Nomex Omega lay-up (one of the thinnest NFPA compliant systems) has a baseline garment composite CCHR rating of 20 seconds (at 0.5 psig compression). furthermore, let's assume the the shoulder area of the same combination, but with extra thermal padding, when also compressed at 0.5 psig, has a CCHR rating of 30 sec. but a CCHR rating of only 20 sec. when compressed at 2.0 psig. • On the other hand, let's assume that Basofil/Breathe-Tex/Q-9 baseline garment composite, when tested at 0.5 psig, has a CCHR rating of ~0 sec. Furthermore, Let's assume that when the same baseline composite is compressed at 2.0 psig the CCHR rating is 20 seconds. • Clearly, in this hypothetical example, the Basofil garment composite achieves the same conductive and compressive heat resistant (CCHR) as the thinner Nomex Omega ensemble can only achieve at the reinforced shoulders. • However, despite this equality of Basofil baseline composite with Omega shoulders, NFPA will require the addition of yet more thermal insulation to the shoulders (and the knees) of the Basofil ensemble. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITEEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Cochran was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 2 May 1999 and requested that this comment not be considered. (Log #64) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 131 - (5-1.23): Reject SUBMITTER: Sandy Harris, Greenville Fire/Rescue Dept., NC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Change the compressive factors so that they are equal for all areas of the garment. SUBSTANTIATION: A firefighter might have any area of his garment compressed during a fire. He may be on his knees, his back, face down, carrying equipment on his shoulder, etc. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Adding the CCHT requirement to the entire garment would significantly add to wearer heat stress and the weight of the garment. The Committee is applying the CCHT to areas compressed by the SCBA straps and by kneeling. Purchasers can e x p a n d t h e s e areas or the insulative protection b y writing such requirements in purchase specifications. (Log #204) C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 152- (5-1.23): Reject SUBMITrER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197~-152 RECOMMENDATION: Add baseline ~'arment comnosite so that the first line reads: "Specimens of the baseline t,arment comnosite and specimens from the reinforced shoulder area, etc." SUBSTANTIATION: Testing of the baseline composite consisting of the outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner establish the pass/fail criteria for the reinforced should a n d knee areas. COMMITI"EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Terms "baseline garment composite" or any baseline values are not used in this text. C 1971- 135 - (5-1.23): Reject SUBMITTER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971+152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: :h:'atdcr =.tea r . ~ fr=m +~c rc'nfcrc:~ ".~ec ^..:= :h+~t be tc:t:~ for (Log #211) Committee: FAE-SFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +it.+. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.,.~,~^_ ~-. I ~ 1 t"l+__A...+: . . . . . ..1 ~ . . . . . . . :..+ "IL]'~* D--t.+ :~ 1971- 155 - (5-1.25): Reject SUBMITIER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-36 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word rci:f.~rcc~. Change the last sentence to read, by adding: "10 seconds creater than" between the words "than" and "the" so that it reads: "CCHR, and shall have a CCHR rating of not less than 10 seconds greater than the baseline garment CCHR rating composite." SUBSTANTIATION: Current wording, implies that if knee or shoulder area or other compression area are not reinforced with external reinforcements or extra internal padding no testing is required. Need to close this loop hole. Also, if compression areas are identical composite as baseline all areas would pass with equal results, etc. This loop hole can be closed by changing the fail criteria from less than to not less than 10 seconds greater for compression areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI~E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-295 (Log #157). IIt'~PUOX . . . . . . . . . . . . IPP[JDX +. . . . T^^+ ~--J .-I , I t ' + ~ AI..~.: .k.ll +l+r.~ + ^ 3 ~ ' . . . . . I.+.. . . . . . . . AI . . . . ". I -. ". . . ppT...IO +.,I 1. . . . . . . . . :.,^ -++:--_ I-.^~ ~^+ .k--ll k ..... PPIL~['I __,~--+ ~P _^+ !+.. [~ . . . . . . . . . +k~ +k^ Scope of NFPA 1971- (Log #247) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 136- (5-1.25): Reject SUBMITTER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: :hc-.:!~c. ==c" ^._~ £==..~ +~= :c'~.~c=:::~ "..~==c ^..:.M_-=h~J.2 ~= =:.:ted4.r e : k+ll +~,~rr. ~¢ +--+-I F99 Report on Proposals states "This standard specifies the minimum design, performance, and certification requirements...~ By setting a performance requirement that is relative to the performance of the baseline garment composite--irrespective of what that composite is--NFPA is creating a relative performance reauirement instead of a minimum one. A performance requirement cannot contradict the scope of the standard? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Cochran is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 2 May 1999 and asked the Committee not to consider this comment. 1971- 134- (5-1.23): Reject SUBM~ Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-1~2 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: -^.:^+ '~P+.+ SU-i~¥~-~'6~/;'$-~p-h+i:i]o}~he (Log #245) Committee: FAE-SFF +h^..l.,:l (Log #246) ommittee: FAE-SFF k~ +^+++,4 . . . . . . . I^.. +I+,.--- ~ + SUBST~A~IATION: • There is no definition in the standard of what constitutes "the reinforced shoulder area" or " the reinforced knee area." (not for reinforced, not for shoulder area, not for knee area). Are they a minimum 4 in. x 4 in. 4 in. x 8 in.? Where do they being and end? ,7__+i~^~ ÷h+ 486 NFPA 1971 ~ • It is illogical to have an additional performance requirement for the knee and shoulder areas of a garment if they are reinforced but not if they are not reinforced. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Cochran is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 2 May 1999 and asked the Committee not to consider this comment. F99 ROC (CCHR) Test, and shall have a CCHR rating of not less than ~:=:!'=: ~,. . . . . . . . . ~ra..F=:':¢ CCHP. ~_d=g 30. Delete paragraph 6-51.2.2; renumber paragraph 6-51.2.3. Add newparagraph 6-51.2.3: 6-51.2.3 A total of three specimens for each reinforced area shall be tested. Delete paragraph 6-51.3.1; renumber paragraph 6-51.3.2. Add newparagraph 6-51.3.2: 6-51.3.2 Samples for conditioning shall be 1-m (1 yd) squares of each material. Delete paragraph 6-51.4.3; renumber subsequent paragraphs. Delete paragraph 5-51.5.2; renumber subsequent paragraphs. Modify paragraph 6-51.6.1 to read: 6-51.6.1 Pass or fail determinations shall be based on the (Log #248) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 137- (5-1.23): Reject SUBMITTER: Ross Cochran, Securitex-Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: 5 1. . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the average CCHR rating of the shoulder area test set and t ~ t h e average CCHR rating of the knee area test set. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed requirement is based on a comparison of the garment composite performance at low pressure compared with knee and shoulder composites at relatively high pressure. As a consequence, the requirement doe ShOt establish a minimum performance for acceptable protection. The proposed requirement sets a minimum level of performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Acdon on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). (CCHP.) Te:t and :hill ha:': : CCHP. rating =f n : t le:: t!:.an ~ : SUBS¥~'~TIATION: The additional performance requirement and test method (testing knee and shoulder areas at pressures higher than the baseline garment composite) constitute dual or multi performance requirements for a single element of the protective ensemble. I t is my understanding that this is not allowed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMn~rEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Cochran is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 2 May 1999 and asked the Committee not to consider this comment. (Log #92) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 140- (5-1.23, 6-51): Accept SUBMITTER: Harry Wirier, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 :RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 5-1.23 The garment composite from the shoulder areas and the knee areas shall be tested for resistance to heat transfer as specified in Section 6-51, Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance Test (CCHR), and shall have a minimum CCHR rating of 13.5 for the shoulder areas and for the knee areas. 6-51 Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance Test (CCHR). 6-51.1 Application. 6-51.1.1 This test method shall apply to the shoulder areas and the knee areas of protective garments. 6-51.2 Samples. 6-51.2.1 Samples shall consist of composites representative of all layers of the shoulder areas and knee areas used in the actual construction of the protective garment. Different samples shall be made representing each different composite combinauon used by the garment manufacturer. 6-51.2.1.1 Samples of garment shoulder areas shall be representative of the area in the actual garment that measures at least 100 mm (4 in.) along the crown of the shoulder and extending down from the crown on both the front and back of the arment at least 50 mm (2 in.). The crown of the shoulder shall e the uppermost line of the shoulder when the garment is laying flat on an inspection surface with all closures fastened. 6-51.2.1.2 Samples of garment knee areas shall be representative of the knee area in the actual garment that measures at least 150 mm x 150 mm (6 in. x 6 in.). 6-51.2.2 Samples shall measure 200 mm x 200 mm (8 in. x 8 in.) and shall be prepared of the composite layers. The sample of the composite layers shall be sewn along two adjacent sides, with the layers arranged in the same order and orientation as intended to be (Log #110) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 138 - (5-1.23, 6-51): Reject SUBMITIER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: 5-1.23 Delete this paragraph and the Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance (CCHR) Test in Section 6-5.1. SUBSTANTIATION: The standard establishes no minimum CCHR performance requirement for the base garment composite, and establishes no design requirement mandating reinforcement. If hat resistance through a compressed knee or shoulder section is a safety concern, then the Technical Committee should avoid having two levels of protection by establishing a minimum performance requirement which applies to all knee and shoulder sections (whether they're reinforced or not). As proposed, the "dual levels of protection~ problem is of even greater concern because the non-reinforced composite serves as the benchmark for evaluating the reinforced sections. Not only does the proposal have "dual levels of protection" between reinforced and non-reinforced sections, but the performance requirement for reinforced sections is different for every design. Finally, the proposed standard does not define "reinforcement", and the proposedwording in 5-1.23 erroneously implies that knee and shoulder area reinforcement is always present. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter, Mr. Wollan is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 2 May 1999 and asked the Committee not to consider this comment. WOIll. 6-51.2.3 All samples shall first be preconditioned as specified in 6-1.2. 6-51.3 Specimen Preparations. 6-51.3.1 A minimum of six specimens for testing shall be taken from the samples after the preconditioning specified in 6-51.2.3. 6-51.3.2 The specimens shall measure 150 m m x 150 mm (6 in. x 6 in.) and shall be cut from the sample excluding the sewn areas so that the composite layers comprising the specimen are not sewn together at any point. 6-51.3.3 Specimens for both wet condition testing and dry condition testing shall then be conditioned as specified in 6-1.3. 6-51.3.4 For wet condition testing only, the innermost layer of the composite specimen shall then be further conditioned as follo,,'s prior to testing: (a) Blotter paper measuring 225 m m x 225 mm (9 in x 9 in.) shall be saturated in distilled water. (Log #143) C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 139 - (5-1.23, 6-51): Accept in Principle SUBMITFER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: ~ a n g e paragraph 5-1.23 and Section 6-51 as follows: 5-1.23 Specimens of the garment composites from the reinforced shoulder area and from the reinforced knee area shall be tested for resistance to conductive and compressive heat transfer as specified in Section 6-51, Conductive and Compressive Heat Resistance 487 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #90) Committee: FAE-SFF (b) Two sheets of the saturated blotter paper shall be run together through a wringer that meets the requirements of paragraph 10.2 of AATCC Test Method 70, Water Repellency: Tumble Jar Dynamic Absorption Test. (c) The innermost layer of the composite specimen shall be placed between the two sheets of blotting paper. (d) The innermost layer of the composite specimen, between the two sheets of blotting paper, shall be placed into a 4 L (1 gal) size air and liquid tight bag and the bag shall be sealed closed. (e) The innermost layer of the composite specimen, between the two sheets of blotting paper, shall be condition in the air and liquid tight bag at room temperature for at least 24 hours, and shall not be removed from condiuoning more than 5 minutes prior to testing. (f) After removal from conditioning, the innermost layer shall be removed from the blotting paper, and the composite specimen shall be resembled with all layers arranged in the same order and orientation as intended to be worn. 6-51.4 Procedure. 6-51.4.1 A minimum of six specimens shall be tested for shoulder areas, three for wet condition testing and three for dry condition testing; and a minimum of six specimens shall be tested for knee areas, three for wet condition testing and three for dry condition testing. 6.51.4.2 Specimens shall be tested in accordance with ASTM F 1060, Standard Test Method for Thermal Protective Performance of Materials for Protective Clothing for Hot Surface Contact, with the modifications specified herein. 6-51.4.3 Specimens shall be tested using an exposure temperature of 280°C, +3°/-0°C (536°F, +5°/-0°F). @51.4.4 For the shoulder area CCHR rating, the sensor assembly shall be modified so that the pressure applied to the test specimens shall be 8 g/cm2, _+0.8 g / c m 2 (2 psi, +0.2 psi). 6.51.4.5 For the knee area CCHR rating, the sensor assembl)t shall be modified so that the pressure applied to the test speomens shall he 5 2 g / c m 2, +5.2 g / c m 2 (8 psi, +0.08 psi). 6-51.4.6 The CCHR rating for each specimen in each test shall be the time in seconds to achieve a temperature rise of 24°C. @51.4.7 For purposes of calculating the time to a 94°C temperature rise, the room temperature in the testing area shall be determined immediately prior to starting the test and that temperature shall be used as the base temperature in determining the 24°C rise. The time shall be measured to the nearest tenth o f a second. Time "zero" shall be the time that the sensor and specimen are placed in direct contact with the exposure surface. 6-51.5 Report. 6-51.5.1 The individual CCHR rating for each specimen in each test shall be reported. @51.5.2 The average CCHR rating for the shoulder area wet condition test specimens shall be separately calculated and reported. The average CCHR rating for the shoulder area dry condition test specimens shall be separately calculated and reported. 6-51.5.5 The average CCHR rating for the knee area wet condition test specimens shall be separately calculated and reported. The average CCHR rating for the knee area dry condition test specimens shall be separately calculated and reported. 6.51.6 Interpretation. 6-51.6.1 Pass/fail determination for shoulder area wet condition test specimens shall be based on the average reported CCHR rating of all wet specimens. Pass/fall determinauon for shoulder area dry condition test specimens shall be based on the average reported CCHR rating of all dry specimens tested. Failure of either the wet condition test set or the dry condition test set to achieve an average CCHR of at least 13.5 shall constitute failing performance. @51.6.2 Pass/fall determination for knee area wet condition test specimens shall be based on the average reported CCHR rating of all wet specimens. Pass/fall determination for knee area dry condition test specimens shall be based on the average reported CCHR rating o fall dry specimens tested. 6-51.6.3 If an individual CCHR rating from any individual ecimen varies more than +8 percent from the average results for at test set, the results for that test set shall be discarded and another set of specimens shall be tested. SUBSTANTIATION: Revises text to include wet procedure as directed by Technical Committee. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 141 - (5-1.25, 6-53): Reject SUBMITTER: Richard Young, DuPont COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Replace Sections 5-1.23 and @53 with the following: 5-1.25 Specimens of the garment shall be tested for overall heat and flame resistance as specified in Section 6-53, Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test, and shall indicate no amounts of predicted body burn damage greater than 20 percent (excluding the head) and have an average heat transmission index no greater than 1.5 cal/sq cm. 6.53 Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test. @55.1 Application. This test method shall apply to full garments. 6.53.2 Specimens. 6-53.2.1 Samples for conditioning shall be complete garments. 6-53.2.2 Samples shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.11. @53.3 Sample Preparation. 6-53.3.1 Specimens shall include complete garments sized appropriately to the manikin with all layers in place and all closures properly secured. 6-53.3.2 A minimum of one specimen shall be tested. 6-53.4 Procedure. Specimens shall be evaluated in accordance with ASTM F1930, Test Method for Complete Garments Prediction of Burn Injury Using an Instrumented Mannequin, with the following modifications. (a) Specimens shall be tested for a total exposure time of 10 seconds at an average exposure heat flux of 85 kW/sq m (2.0 cal/sq cm-sec). (b) The test shall be conducted with a weighted SCBA harness, wrist and ankle dosures to prevent heat and flame from funneling up the coat, wrist, or ankle openings. (c) The exposed garment shall be inspected on the manikin to identify causes of predicted burn injury. (d) After removal from the manikin each layer of the exposed garment shall be inspected for visible damage. 6-53.5 Report. 6.53.5.1 The total percentage of second and third degree burn shall be reported to the nearest 1 percent. Diagrams showing the relative area of burn injury prediction shall be provided as part of the report. 6-53.5.2 The average heat transmitted through the garment, excluding head sensors, shall be reported to the nearest 0.1 percent. 6-53.5.3 Observations of melting, inner layer damage, and design features that contribute to burn injury or afterflame shall be reported. 6.53.6 Interpretation. 6.53.5.6.1 The total percentage of predicted burn injury and average heat transmitted shall be used to determine the pass or fail performance. 6-53.6.2 Failure in any one performance area shall constitute failure of the specimen. SUBSTANTIATION: The current test protocol and specifications do not differentiate products based on realistic thermal performance. While each fire incident in unique, laboratory analysis of actual turnouts involved in flashover exposures typically experience 10-20 cal/sq cm exposures. After flame is an artifact of material degradation and levels may not directly impact the thermal protection offered by the garment. Inner layer of the garment will char due to heat funneling and garment creasing, these results are not significant unless contributing to overall predicted body burn. The distinction between second and third degree body burn as predicted by the skin model may vary between labs and is not a reliable indicator. A 20 percent level of burn is physiologically significant and NFPA 1971 compliant garments have b e e n shown to offer at least this level of protectaon. Bum Data from the National Burn Information Exchange indicates high survival rates (greater than 95 percent) for burn levels less than or equal to 20 percent. An average heat transmission index will provide an overall performance rating of the garment beyond burn level. The head is not protected by the turnout clothing and should not be used in predicted garment performance. The use of an SCBA int~e harness, wrist and ankle closures prevents predicted burn uries which would have been prevented by the use of proper auxiliary fire fighter clothing. Inspection of the garment on the mannequin after burn exposure will identify design weaknesses in the turnout gear. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ~ 488 NFPA 1971 -- COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). F99 ROC surrounded by flames? Fire fighters turn, crawl and move expressively. This test does not take into effect any undergarments worn or the variety of physical characteristics of fire fighters. What is this test (Log #59) Committee: FAE-SFF that o t h e r test not E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). 1971- 142 - (5-1.24): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Peter Wirth, FireGear Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: 5-1.24 . . . . . v . . . . ~,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Log #216) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 145 - (5-1.24): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Remove the entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: This test does not provide any additional useful information about the safety of one system over anther. The TPP test will provide the needed data to show the thermal resistance and protection of one set of materials over another. Because no gloves, helmets or boots are part of this test it does not assist in understanding the protection received in the interface ~.vcr ~ c manncqu'n'z bed)', and ~h~l :h~.w no melting or c h ~ r ' n g SUBSTANTIATION: Current tests in this standard already provide for thermal and flame performance and burn predictability of protective fabrics alone and m composite form. Subjecting a static mannequin without the required interface components and without station wear or underwear does not replicate true field conditions and events. This test does not show any difference in product designs. Based on testing done earlier this year, this test does not show any correlation between percent body burns and TPP composite or the weight of the garment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). areas. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). (Log #227) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 146 - (5-1.24): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-40 RECOMMENDATION: Delete requirement for full mannequin testing. SUBSTANTIATION: Based upon the limited testing performed by E. I. DuPont, the only possible correlation this test shows is to TPP values. Since the test does not specify exactly what is to be tested, such as materials, closures, reiuf~rcements, trim packages or even designs, this very expensive test does not offer any additional value. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). (Log #69) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 143- (5-1.24): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Michael F. McKenna, Sacramento County Fire, CA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: 5-1.24 C~.., v . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~.\ "g:7¢~_=2 L ' ~ 3 L " ~ _ "_.7".~._~.~.~.'L2i~" ^ 7.- ~ L 7 ~ =t.~ ;n..=~ncquin'~ b~}', and ~a!! "n~ic==c n~ ~h=~ dc~'ee 5urn da=..a~c SUBSTANTIATION: The use of an uptight static mannec~uin without the other required interface items and without stauon wear does not replicate the real fireground conditions. In such a test an actual firefighter would only be vertical for a few seconds and then would fall to the ground. In addition, testing in this manner should include all components that are required including helmets, gloves, boots, hoods and SCBA. The use of the NFPA 1975 and poly-cotton station uniforms needs to be taken into consideration prior to testing. Different pieces of the ensemble form different manufacturers will react differently. Some criteria would have to be developed prior to testing. The information that was presented to the Committee in January indicated that the testing was inconclusive and further development was required before implementation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). (Log #232) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 147 - (5-1.24): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-30 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: It has been reported by the only lab conducting manikin bums that the proper test protocol has not been identified. Continued research is needed before this requirement becomes part of the standard. T h e r e are also issues of practicality that must be addressed: (1) There is only 1 commerdal manikin available for this testing. (2) If every garment design is to be tested, how will one design be determined to be different from another? Will a new trim pattern constitute a new design? COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). (Log #196) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 144- (5-1.24): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Steven Witt, Cy-Fair VoI. Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete: 5-1.24 C=mp!ete ~ m c n ~ : ~ ! be :~'.:d fez c':=r~! hczt ~_u~ b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *,1.1 *,1,1. . . . . . . . . . . . :~+. +1.. . . . . . . . . . t-,,o~ Ik~.-1 *,1.1. . . . . . . . . *,1,1 . L . ^ l l *,1.1 ~ . ^ :~..1:~^+^ - + 1 ~ ~ ^ ~ +1-.:."4 . . . . . . ..1 . . . . + ..... L...~ (Log #244) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 148 - (5-1.24): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following text: 5 1 "~4 t~^~_, . . . . k ^ , , k . . . . . . "4 ¢. . . . . . . +1..^ . . . . . *,1 gr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ....................... v........ second ~=gzc: b=zn da:==.z.g: grc:.=:: ~:.-= ~Fc:ccn= •vc: "..he :-- ~i~i~¥~i~.~ion: u i- *,1-1. . . . . This test does not r~present reality in the I fire service. How many fire fighters stand up right and still while 489 NFPA 1971 - - F99 ROC were able to pass. Nor did the test differentiate between materials. The test may be better suited as a design test, when the protocol is ready, versus a performance test. In addition to the Thermal Task Groups' technical issues, there are several logistics issues that are reasons not to proceed with test. At this time, there are a limited number (1) of independent test facilities in North American that are capable of conducting the test as stated in the method. An additional facility is in progress toward updating their mannequin to be able to conduct, but is not available at this time. T h e r e are no interlab correlation or precision and or bias statements available based on the current rotocol by NFPA 1971. OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrE,E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). c f m~7 :urC~ce cf *..he:'=ne..'zn.c=t!=Ter cf *.F.eg~..'~..en~ :.n cenmct S~IBS"f'~'~I'T'fP].~"fON: The proposed test is not representative of who firefighters are, how they dress, and how they fight fires. • The physique of the mannequin is not representative of the physique of the majority of firefighters. • Firefighters are rarely without underwear or station wear or both when wearing turnout gear. A test of turnout gear on a nude mannequin is therefore of little relevance to the average firefighter. • Firefighters wear helmets, gloves, boots and full SCBA when entering a fire. These other elements surely affect the burn injur~ likelihood at the interface areas, ff the intent of the mannequin is to mimic a fireflghter in a flashover, the test methods falls to do that. • A firefighter in an actual or potential flashover situation is not going to be standing bolt upright. Again, if the purpose of the test is to mimic reality, the mannequin should be on all fours and scrambling. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). (Log #265) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 152 - (5-1.24, 6-53): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Michael W. Wade, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete performance requirement 5-1.24 and referenced test method 6-53. SUBSTANTIATION: The method recommended is to use a thermal mannequin having heat sensors distributed over its body. The mannequin is standing in an upright immovable position dressed in turnout gear. A computer calculates the percentage and degree of body burn and the technician observes after flame and damage to the innermost layer. First, firefighters are not immovable nor are they standing in a potential flash over environment. Second, from observed demonstrations of this thermal mannequin there are problems in the interface areas that could result in more than 5 percent second degree burns and third degree bums. While no burns are good, medical criteria indicates that any third degree burn is critical that involve the hands, face, and genitalia or more than ten percent of the body surface. There is nothing in this section that states how these problems are addressed, ff it is addressed, whose gloves, boots, hoods or breathing apparatus is to be worn? Preliminary studies by DuPont, indicate that more research is needed to determine how to accurately distinguish one turnout system from another in their design and its relationship between interface areas and test results. COMMITrEE ACq'ION: Accept in Prindpl~. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). (Log #111) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 149 - (5-1.24, 6-53): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: 5-1.24 Delete this paragraph and the Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test in Section 6-53. SUBSTANTIATION: Presentations at recent NFPA Technical Committee meetings indicate that this method does not yet have suitable reproducibility for a product certification standard. Persons expert with this test procedure have stated the test conditions may be too severe to measure design features, and may not replicate field experience. This test was designed to evaluate single-layer garments for use by workers in refineries, gas plants, a n d in areas where aviadon fuel is handled. The spedfication in 6-53.3.1 that specimens be "sized appropriately to the mannequin" fails to address one of the most critical variables of this procedure. Without detailed sizing specifications, this procedure will result in extreme variability between initial certification tests and subsequent recertification tests. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). (Log #144) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #159) Committee: FAE-SFF 1071- 153 - (5-1.24, 6-53, Chapter 7): Reject SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, In~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Change paragraphs 5-1.24 and Section 6-53 as follows: 5-1.24 Complete garments shall be tested for overall heat and flame resistance as specified in Section 6-55, Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test, and shall show n o aft erflame times greater than 5 seconds, shall indicate no amounts of predicted ..... a . a e K r c c total burn damage greater than ~ I 0 percent over the mannequin's bo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. ~ ~urn ~ar=.:~c o;'cr "..~.=m=nncq=':n': ~cdy, and shall show no melting or charring of any surface of the innermost layer of the garment in contact with the mannequin. Add a new paragraph 6-53.3.3: 6-55.3.$ Garments shall be evaluated on the basis of different designs constructed of garments representing the lowest TPP rating offered in that specific design. 6-53.4 Procedure. 6-53.4.1 Specimens shall be evaluated in accordance with !SO CD 1971- 150- (5-1.24, 6-55): Accept SUBMITTER: Roger L. Barker, NC State Univ. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-39 I RECOMMENDATION: The Thermal Task Group recommends that paragraph 5-1.2.4 and Section 6-53 be removed from the document. SUBSTANTIATION: Although the manikin test i~rovides useful information regarding the performance of protecuve coats and trousers, more research is needed to: 1. establish the details of a test protocol specific to tumout, 2. generate technical information across laboratories, and 3. develop a rational basis for a pass-fail criteria based on the test results produced by the method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #176) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 151 - (5-1.24, 6-53): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Diane B. Hess, Celanese Acetate - Advanced Fiber Materials COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Under Overall Heat and Flame Performance Test: remove entire 5-1.24 and Section 6-53. SUBSTANTIATION: Based on the report given at the January San Francisco meeting, the Thermal Task Group believes that the test is not ready for incorporation into NFPA 1971 at this time. More work on the protocol is required prior to being implemented. Based on the protective garments that were tested, no garments A mz='.ncqc:.n ASTM F 1930. ~e~t Method for • .'n=w'.:..--.cnte_ Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protecfign A~ain.~ Flash Fire Simulations Usin~ an Instrumented Manikin. with the following modificatior~. (a) Specimens shall be tested for a total exposure time of $08 seconds at an average exposure heat flux of 80 kW/m2 (2.0 cal/cm2s) 490 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (b) The interior of the garment, including the surface of the innermost layer in contact with the mannequin, shall be inspected for visible damage 5 minutes following the exposure. 6-58.5.2 The percentage of : : t e n d degrc~ total b u m area .7.~d pcrzcntmgc cf "..k.'r~a~cgrcz ~urn m-ca shall be rel~orted to the nearest 0.1 percent. Diagrams showing the relauve area of burn injuryprediction shall be provided as part of the report. 6-58.6.1 The afterflame time, percentage of predicted total . . . . . . . a. . a . .e,. . ~ burn injury, Ferccntmge cf th.'r~ ~¢gree b u r n inju.~', and observations of melting or charring of any surface of the innermost layer of the garment in contact with the mannequin shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. Delete reference to ISO CD 18506, Protective clothing against heat a n d flame - Test method for complete garments - Prediction of burn injury using an instrumented mannequin in Chapter 7. Add the following test method to Chapter 7. ASTM F 1930, Test Method for Evaluation of Flame Resistant Clothing for Protection Against Flash Fire Simulations Using an Instrumented Manikin, 1998. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes to the performance requirement and test method reflect information from the DupontOnSored testing of manufacturer garments. MMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-150 (Log #159). Would like this performance test held for further study in the next revision. National Institute of Standards and Technology a n d the thermal task group will continue to work on this project. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #112) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 158 - (5-1.25, 5-1.26, 6-54): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-182 RECOMMENDATION: 5-1.25 and 5-1.26 Delete these paragraphs a n d the Low Heat Flux Thermal Performance (LHF]'P) Test in Section 6-54. SUBSTANTIATION: This method has not been adequately developed. The task group assigned to this project did not complete the necessary r o u n d robin work. COMMI'FI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #142) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 159- (5-1.25, 5-1.26, 6-x): Accept SUBMITrER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc_ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-182 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 5-1.25, 5-1.26, a n d 6-x. SUBSTANTIATION: The test method has not been validated. No correlation has b e e n established between fabric surface temperature and b u m injury. No specific basis has been provided to substantiate the recommended performance criteria. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #217) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 154- (5-1.25): Accept SUBMITrER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSALNO: 1971-182 I RECOMMENDATION: Remove the entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: The word done in this area is incomplete a n d is not ready to be placed in this document at this time. Additional development and testing is required to confirm the usefulness of this test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #218) Committee: FAE-SFF 1071- 160- (5-1.26): Accept SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-182 [ RECOMMENDATION: Remove the entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: The development work and testing is not complete for this test and should not be placed in this document at this time. More work is necessary to assure this test will produce data which will differentiate good system from bad ones. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #287) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- 155 - (5-1.25): Accept SUBMITTER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-40 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: The thermal task group reported at the January meeting of the 1971 Technical Committee that this test procedure was n o t finalized and that additional research was necessary. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #258) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- 161 - (5-1.26): Accept SUBMITrER= Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-40 I RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire paragraph. SUBSTANTIATION: The thermal task group reported at the January meeting of the 1971 Technical Committee that this test procedure was not finalized and that additional research was necessary before addining this requirement to the standard. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #134) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 156 - (5-1.25, 5-1.26): Reject SUBMITrER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-182 RECOMMENDATION: Both have a reference to "Section 64. Should this be 6-54? SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMrITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Test method deleted. See Committee Action on Comment 1971-158 (Log #45). (Log #28) Committee: FAF~ FF 1971- 162 - (5-2.2i: Accept SUBMITrER: MichaelJ. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-1$2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 5-2.2 Specimen helmets shall be tested for resistance to impact as specified in Section 6-16, Impact Resistance Test (Acceleration), and shall have no sample exceed the maximum acceleration specified in 5-2.2. Any acceleration d=='2c= above 200 Gn shall not exceed a duration of 3 milliseconds, and an acceleration above 150 Gn shall not exceed a duration of 6 milliseconds. SUBSTANTIATION: Revise the wording for clarity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #45) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 157- (5-1.25, 5-1.26, 6-54): Accept SUBMITTER: Dean William Cox, Falrfax Cnty Fire and Rescue Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-182 RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraphs 5-1.25, 5.1.26, a n d all of 6-54. SUBSTANTIATION: The task group didn't finish the up.erformance requirements and appropriate sensor for this test, in me for this revision. 491 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #81) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #80) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 163 - (5-2.4(i)): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "(i) Dripping o f t h e faceshield/goggle componentd-ri.p." SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 168 - (5-2.18): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Tesdng Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Specimens of all fabrics utilized in construction of faceshield/goggle components shall be tested for flame resistance as specified in Section 6 ~.IO, Spcc'.qc P.cq::'rc..'xen~ f~r T~fing Othc= Caz..-'zent, C!,t.h:..ng, Tr:'m, =n~ L-7-~be' .Mater'a!: 6-2 Flame Resistance Test One. Specimens shall not have a char length of more than 100 m m average and shall not have an afterflame of more than 5.0 seconds average after removal of the test flame. SUBSTANTIATION: Performance requirements in this section is for a flame test, section referenced is for heat and thermal shrinkage testing. The proper section for reference is 6-2.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #68) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 164- (5-2.10, 6.2.1.9 (New), 6-2.15 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Robert D. Tutterow, Charlotte Fire Dept., NC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text of 5-2.10 to read: "Specimens of all materials utilized in the construction of helmet ear covers and chin strans shall...". Add new text: 6-2.1.9 Modifications to the test method for testing helmet chin straps shall be as specified in 6-2.15. 6-2.15 Specific requirements for test helmet chin straps. 6-2.15.1 Helmet chin straps for flammability testing shall be at least 305 m m (12 in.) in length by the widest width of chin strap used on the helmet. 6-2.15.2 Testing shall be performed in only one direction. 6-9.15.3 Test shall be performed as specified in 6-2.2 through 6-2.7. SUBSTANTIATION: Chin straps should be tested the same as other parts of the ensemble. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #71) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- 169- (5-3.1.$): Reject SUBMITrER: Ronald Mis, Gloves, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "5-3.13 ~..0kg ',~.~'~) ~ . " SUBSTANTIATION: Protection from puncture wounds will not be reduced. Tests of fireguard commander gloves by SEI show that dexterous firefighting gloves that meet current NFPA specifications can be manufactured. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Dexterity is a major concern a n d the Committee has made several changes, including to puncture test, to improve dexterity. Also, the dexterity test has been changed to a more responsive test. Committe e: (LF°AgE~TF~) 1971- 165 - (5-2.11): Accept SUBMITTER: Robert D. Tutterow, Charlotte Fire Dept., NC COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Specimens of all materials utilized in the construction of helmet ear covers and chin straps shalL.in any direction, a n d shall n o t melt, separate, or ignite. Helmet chin strap material shall meet the thermal shrinkage requirement for the length dimension only." SUBSTANTIATION: Chin straps should be tested the same as other parts of the ensemble. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #50) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 170- (5-$.2.1, 6-52): Accept S U B M r I R ' F ~ Larry Horn, Portland Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Remove p e r f o r m ~ c e requirement 5-$.21 and related test method 6-52 from NFPA 1971 standard. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed "glove fit test" is an inappropriate test for structural fire fighting gloves. It is not feasible to conduct this test on multi-layer gloves. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #66) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #7) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 171 - (5-3.$): Accept SUBMITTER: Larry Horn, Portland Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: "...and shall not melt, separate or ignite, shall not shrink more than g 8 percent in length or width, shall be donnable and shall be flexible". SUBSTANTIATION: Eight percent shrinkage was agreed upon by committee members during the Report on Proposal meetings. The current 1971 F99 Report on Proposals Draft does not reflect this. More allowable shrinkage would allow for gloves with better dexterity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 166 - (5-2.12): Accept SUBMI~ Robert D. Tutterow, Charlotte Fire Dept., N ~ COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "All sewing thread utilized in the construction of the helmet ear covers a n d chin straps shall...". SUBSTANTIATION: Chin straps should be tested the same as other parts of the ensemble. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. Committee: (LF°AgE?~ 1971- 167- (5-2.18): Accept SUBMITIXR: Robert D. Tutterow, Charlotte Fire Dept., NC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Change reference from Section 6-6.10 to 6-2. SUBSTANTIATION: 6-6.10 is part of oven test. Should be part of flame resistance test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #98) Committee: FAE~SFF 1971- 172- (5-3.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 [ RECOMMENDATION: Replace ~ Fe.-=ent with 8 nercent. SUBSTANTIATION: NFPA 1971 committee made change to requirement but text was not changed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 492 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C 6-38.2.1 A m i n i m u m of t h r e e gloves pairs each for e a c h size provided _with t h e suit_ shall he u s e d for testing. 6-38.2.2 Each glove pair shall be tested as a c o m p l e t e set of gloves in new, as distributed, condition. 6-38.2.3 Glove pair s p e c i m e n s shall n o t receive special s o f t e n i n g t r e a t m e n t s prior to tests. 6-$8.$ Sample Preparation. 6-$8.$.1 Glove pair s p e c i m e n s shall be p r e c o n d i t i o n e d as specified in 6-1.$. 6-$8.$.2 Samples for c o n d i t i o n i n g shall be whole glove pairs. (Log #51) C o m m i t t e e : FAE-SFF 1971- 173- (5-3.14): Reject SUBMITrER= Larry H o r n , P o r t l a n d Fire Bureau, O R COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-71 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise text: "Specimen gloves shall be tested for dexterity as specified in Section 6-$8 "dexterity test a n d shall have t h e dexterity time n o t exceed !~0 p c r c e n : 120 p e r c e n t of b a r e - h a n d control time". S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : In t h e event t h e Technical C o m m i t t e e feels t h e n e w p r o p o s e d "glove h a n d f u n c t i o n test" is inappropriate, t h e B e n n e t t dexterity test s h o u l d be altered to this m o r e s t r i n g e n t criteria. C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T h e r e is a better dexterity test a n d t h e Conunittee will n o t use t h e B e n n e t t test m e t h o d which d o e s little if a n y t h i n g to differentiate between gloves. ~2L~k~mm~ 6-38,4,1 A n e e b o a r d a o u a r a t u s shall be u s e d w h i c h consists of 25 stainless steel Dins a n d a n e g board. Each stainless steel Din shall have a d i a m e t e r o f 9.5 m m (0.375 in.) a n d l e n ~ . h of $8.1 m m (1.5 in.). T h e p e g b o a r d shall have 25 h o l e s with each hole having a fUameter o f (0.$9 inA a n d a t e n t h o f (0.5 inA. T h e holes sh~ll be in a 5 x 5 p a t t e r n a n d each hole shall have a s e n a r a d o n o f 95 m m (l i n 3 f r o m o t h e r holes. 6-38.5 Procedures. 6-$8.5.1 Each available size o f gloves shall be evaluated with at least o n e separate test subject with t h e s a m e pair o f gloves for *..he (Log #95) C o m m i t t e e : FAE-SFF 1971- 174 - (5-3.14): A c c e p t in Principle SUBMITTER= Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete: ~oA.A. 6-$8.5.2 A minimum of five different glove pairs shall be e v a l u a t e d . W h e n less t h a n 5 d i f f e r e n t sizes o f g l o v e s a r e a v a i l a b l e , ..................... ~' " * " ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' (b) T h e glove s p e c i m e n s shall have a n average p e r c e n t of b a r e h a n d control n o t e x c e e d i n g 1~.0 ~crce~t for Gross Dexterity T e s t B. Insert= Cb) 500 p e r c e n t . S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : C h a n g e is b a s e d On c o m m i t t e e r o u n d r o b i n testing M a r c h 99. COMMITTEE A C T I O N : A c c e p t in Principle. COMMITIT_.E STATEMENT: See C o m m i t t e e Action o n C o m m e n t 1971-175 CLog #268). ¥. +' 7o +L " ~* +- . different pairs o f t h e s a m e sized gloves shall be p e r m i t t e d to be tested by different test subjects to m e e t t h e m i n i m u m five glove pair testing r e q u i r e m e n t . 6-38.5.3 Test subjects shall be selected s u c h t h a t their h a n d d i m e n s i o n s are as close as possible to t h o s e specified in a c c o r d a n c e with m a n u f a c t u r i n g glove sizing guidelines. 6-38.5.4 Each test subject u s e d to p e r f o r m this testing shall practice o f t h e h a n d f u n c t i o n s a m i n i m u m of 3 times before c o n d u c t i n g actual testing. 6 ...... of lt3 1971- 175 - (5-$.14): Accept SUBMITCER: C a t h e r i n e R. D o d g e n , Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 5-3.14 Glove s p e c i m e n s shall be tested for h a n d f u n c t i o n as specified in Section 6-38, Glove H a n d F u n c t i o n Test, a n d shall m c c t ~ . : .c..~::~n~ rcq:=~r~mcn'-: have a n average p e r c e n t o f b a r e h a n d control n o t e x c e e d i n g $00 percent. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : C o n t i n u e d work by t h e Glove Task G r o u p h a s d e t e r m i n e d that t h e p e g b o a r d test is t h e m o s t appropriate, a n d r e c o m m e n d s deletion of t h e Gross Dexterity Test A ( k n o t typing), Fine Dexterity Test, a n d Tactility Test. T h e p e r f o r m a n c e criteria is b a s e d o n r o u n d r o b i n testing o f several glove styles. COMMITTEE A C T I O N : Accept. +~.+ "i"K ~'^II~..-" ~ . . . . . . . --I . . . . . . . . :. . . . . :. . . . . ^C ..... ur~ .- ,4 . . . : ' + 1 . . . . . ^ I..^I b ............................... t7 - - - - Ift ~ .'-- ~ h'~ ~ - - I+..:~-.--lou~ . . . . .4 .Ik^^l ace . . . .' T 1 k c a ...... "PI+o. % & k..^ k--l--..I..--II .1,.^-I . . . . k . . . . . . 1~-II I~+ ~-.I .+ . . . . k.. +I-. . . . . . &"J~l~ ~ . . - K :T.V.. A.'.~---_ Iv. +I.- 1.--I+. +I...:A-^~:+I.. .... ~^A I-~I^.I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +~ 5+oA.m +, ,"r~: . . . . . . bj . . . . k . . ~.. . . . . . :-^+ "^ ":e ==..++:+:n~: "~.... ,+S.'T_;2+ .'J:.:T::3,7:::'~+-~;:.'F::~'~::Z -~r--..: . . . . . . " : h r.......:'~ ...r:+k + ~ .":~+ +. . . . I" ~.+"+ ~ . ¢ . ^ + , . . . . b}" t h e +++_=t='.:'~j::+.+~.'+=~ • : ::===.~tc:';n : f a n + - - g t ~ : +:a'.h kn+'- .+^--. :-- ~: q~ A ~ ~ ~1- . . . . . I-. ~ ,+Io A ~ +I...._ A ^ . . + ^ . . : ' . . +4 . . - - ~ l +^-~ ~ . . . . C 6 ~SA.5.e ~^_k . . . . . . . t.:J .. .. .. .. . .+..,, .,+-_. . . . k " . .. ~. .^._. _. . . ~. . .. .. .. .. .. . . .e.^. , ., ^. .. . . ' - _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the ::eF: "== ~_~ A . 5 . 2 "-hr-~'-'g~ ~ ~-~.~..~.~ ".:'~ ~ = F--: ef :e:: g!_~ve:. The :-..ca~urcd ~cx:cr'-'~" :c:: ~m: . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]3-.^1:--+ c~2! t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ~o ~ 5 7 a t . ^ d . . . . . -" . . . . . . ~,~#I+. +'K~ +--+ A^..+-.;~. ~z :::cd ~ l the dcx=eri~" :::t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . ..+t. _~. . . . . . h a p t.^ -ore . . . . d *:--^ ¢. . . . . ~. +--.+ ...I-.:^-+ "T~^ +.. K~II Ca, . . . . r, . . . . . v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . have a n average p e r c e n t of b a r e h a n d control n o t e x c e e d i n g ~00 p e r c e n t . ++ p~ree:'.+ _=r ~.e Cro=~ D=:'.tcr'~' Tc~: A; ~,tt'~ 2-1¢ g!~:'c : p c c ' n . c n ~h=2l h.x:'c : n ~.;'c=xge ~ c r c c n t ~f To0: ~; (c) a-,._ .... ~ ...... I^-1...I^-1.. Th= :.L==!=.:= :h=!: ~ : 1200 mr..., +9~ =:'_-n (~.7 "n., +1 "=.) in : : = g ' ~ (Log #145) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- I76 - (5-$.14, 6-~8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l P e r s o n n e l Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise p a r a g r a p h 5-$.14 a n d Section 6-$8 as follows: 5-$.14" Glove s p e c i m e n s shall be tested for h a n d f u u c t i o n as specified in Section 6-$8, Glove H a n d Function Tests, a n d shall \ C ........... . . . . -^.~ . . . . . |-kl--.L..~_--l| ],. . . . . . . . . .'----I ..'---- - L " 11L'%t'% . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Log #268) Committee: FAE-SFF --~^+ ---+ .~ . . . . :pec'mc==: :L=2! ~ - - - : + dim.°..ctcr o f ~ mr... ,,., ~. . . o,+,, . . . . .:_ ,. ] +^ . . . .,.+ _: v . ........ D . . . . . + ^C 6 °+°.~..fi.1 - - : - "'-'+" . . . . . . . . . . +., u p f+r ~ c ~ n e Dcxtc .~+~• .... ' 'T'l~+ --1. . . . : p c c ' m e n ; ;ha!! ~ ^ - - : " - : . . . . ++~" . . . . . . . . . • ~n !n.) to bc d e t e c t e d for uhe T=.cfi!i~" To;=; 0pac:ng of 5 m m ,~0..~ Revise T e s t M e t h o d as follows: 6-38 Glove H a n d F u n c t i o n Tests. 6-$8.1 Application. 6-$8.1.1 T h i s test shall apply to gloves. 6-~8.2 Specimens. c)~ .+-1~1 11 ~ ++~ ~ . . . . ~ ]"~'T"T' , --__ +-.I . . . . I~^----.1 ~= . . . . 1 ~ . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . .K+II / 1 ~u'~l 1.--1, t. . . . . . I~^--A h .... .i ._+.:_t. . . . . K'~.L..+~:--1 OK k~l .... -:+k . . . . + . . k +--a K ^ I ^ :-+- of --:-- I,..-..'~_ ~ . ~ - + ~ . 2 6-38.5.5 Before each test, t h e pegs shall be placed o n a h a r d , s m o o t h surface adjacent to t h e p e g b o a r d ( o n t h e right side for r i g h t - h a n d e d test subjects a n d o n t h e left side for left-handed test subjects). 493 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC e ~.A.~.~ 6-38.5.6 In starting t h e test, each p e g shall be grasped near its e n d a n d shall be placed in t h e p e g b o a r d f r o m left-to-right a n d top-to-bottom. $SA.~.~ 6-38.5,7 T h e time to place all pegs in the p e g h o a r d shall be m e a s u r e d for each test subject a n d shall be know as t h e dexterity test time. ~8A.6.5 6-38.5.8 E a c h test subject shall p e r f o r m the test following the steps in ~. . .~o . . . .*. .~. .o. . +t. . . . . . .s t.. . .~. . .Qo . * S.'t 6-38.5.5 t h r o u g h 6-38.5.7 until t h e three dexterity test times of that p e r s o n ' s !=~-=+~rec total repetitions varies n o m o r e t h a n 8 1 0 percent. T h e l e ' ; : c : : average dexterity test time of t h e 4a~ selected t h r e e repetitions shall be u s e d as t h e baseline dexterity test t i m e (DTTb). Each test shall be c o n d u c t e d without t h e test subject's knowledge o f t h e dexterity test time for e a c h test. g~-~.~.~.~ 6-$8.5.9 Each test subject shall t h e n p e r f o r m t h e test following the steps in 6 ~°A.6.2 t h r e u g h ~ .9 .Q. .A. R. .4. 6-38.5.5 t h r o u g h 6-$8.5.7 with t h e pair of test gloves. T h e testing shall b e c o n d u c t e d ~I}til t h r e e dexterity test times o f t h a t n e r s o n ' s total renetitions varies n o m o r e t h a n 10 vercent. T h e - m . c ~ u r c d averag-e dexterity test time 9f t~ae selected t h r e e repetitions shall be used as t h e dexterity test t i m e with gloves (I)TTg). T h e Each test shall be c o n d u c t e d w i t h o u t t h e test subject's knowledge o f t h e dexterity test time for e a c h test. e ~ A . e . 7 6-88.5.10 T h e dexterity test times with gloves shall be c o m p a r e d with t h e baseline dexterity test time for e a c h test subject. T h e p e r c e n t a g e of b a r e h a n d control shall be calculated as follows: P e r c e n t of = D T T _ (100) b a r e h a n d e d control DTT~ ff~EA.7 ~ n c Dexter'S" Precedure. ................. .'I+I.), fig ' .................................. lCt - - ~ t~la :~ ~t ~AI I ~ Cl _ _ _ _ tel t%t~O ~8.~.2 For C r c = D c x t v - ~ " P r o c e d u r e n, "..he a:'e==ge p e r c e m ef K~----K^--..! --^--*--^! .K^ll K . . . . . ,,1 + ^ . . 1 ~ * _ ~ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~^.4= . . . . . . . . . . ...K:--i~ r e q u i r e m e n t s based o n testing c o n d u c t e d at a H a z a r d o u s Materials Protective Clothing a n d E q u i p m e n t Technical C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g showed t h e p e g b o a r d test provide t h e best dlscrimation of h a n d f u n c t i o n consistent with u s e r observations. While b o t h t h e p i n pickup test a n d t h e two-point d i s c r i m i n a t o r also provides s o m e discrimination, these additional test do n o t a d d any additional value as d i s c e r n e d in a statistical analysis o f t h e data. C O M M I T T E E ACTION" A c c e p t in Principle. C O M M I T T E E STATEMENT: All actions have b e e n taken in C o m m i t t e e Action for C o m m e n t 1971-275 (Log #94), 1971-175 (Log #268), 1971-270 (Log #281), 1971-272 (Log #282), 1971-271 (Log #283), 1971-273 (Log #284), 1971-274 (Log #285), 1971-280 (Log #286), 1971-281 (Log #287), 1971-282 (Log #288), 1971-284 (Log #289), 1971-285 (Log #290), 1971-286 (Log #291), 1971-288 (Log #292), 1971-289 (Log #295), 1971-276 (Log #294), 1971-278 (Log #295), 1971-277 (Log #296), 1971-279 (Log #297), a n d 1971-283 ( L o g #298). (Log #259) C o m m i t t e e : FAE-SFF 1971- 177 - (5-3.21): Accept S U B ~ C a t h e r i n e R. D o d g e n , l n t e r t e k T e s t i n g Services, NA C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-132 I R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete entire p a r a g r a p h a n d r e n u m b e r accordingly. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : E x p e r i e n c e with this test p r o c e d u r e in NFPA 1977 proves that t h e test is highly subjective, excessively stringent, a n d contradictory so t h a t it would be difficult if n o t impossible for any glove to m e e t all t h e p r o p o s e d criteria. M e a s u r e m e n t s are n o t m a d e in a n accurate or r e p r o d u d b l e m a n n e r , c o n f o u n d i n g th~ results a n d m a k i n g i n t e r p r e t : d o n highly variable. C O M M I T T E E A C T I O N : Accept. K . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . x . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ~6 ~ A . 7 . 2 W'uh cac.h e f ~ c .mew2 p ' r ~ !=)5=g ^ - ~ ~ . . . . . . . 'o...<. . . . . . . . . . :__ ^ , ,,~,~ _ _ , o , _ _ ( , -:., _*O.P.-:r..), •. . . . . . ~: c~O A 0 rP^~.'l.'~. c u d t.hcn :ha!! h e ! d ~ e ,4 .... D . . . . . . . . . . . ~ J ~ ' ~ f ~ b , TION: E~uation of the proposed test lenE.= . . . . . . . . . . . secc - ~ . . . . . . . ~. . . . :-~': . . . . . . . . I- # : p i n f e r =. m ' : - - m = m e f 19 :cz=~d:. ~.4: 14f^:l flu. ~ . ~ . A For Ta~-!:.~" Prcced'.=rc, ++" . . . . ..... .. . . . . . r,- =m~!e:t pin .~pacing a . . . . . . -' '-'" =cat :u cctz =hall ~c z:ze~ te ~c:crrndne t-. . . . . ~'2.~ .:~.) I¢^:I . . . . . . i.-~/ (Log#146) Committee: +l+.^t. +I +----j++ k ~ A . .... ~,t]--:^-+'^ : . . . . :++" . . . . . T-T:~I:~ +'=g'"b --" .... . . . . +,,. +K^ +'+ k ^ - + ~1 ..... ,~.+.+o +I+. . . . . . . .t". . . . + .... • k:..'l.,1-~ .P-,...~ .,:" . . . . . I-,^11 . . . . . . . . . . +I,..+ FAE-SFF 1971- 1 7 8 - (5-3.31, 6-52): Accept SUB--R: J e f f r e y O. Stull, Int'l P e r s o n n e l Protection, Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-132 ] R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Delete p a r a g r a p h 5-3.21 a n d Section 6-52. S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : T h e test m e t h o d for m e a s u r i n g glove fit c a n n o t b e c o n d u c t e d reproducibly a n d r e q u i r e s difficult inside t h e glove m e a s u r e m e n t . F u r t h e r t h e test is d e p e n d e n t o n test subject with ideal sized h a n d s a n d will c o n s e q u e n t l y vary b e t w e e n laboratories. Lastly, fit is a subjective m e a s u r e m e n t , partly based o n individual preferences. T h e test m e t h o d is best standardized as a r e q u i r e m e n t for t h e selection of gloves in NFPA 1851. C O M M I T r E E A C T I O N : Accept. + + + K . . . . . . . I,'^1-.^.1 . . . . . . . ..1.-..o,.+~ ; +~". . . . . " ~ c ' : t d:~crim'nater te~t appamtur. :hall p r o = t h e :eric: c ? v ~ ~ p : g k = - = d "~h: C e = = = ! .*++ ~=~ ++o+ o+,~++, o .... ~+ . . ~ + . ,.. + . ~ = ~ + = , . + . ~ + . . +..+ ++o+ d i c ~ ' m ' n a t c r fez= appm'atu: : : ~hat *-he p i n : c~u:c inden.*at!cn c f ~. QQ A O ¢/ "rl.~^ .__+ ^/,I--:--:-*~^+^. ~h~ll :~A:~^*~ *~-+ +^ (Log #219) C o m m i t t e e : FAE-SFF 6-~8.6 Report. 6-~8.6.1 F e r Cre=~ Dcx=cdty Prc, ccdurc A, T h e p e r c e n t o f b a r e h a n d e d control shall be r e p o r t e d for each test subject. T h e average p e r c e n t o f b a r e h a n d e d control for all test subjects shall be calculated. ..I 1971- 1 7 9 - (5-4.x (New)): T C C N O T E : T h e T C C action on this Comment is to change the T C action to =Accept in P r i n c | p l e ~ as follows: Accept in Principle. Add the new paragraph as stated in t h e submhter's recommendation as new paragraph 5-4.9, and renumber the remaining paragraphs (5-4.9 through 5-4.18 in ROP text). Revise 5-2.12 to read: 5-2.12 All sewing t h r e a d u s e d in the construction o f h e l m e t s shall be made of inherently flame-resistant fiber and shall be tested for ...I^+_~1 5 ~.5.+ o~-11=.+ ~:pl.~A g ..+ q~O E . . . . For H a t Dcx=cri W Procedure, ~hc ~ a . m c t c r z f :~c ~;~ :~. J +k~+ k., 'IDa_ +k^t --II +^~ *^-* ~P^--*:t:~. --~ I...^ k . . . . . . . . . ...I-.:+.++ T~. . . . Al^t--.+^.-I C..lh. .h^ll +.] . . . . .1.,.^11 ~.*.1.^~1 R^ . . . . k . . . . . . k--ll +^x'."~ melting resistance as specified in Section 6-11, T h r e a d Melting Test, a n d shall not melt below 260°C (500°F). T h e T C C a g r e e s with t h e T C ' s action b u t c o r r e c t e d 5-2.12 to use ~1~.,1~^~1 *lb. . . . . k . . . . . . 11~+ ta~i . . . . ~ k ~ " . - m e n t..hc :~+ . . . . k +--.t the same requirement that is used for the other elements of the ensemble. ...~:^++ "r~.. . . . . . . . . . . ,, . . . . . . . : - - +~+. . . . k^ .~. . . . . . + -"-r all ....... j . . . . . . . . . . . . culat~. 6-38.6 Interpretation. 6-38.6.1 F=r C r c ~ D z x t : - W P==ccdure A, T h e average p e r c e n t of b a r e h a n d control shall be u s e d to d e t e r m i n e pass/fail performance. S U B M I T T E R : D o n a l d Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. C O M M E N T O N P R O P O S A L N O : 1971-I~2 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : A d d n e w text: "All sewin~ t h r e a d utilized in t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of footwear shall b f m a d e o f a n i n h e r e n t l y flame resistant fiber a n d shall h e tested for 494 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #271) Committee: FAE-SFF melt resistance as snecified in Section 6-11. "Thread Meltin~ TesC igld shall not melt below 260°C (500*FL" SUBSTANTIATION: All items which are a part of the Protective Ensemble should have as much as possible the same level of protection. Other items of the Protective Ensemble would be enhanced by removing this test requirement, i.e., Reflective Trim attachment to a protective coat or trouser. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 184- (5-4.7): Accept SUBMITrER= Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "5-4.7 Specimens of the footwear upper material composite, upper seams, and vamp seams, : . ~ :=!: :=:_-='.=shall be tested for resistance to liquid penetration...". SUBSTANTIATION: Makes text consistent with committee consensus (through Formal Interpretation) for 1997 edition to only require testing of footwear upper, upper seams, and vamp seams because many footwear sole seam geometries make testing using the specified apparatus impossible. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #220) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 180- (5-4.1): Reject SUBMITTER= Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the last sentence by deleting portions as indicated and adding new text: "Specimen footwear shall ha;'c =!1. ccmpcz.cnt: rcrn.--n fu~.~dznz! - , ~ : h ~ l ~hpw no w~ter ne~l~ration when test as sDecified in SeCt,ion 6-28 "Liquid Penetration Resistance Test". and shall allow I19 penetration of water (onlv~ for at least one hour." SUBSTANTIATION: No test method exists for testing functional. The performance requirement specifies no water penetration but makes no reference to a Chapter 6 test method. The committee will need to look at preconditioning for redundancy as 6-6 Heat Resistance in 5-4.1 is both a performance requirement and a pre water penetration test condiuoning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The performance requirements of 5-4.1 correctly include functionality after heat exposure as well as no water penetration as pass/fail criteria. The test method (6-6.12$) includes the test procedures. C 1971- 185 - (5-5.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 5-5.4 Specimens of hood material(s), "~z1::~'ng excluding labels, [ . . . . . . . . . . . . e, hook and pile fasteners and elasuc :,:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2"_"_?.S"Z:2.'; .......... ..,,".................. "~_ %Y2"_~YL:~Y'" [ s-hal~b-eindi'~l'u~dlyt~'t~l7o~r r~esis~ce~toh-'eat'as'speci~hegin- ' ' | Section 6-6, Heat and Thermal Shrinkage Resistance Test, and shall ] not shrink more than 10 percent in any direction. SUBSTANTIATION: Shrinkage of labels, hook and pile fasteners, and elastic is.no more of a hazard when the materials are in contact with the user than when they aren't. Melting. sepavation. and imaition of these materials is a potential hazard-and is addressed in 5-5.5. Allowing for label shrinkage will permit the use of softer materials and thus eliminate a common cause of label removal. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #165) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 181 - (5-4.6): Accept SUBMITTER= Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Remove the requirement that sole seams be tested for Liquid Penetration. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment is addressing the committee's response to a Formal Interpretation on this issue (FI 1971-97-2). COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971-186 sequence number was not used (Log #21) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 187- (5-7 (New)): Hold SUBMITrER: Michael.]. Barthold, Cairns & Brother, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: 5-7 Accessory Performance Requirements. 5-7.1 Any accessories attached to any element of the protective ensemble shall not prevent the element, or element component parts, from meeting all of the Performance Requirements specified in Chapter 5. SUBSTANTIATION: Chapter 5 lists the performance requirements for each element of the protective ensemble. Chapter 5 does not contain performance requirements for elements with attached accessories. This requirement should be added as a new Section 5-7. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #970) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- 182 - (5-4.6): Accept SUBM1TTER: Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "5-4.6 Specimens of the footwear upper material composite, upper seams, and vamp seams, :.':~ :cIc :=:.~: shall be tested for resistance to liquid penetration... ~. SUBSTANTIATION: Makes text consistent with committee consensus (through Formal Interpretation) for 1997 edition to only require testing of footwear upper, upper seams and vamp seams because many footwear sole seam geometries make testing using the specified apparatus impossible. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. C (Log #115) ommittee: FAE-SFF (Log #36) Committee: FAF~FF (Log #165) ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 188- (5-10): Hold SUBMITTER= Benjamin F. Brenner, Atlantic City Fire Dept., NJ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Thus, SCBA are required at all times during anyfirefighting, HazMat, or overhaul operations. NFPA Standard 1971." SUBSTANTIATION: Head protection and eye protection should be separate. To mandate eye protection be attached to the helmet seem ludicrous. The facepiece of the SCBA, which is supposed to be worn at all times during structural firefightinl~ including overhaul, provides eye protection during that phase. Whtie this is going on, the a t t a c h e d eye protection, faceshield, goggles, etc., are being exposed to the 1971- 183- (5-4.7): Accept SUBMITI'ER= Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the words "sole seams" fi'om this paragrapn.ph. SUBSTANTIATION: This addresses the committee's decision on an FI (1971-97-2) to not require sole seams to be tested for Viral enetmtion resistance. OMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 495 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC worst heat and falling debris conditions possible during firefighting operations. It seems that it would be more prudent to require eye protection be provided and the individual be responsible as to when best to put them on. Taken out of a pocket or special case will surely be more protective of the eye with less possible contaminant than the methods now required. Improvements may still be made to the goggles and also to when we wear them, but not to how we carry them on our person. I.E. Helmets. All helmet tests appear to be performed with eye protection in the deployed position. If personnel are using SCBA as prescribed, 95 percent or more of the time during structural firefightin~, the eye protection attached to helmets will be in the stowed position. Thus, all testing should be performed with attached eye protection in the stowed position. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Even though the submitter made no recommendation regarding the text of NFPA 1971 (5-10 appears in NFPA 1500), the Committee will consider the entire partial face protection required for helmets for the next edition. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. (Log #150) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 191 - (6-1.5(a) and (b)): Reject S U B ~ Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-182 RECOMMENDATION: Remove trim from (a) and place in (b). SUBSTANTIATION: Trim should be subjected to the higher heat exposure level since loss of high visibility following repeated heat exposure constitutes a likely fire fighter safety risk. Temperatures of 350°F are likely for routine fire ground exposures. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that 285°F is the appropriate temperature for low a n d moderate heat exposures. (Log #114) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #148) Committee: FAE~SFF 1971- 192 - (6-1.5(f)): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text: 1 5 ( 7 ~^- ~' . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1971- 189- (Chapter 6): Accept SUBMI'ITER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Made editorial changes to Chapter 6 as follows: Paragraph 6-7.2 should become a separate heading with the paragraph renumbered as 6-7.2.1. Paragraph 6-7.3.1 should become 6-7.2.2. Paragraph 6-7.3.2 should become paragraph heading 6-7.3 incorporating the paragraph text. The order of sections 6-12.2 and 6-12.3 should be changed and renumbered. Paragraph 6-28.2 should become a separate heading with the paragraph r e n u m b e r e d as 6-28.2.1. Paragraph 6-28.3.1 should become 6-28.2.2. Paragraph 6-28.3.2 should become paragraph heading 6-28.3 incorporating the paragraph text. Paragraph 6-29.2 should become a separate heading with the paragraph renumbered as 6-29.2.1. Paragraph 6-29.5.1 should become 6-29.2.2. Paragraph 6-29.3.2 should become paragraph heading 6-29.3 incorporating the paragraph text. Change paragraph 6-30.3to read, "Sample Preparation. Specimens shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.3." Paragraph 6-34.2 should become a separate heading with the paragraph renumbered as 6-34.2.1. Paragraph 6-34.3.1 should become 6-34.2.2. Paragraph 6-34.3.2 should become paragraph heading 6-34.3 incorporating the paragraph text. The order of sections 6-38.2 and 6-38.3 should be changed and renumbered. Paragraphs 6-53.2.1 and 6-53.2.2 belong under paragraph heading 6.53.3. Paragraph 6.53.3.1 belongs under paragraph heading 6-53.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed changes address editorial changes in Chapter 6 for consistency throughout this chapter. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: The four hour limit serves no purpose. At 4 hours, most materials would be expected to have reached ambient conditions. This appears to be an error. 6.29.3.5(d) requires at least four hours of additional conditionin!g following this exposure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Prinople. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-193 (Log #275). (Log #275) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 193- (6.1.5(f)): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, ]ntertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "For gloves, trim, moisture barriers, a n d moisture barrier seam specimens, the required testing shall be performed no sooner than 24 hours after removal from conditioning." SUBSTANTIATION: T.y~o~raphical error? There is no reason to have such a narrow time hmlt on testing after preconditioning: some of the tests are d i ~ c u l t to do within the time frame due to the sample preparation a n d apparatus set up times. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #82) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 194 - (6-1.5(h)): Accept SUBMITTER: Karen E. Strumlock, Inte~ek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "For faceshield goggle/components, sample faceshield/goggle components attached to the helmet shall be conditioned by placing t h e m o n a room temperature, solid nonmetallic headform conforming to the dimensions in Figure 5 H A . I 6-6.12.3 and by exposing them to a temperature of 108 o C ....n SUBSTANTIATION: The nonmetallic headform is referenced in Figure 6-6.12.$ not Figure 6-14.4.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #149) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 190- (6-1.2): Hold SUBMITFER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-1~2 RECOMMENDATION: Change the paragraph to read: "6-1.2 Washing and Drying Procedure for Garments, Gloves, Trim, Helmets, Gloves, Footwear, a n d Face.shield/Goggle Components. Specimens shall be subjected to g v e t e n cycles of washing and clrying...L SUBSTANTIATION: While laundering does not simulate all aspect of garment wear, it is expected that the average garment would be washed 10 times over its normal service life assuming a service life of 10 years and deparunent compliance with NFPA 1500. Performance properties that are assessed after washing should be uniformly assessed after 10 cycles of laundering. COMMIqiq'EE ACTION: Hold. Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 195- (Figure 6-1.6.1 ): Accept SUBMrITER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Figure as shown on the next page: 496 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC conclusion of the final drvin~ cycle, the ~arment shall be allowed ~9 air dry for at least 48 hr prior to conducting the test." SUBSTANTIATION: Determination of when a garment is "dry" can be difficult and subjective, particularly with multiple layers. This leads to variable amounts of heat applied from garment to garment, resulting in variable amounts of damage or preconditioning. Specifying the drying time will ensure that garments are preconditioned and tested equally. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Rear vertical Top test area j Frontverti¢~. transverseplane-.,....~ I ,~ / transverseplane ..... n / :, Fronttest area IWOsloe test areas i ~ i / (leftandright) Rear test area ,no ove basio ~! ~ -~64-,I L64-~ (6ommt Basicpiano) / L@-I --T--:'_------j Ij • ~ Fronttest area ~ Left side test area ~ Fronttest line (8,5mm above basic plane) Mid-sagittal plane Right side test area ~r~r-~ 30 mm radius ~ r . ....... ~ ~'~--~-Coronal plane '3C ~ ~ It1 Top test area Roartest area Figure 6-1.6.1 Helmet test areas and landmarks. SUBSTANTIATION: The headform used to mark the test line on a helmet is the ISO size .] headform. This revised drawing clarifies the positioning of the test line by locating the test line based on the basic plane, not the reference plane. The location of the test line is not changed, the change effects only the point of reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #1) Committee: FAE-SFF " 1971- 196- (6-1.6.4): Accept SUBM1TIT~ Robert D. Tutterow, Charlotte Fire Dept., NC COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read: "The radiant panel shall have an effective radiating surface of 150 ram, +6 m m (6 in., ~0.25 in.) square. The spectral radiant emittance curve of the radiant panel shall be that of a black body at a temperature of 1000°K, __.200°K (1340°F, +360°F)." SUBSTANTIATION: Ensures consistency and uniformity in preconditioning. Current wording allows for use of larger, nonsquare panels that introduce inconsistencies. COMMITIT.E ACTION: Accept. (Log #209) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 199 - (6-1.11.8, 6-51): Accept in Principle SUBMITI'ER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-78 RECOMMENDATION: Add new texu Step one - saturate 2 9 x 9 in. squares of AATCC blotting paper. Step two - run the 2 saturated 9 x 9 in. sheets of blotting paper through a lab wringer (see paragraph 10.2 of AATCC Test Method 70 Water Repellency Tumble Jar DD~mic Absorption Test for description of wringer) weighted to 60 lb/linear in. Step three - Place the inner most fining material between the two damp sheets blotting paper and place this composite in a zip lock bag. Step four - Condition this composite sample in the bag for 24 hr. Step five - After 24 hr remove inner most fining material from bag, put together with the other components of the baseline, knee or shoulder composite as appropriate and perform the test per 6-51. Revise text: 6-51.1 Application add " ~ " , between the words "to" and "the reinforced". 6-51.3.3 Add wet conditioning as follows: "All specimens shall ~g conditioned as snecified in 6-1.11.8." 6-51.5.2, .3, and .4 add the word ~ after CCHR. 6-51.6.1 Add another sentence as follows: "Failure oc~'urs when the CCHR rating for the shoulder composite or the knee comoosite is less than the CCHR ratin~ for the baseline comoosite.~ SUB-STANTIATION: Editorial and change from dry testing to worst case wet testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-299 (Log #93). (Log #276) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 200 - (6-2.1.1): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "This test method shall apply to protective garment textiles, hoods, wristlets, ~ helmet ear covers, and trim materials and partial eye/face protective interface components." SUBSTANTIATION: Need to include gaundets for consistency with 5-3.7, which specifies that gaundet materials are to be tested per 6-2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #273) C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 197- (6-1.6.5): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "...an iron wire of the same diameter shall be silver soldered =~e~: "~e edge: 15 mm, +1 mm from the edges of the copper sheet on the same side...". SUBSTANTIATION: The current text for the transducer does not provide sufficient information to ensure that all transducers are uniform, which contributes to greater interlab variability. Detail should be provided to provide better correlation and reliability. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #277) C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 201 - (6-2.10.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: Samples for condluonmg shall . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ , ~-1. . . . . e=c.. m a . e . ~ include material that is a minimum of 75 m m x 305 mm (3 in. x 12 in.)" SUBSTANTIATION: Many nonwoven materials (i.e. leather used on gauntlets) may not be readily available in the dimensions specified; the proposed language does not prohibit larger samples for conditioning, but also does not require a manufacturer to submit samples that may not represent production material. Also, the proposed wording is consistent with 6-2.9.2, which modifies sample sizes for knit materials. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #274) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 198 - (6-1.11.6): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "The garment shall be tumbled u~tJ! d W for 60 ITfin. and shall be removed immediately at the end of the drying cycle. At the 497 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C (Log #115) Committee: FAE-SFF SUBSTANTIATION: Hoods are more appropriate tested as whole items in a manner similar to helmets, gloves, and footwear. The proposed changes provided procedures for testing whole hoods on a headform for heat and thermal shrinkage resistance. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 202 - (6-2.12.$): Accept SUBMITrER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-2.12.$ Testing shall be performed as specified in 6-2.2 through 6-2.7 with the flame applied to the edge of the label, SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification regarding the point of flame (Log #116) Committee: FAE-SFF F$umrriiCation is n e e d e d EE ACTION: Accept, 1971- 204- (6-6.1.1(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-6.1.1 (a) Pr~tc~-;'c ga='r..cnt textile: a=:d ka.-~-,;:u.-c. Garment outer shells, moisture harriers, thermal barriers, collar iinines. WiIlter liners, trim. letterinm and other materials used in warment construction, includinm but not limited to. naddinv. reinforcement, labels, interfacing, bindin=, faan~er'ioons, emblems 9r patches, and elastic and hook and nile fasteners Iwl~en used wh¢re in contact with the wearer's bocivL SUBSTANTIATION: Provides consistency with 5-1.6. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #$) Committee: FAF~FF 1971- 205- (6-2.13): Accept SUBMITTER: Robert L. Jensen, 5M COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 I RECOMMENDATION: Change the section title to "Specific Requirements for Testing Lettering TI~-:= !: Including Transfer Film." SUBSTANTIATION: The requirements in 6-2.1.$ are supposed to apply to all types of letter, not just transfer film. COMMITIT~ ACTION: Accept. (Log #174) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 205 - (6-6.1.10 and 6-6.16 through 6-6.16.7 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Kimberly Henry, Celanese Acetate - Advanced Fiber Materials COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197!-152 RECOMMENDATION: Add new subsections 6-6.1.10 and 6-6.16 within Section 6-6 for testing the whole hood for heat and thermal shrinkage: 6-6.1.10 Modifications to this test method for testing hoods shall be as specified in 66.16. 6-6.16 Specific Requirements for Testing Hoods. 6-6.16.1 Samples for conditioning shall be whole hoods. 6-6.16.2 Specimens shall be tested both before and after being subjected to the procedure specified in 6-1.2, 6-6.16.$ Specimens shall include complete hoods with labels. 6-6.16.4 The hood shall be d o n n e d onto the nonconductive' headform (ISOJ) specified in Figure 6-6.12.5 and measured for coverage as specified in 4-5.$. The hood opening shall be measured as specified in 4-5.4. The headform with hood donned shall be placedin the center of the test oven with the centerline of the front of hood face opening facing the airflow. All measurement shall be conducted both before and after heat exposure. 6-6.16.5 The minimum interior dimensions of the test oven shall be 610 m m x 610 mm x 610 m m (24 in. x 24 in. x 24 in.). 6-6.16.6 The percent change in the hood length and hood opening diameter dimensions of each hood specimen shall be calculated. Results shall be reported as the average of all three specimens in each dimension. 6-6.16.7 Testing shall be performed as specified in 6-6.2 through 6-6.7. SUBSTANTIATION: All elements of the ensemble with the exception of garments, are measured for heat and thermal shrinkage as a complete element. The proposed method tests hoods as they would be used in the field. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMrlTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-186 (Log #147). (Log #147) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 205a- (6-6): Accept SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Modify paragraph 6-6.1.2 as follows: 6-6.1.2 Modifications to this test method for testing garment outer shell, moisture barrier, thermal barrier, winter liner, h~cd, helmet ear cover, and inner most glove liner materials shall be as specified in 6-6.8. Add new paragraph 6-6.1.10. ~-6.1.10 Modifications to this test method for testin~ hoods shall Ip¢ as specified in 6-6.16. Remove "Hood," from dfle of 6-6.8. Add new paragraph 6-6.16: 6-6.16 Specific Requirements for Testing Hoods. 6-6.16.1 Samples for conditioning shall include complete hoods, with labels. 6-6.16.2 Hoods shall be tested both before and after the conditioning specified in 6-1.2. 6-6.16.$ Tesung shall be performed as specified in 6-6.4 through 6-6.6 unless modified herein.. 6-6.16.4 Hoods shall be donned on an nonconductive test headform specified in Figure 6-6.12.3. The dimensions of the face opening shall be measured as specified in 6-47.4.2. Measurements shall also be made at the back and both sides of the hood from the top of the hood to the basic plane. The location of the basic plan on the hood shall be marked at each location. 6-6.16.5 The headform with hood attached shall be placed in the center of the test oven with the centefline of the front of the h o o d facing the airflow. 6-6.16.6 The minimum interior dimensions of the test oven shall be 610 m m x 610 m m x 610 rmn (24 in. x 24 in. x 24 in.). 6-6.16.7 The test thermocouple shall be positioned so that it is level with the horizontal centerline of a mount test hood. The thermocouple shall be equidistant between the vertical centerline of a mounted test hood placed in the middle of the oven wall where the airflow enters the test chamber. 6-6.16.8 Following removal from the oven, the hood shall be examined for evidence of ignition, melting, dripping, or separation. The hood shall also be allowed to cool at room temperature for not less than 2 min. The hood opening shall be measured as specified in 6-47.4.6. The distance from the top of the hood to the three marks along the basic plane shall also be measured. 6-6.16.9 The percentage change in the hood opening dimensions and the distances between the top of the hood and the marks along the basic plane shall be calculated and reported for each speamen. The average percentage change shall be calculated for each individual dimension and used to determine pass or fall performance. 6-6.16.10 Failure in any one dimension constitutes failure of the entire sample. (Log #84) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 206 - (6-6.2.2): Accept SUBMITrER= Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971d$2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Both heat and thermal shrinkage resistance testing shall be conducted on a minimum of three specimens of whole gloves, and for each garment ~outer shell, moisture barrier, thermal liner, winter liner, ~ Each separable layer of multilayer material systems or composites shall be e tested as an individual layer." 498 NFPA 1971 m F99 ROC (Log #254) Committee: FAF_~SFF SUBSTANTIATION: Clarification, helmet ear covers were not included in the specimen sections under 6-6.2. COMMYVrEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 211 - (6-7.4.1(a)): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "The pressure applied during the test shall be 0.0029 kg/~-:= 2 to : 9.~n992 .~g/_cm.~~ (0.5 psi x"O.05 psi)." SUBSTANTIATION: Kilo Pascals (kPa) are the correct SI unit for pressure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #117) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 207- (6-6.9.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-6.9.1 Samples for conditioning shall be a minimum of 1 linear m (1 linear yd) with a minimum of 150 m m (6 in.) of material on each e:.'~.er side of the seam. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies requirement. Current wordlng would allow for 6 in. on one side only. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #161) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 212- (6-7.7.3, 6-7.7.4): Accept SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6-7.7.3 to read: "Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to the procedure specified in 6-1.$ both before and after laundering as specified in 61.2". Revise 6-7.7.4 to read: "Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to wet conditioning as specified in 6-1.8 both before and after laundering as specified in 6-1.2". SUBSTANTIATION: To address committee's decision on FI 1971-97-2 regarding conductive heat resistance testing for gloves. COMMI'ITEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #118) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 208 - (66.9.3): Accept SUBMITIXR: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-6.9.3 Specimens shall be tested with the sealed seam oriented vertically, a n d shall be tested both before a n d after being subjected to t h e p r o c e d u r e specified in 6-1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Dripping is more easily detected with the seam oriented vertically. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #168) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 213- (6-9.3.2, 6-9.$.3 (New)): Accept S U B ~ Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6-9.3.2 to read: "Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to the conditioning procedure specified in 6-1.3. Add new text: 6-9.5.3 Specimens shall also be tested separately following conditioning as specified in 6-1.9. SUBSTANTIATION: To address the committee's response to an FI (1971-97-2) regarding test protocol for radiant heat resistance testing of footwear. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #85) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 209 - (6-6.12.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Helmets with ear covers deployed and with the faceshield/goggle component in the :'.~.rc~ stowed position shall be seated...". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #278) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #11) C ommittee: FAE-SFF • 1971- 210- (6-6.13.6): Accept SUBMITIT_,~ Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 IRECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "The glove body shall be filled with dry vermiculite, tightly pack the vermiculite into dq~ fing¢~ of the glov~ and glgv¢ body. The opening of the glove shall be clamped together, a n d the specimen shall be suspended by the clamp in the oven so that the entire glove is not less than 50 m m (2 in.) from any oven surface or other specimen, and airflow is parallel to the plane of the material. ~ o t more than six glove specimens and not less than $ glove ~pecim~ns shall be placed in the t¢~t oven at on¢ time," SUBSTANTIATION: Results for thermal s h r i n k ~ e can be highly variable, depending upon the amount of vermicuhte added, the total n u m b e r of gloves in the oven during the test run, and the positioning of the specimens with respect to the airflow (i.e., samples facing the airflow tend to have ore shrinkage than samples in the middle). The proposed wording attempts to standardize the test so that more reproducible results can be obtained. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 214- (6-10.3): Accept SUBMrI'rER: Julie Bellar, Lion Apparel COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1~71-132 I RECOMMENDATION: The standard currently reads "Thermal Protective Performance Testing after wash only." It should read "Thermal Protective Performance Testing before a n d after wash." SUBSTANTIATION: Unlike some other test requirements, worst case for TPP is before wash. Laundered samples increase in thickness and therefore insulation can inflate the TPP value by as much as 25 percent. By removing the before wash requirements, clothing composites could be reduced by approximately 25 percent and still meet the TPP requirements. This would reduce the before wash TPP result to well below the TPP minimum 35 value and could be hazardous to the fire fighter. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-85 (Log #78). (Log #I 78) Committee: FAF, SFF 1971- 215 - (6-10.$): Accept SUBMITTER: Diane B. Hess, Celanese Acetate - Advanced Fiber Materials COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Change to: "Specimens shall be tested both before and after preconditioning as specified in 6-1.2 and then conditioning as specified in 6-1.3." SUBSTANTIATION: TPP testing should reflect the actual fire fighters usage. Typically, most fire fighters do not wash their 499 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C garments prior to initial use. In most cases, TPP composite results are lower initially a n d a little higher after laundering. Having both before and after 5X launderings offers additional information on performance. To my knowledge, most test facilities are reporting both n u m b e r at this time. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. SUBSTANTIATION: As shown in the actual drawing, 3 thermocouples are used. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. [ COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The n u m b e r 4 is correct and the top left drawing in Figure 6-10.4.1.10 will be corrected to show the 4th [ thermocouple. (Log #236) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #256) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 21fi - (6-10.3): Accept in Principle SUBM]TTER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Specimens shall be tested I?~fore pT~conditionin~ and after reconditioning...'. UBSTANTIATION: TPP ratings can increase as much as 20 ~aftercent after 5 cycles of home laundering. Based on this data, an er wash" TPP rating of 35.0 could have a "before wash ~ rating of less than $0. A compliant set of gear could offer a TPP of less than 35.0 until the garment achieves the "preconditioned ~ state if it ever does. COMMrlqT, E ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-215 (Log #178). 1971- 221 - (6-10.5.2.3): Accept S U ~ Ross Cochran, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Once an initial setting o f ~ k W / m 2 + A k W / m 2 12 k W / m 2 ±1.2 k W / m 2 (3 cal/cm2s ±0.03 cal/cm2s)." SUBSTANTIATION: The conversion of cal/cm2s to k W / m 2 is incorrect 0.3 cal/cm2s ffi 12.6 kW/m2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. ~ (Log #133) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 222 - (6-I0.6): Reject SUBMrITER= William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text= (Log #119) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 217- (6-10.4.1.1): Accept SUBMITIER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ~6-10.4.1.1 The specimen holder assembly shall consist of upper a n d lower mounting plates. Specimen holder .-r~L':~'n'~.g mounting plates shall be...". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial correction. COMMYrTEE ACTION: Accept. S~BSTANTIATION: The industry has been responsive to our requests for additional TPP reinforcements. If a specimen or composite can achieve greater than 60 3TP, I would like to have the exact figure. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrlq'EE STATEMENT: The Stoll Curve does not go beyond 60 a n d anything beyond that value would be a n extrapolation. Committe e: ( L ~ # ~ 1971- 225 - (6-11.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Larry Horn, Portland Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: %..sewin~ thread used in the construction of protective garments, hoods, wrmdets, gloves, helmets, and footwearf SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed wording would be more °OMcific" MITTEEe ACTION: Accept. (Log #12) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 218- (6-10.4.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Julie Bellar, Lion Apparel COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Specimen holder assembly support shall be securely clamped at the edges such that specimen shrinkage is prevented." SUBSTANTIATION: This sentence had previously been removed from this standard. O a m p i n g cannot be reproduced accurately a n d therefore produces varying results between labs or even within labs. Also, clamping can artificially compress composites beyond that seen in the field a n d therefore eliminate some otherwise acceptable composites. The 1000 weight requirement also currently in the standard was put there to REPLACE the clamping method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #272) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 224 - (6-11.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 6-11.1 Application. This test shall apply to sewing thread used in the construction of protective garments, hoods, wristlets, .~el..~.e~, a n d helmet covers. SUBSTANTIATION: There is no corresponding performance requirement that thread used in construction of helmets must not melt below 500°F. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMYFrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-223 (Log #48). (Log #120) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 219 - (Figure 6-10.4.1.3): Accept SUBMITFER= Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 [ RECOMMENDATION: Delete depiction of "Spacer". SUBSTANTIATION: A spacer is not intended to be used. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept. (Log #122) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #121) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 220 - (Figure 6-10.4.1.10): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197L132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows: "Connect 4 ~ T / C in parallel... ~. Remove the n u m b e r 4. 1971- 225 - (6-11.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 [ IRECOI~MFA~IDATION: Revise text: 6-11.2 Specimens. ~-:¢ Three different specimens shall be used. SUBSTANTIATION: Determination of pass/fail is based on visual observation a n d does n o t involve averaging of results. 500 N F P A 197.1 - - F 9 9 R O C (Los ~V) Exp~en¢c ~ shown that three specimens would be suflident to d e ~ ~p w / f a i L ACTION: Accept. Committee: FAF~FF ~971-~sI--(~-19.~.2): Accept oct, S ~ Karen E. Serinnl . IntertekTesting ~erv/ces C . ~ , O N (Log #~41) 1971- 226 - (6-12.2.2): Accept PROPOSAL N O : 197t-132 I RECOMMENDATION: R~.~ke text: "..A total of two p e m m a i o n tern for each of the ~ f i v e Committee: FAF~FF enviromnental c o n d ~ t i 0 ~ specified.in 6.1.S, 6-1.4, 6-1.5, 6.1.6, a n d 6-1.7 shall be conducted in such a rr~nn,sr...". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, five conditions are r e f e r ¢ ~ , d not SUBM[TTER: .Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO:. 1971-152 four. RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Specimens shall be tested both before and after bein~ conditioned as specified in 6.1.2.* SUBSTANTIATION: Firefighters need to have some expectation of how their gear will perform when it's new and after it has been worn. Testing for tear strength before launderin~ will insure that fabrics do not start out below the 22 Ibs/b lbs minimum level and gain strength through the laundering process. COMMITIT~ ACTION: Accept. c ~ AL'HON: Accept.- Gommittee:(F ~ ) 1971- ~ 2 - (6-22.1.~, 6..,q~1,$)~: Accept Larry l-lore, Povehmd Irtre Bureau, OR COMMENT.ON Mt.OPO&t.L NO:. 1971-152 [ P.E4~3~MI~'qDATION: Revise,text: "6-~'L1.2 ~.J~ai/be~qpecified in ~ , 8 - f l ~ = Z . " "6-2~,1.3 ...droll be as specitied ~m_.? ~ 8 . " SUB~ANTIATION: Pomible typo - inappropriate referenced numbers. (Los #123) Commlttee: FAF~FF 1971- 227- (6.12.$.2): Accept SUBMITIYR: Thomas L Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. C O ] ~ [ ' ] [ ' Y ] [ ~ A ~ T I O N : AccepL , COMMENT O N PltOPOS&L NO: 1971-I$2 " I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-12.3.2 Where the material is : ~ ~.-'~otropic, then ten specimem shall b~ tested. ~MerI&TION: Isou-opic is the correct term. COMMIITF~ ACTION: Accept. (Log ~ 5 ) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- ~ $ - (6-22.5.1): Ac_rep_t in Principle S ~ M H e m , Portimd Plm Bureau, OR ~ T . O N INgt~ NO: 1971-52 ~ h . X l O N : ]7,e,~etam: ",.shaftbe t ~ e d . t o m e nearest i ram ~ / . ~ t - ~ " SU~q~&WI'I~IONs Los ~;2 was a straightaceept; this induded the a b ~ e ~ 1971- 228 - (6-14.1.2, 6-14.7): Accept S ~ Thomas L. Wollan, U n d e r t ~ e r s Laborawrie~' Inc. CoMMrI'IEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTIg~ g r ~ : the corrent fraction, COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-IS'~ RECOMMENDATION: Revise text. i 6-14.1.2 Modifications to this t e s t method for testing Karment~ wrisfle~ and glove wristlets shall be as specified in 6-14.7. 6-14.7 Specific Requirements for Testing Protective C,armenw Wristlets and Glove Wristlets. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies intent. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Accept. The ROP text shows:S/64 which is Conmduee:(~ S ~ Larry Horn, portland F'ure.Bureau, OR COMMENT O N M ~ M A L NO:. 1971-52 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: : •" f ~ l ~ - f e I L ~ _~=-aSe cut f = = = d l m m ~ ,hall be used m d e t e n m ~ pare or faa ~ " S~~TION: ASTM t790 does not measure force for this criteria. Distance is correct tenn. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Committee:(F L ° ~ COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to the procedure specified in 6-1.2 ~ " SUBSTANTIATION: Redundant since 6-1.2 calls for 5 cycles. COMMrrrF~ ACTION: Accept. (Log #~2) Committee: FAE.SFF 1971- 2~5- (6.26): Hold Donald Aldridge, Lien Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPO6AL NO:. 1971-I.q2 RECOMMENDATION: DeleteSection 6-26.2 and 6-26.4 and S U B ~ (Log~ ) Committee:. FAE, SFF 1971- 230 - (6-17,~3.2): Accept SUBMITrF~ Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Samples for conditioning shall be as defined in ~ I%1 6-17121 SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial, should reference all sections in 6-17.2. 6-~.91 Three medmem.d m~aa.mem~n~ o u t e r shell n m t ~ m l =ml callar llnln¢ a t t e ~ ~O~ , , m ~ m s m ~ i ~ . r S in.~ sh~J be tested ~ n a r a t ~ T ~ water a l ~ m i ~ o n . 6-~.3.1 S ~ d m m m ~=!1 be t e m ~ after t~ina suhlec~ to tlu~ nmcednfe ~ c ~ ' I n ' ~ l . 2 . ~ - - - 6-26.4 Procedure. 6-'26.4.1 S n e d m e n s shall be tested in accordance with Method COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 5504. "Water Redmance of C~oated Cloth. Snrav Ahmrmion Method." of Federal Test M e t h o d Standard-1OiA~ T e x ~ e Test M e t h o ~ with the fullowln~r modification. T h e a m o u n t o f water m be used shall b e 5.500 m l _ This m be a c c o m n M h e d b v p o u d n ~ I I - 500 ml containees o f water into the f u n n e l ~ a e after a n o t h e r QT by keenin~ the fimnel 1 / 2 m 9 / 8 full with a cor,~h~t stream o f Water for i 0 rain. If you use the constant mream m e t h o d , m e a s u r e 501 N F P A 1971 ~ down from the ton of the funnel 2 and 1/2 in. and nlace a mark on the funnel. The water level in the funnel must remain at this level for the entire 10 min. At the end of the 10 min time fi~ane nlaee a container over the funnel end to stoD anY additional water v~hich is in the funnel from snravin~ onto t h e testsample. 6-26.4.2 For collar linin~ materials, the exnosure surface shall be the surface o f the f a b r i c tl~at is next to the slain when the collar is closed in the raised nosition. SUBSTANTIATION: The test in the document has little support due to the test variances found between labs. Although the replacement method has a great deal of variances between labs it has been used in the past and will have a greater level of acceptance. By increasing the water exposure from less than 1 min to 1Omin the test will more replicate actual exposure in the field. If a 20 min exposure is desired then the amount of water can be doubled or the amount of time can be increased to 20 min. We use a 20 min spray test in our shower test already and it would he easy to support using a 20 rain exposure on this test also. The reason to keep the funnel 1/2 to 2/3 full is to better replicate the amount of pressure on the water in the funnel when you allow the funnel to start almost full and run down to almost empty. Backup Information for Section 6-26. To obtain the correct amount of water for this proposed test the following test were run: 1. The amount of time it takes for 500 ml to pass through the funnel is 56 sec. 2. 11 (500 ml) containers were poured into the funnel one after the other as soon as the funnel would accept the next 500 ml. It took 10 min to pass 5,500 ml through the nozzle. This test was run twice a n d the results were the same. 3. A continuous flow of water was allowed to flow into a full funnel for 5 min and the water was caught in a container when it came out the spray nozzle. The water was then measured and 3,675 mi of water had passed through the nozzle in 5 rain. If you double this amount you will get 7,350 ml in 10 rain. A constant flow with a will allow 1/3 more water to pass through the spray nozzle in 10 rain than when you pour 500 ral one after the other into the funnel. 4. If you keep the water level at 2 and 1/2 in. down from the top edge of the funnel (the funnel is between 1/2 and 2/3 fuID and you allow the water to run continuously the time to get 500 ml through the nozzle is 55.5 sea This data was obtained by using a stop watch and placing a container under the nozzle a n d w h e n the 500mi mark on the container was reached it was removed and the stop watch was stopped. Seven (7) different tests were done to confirm that the 2 1/2 in. measurement is correct. The above test indicates that the #4 solution is about equal to the #1 solution and #2 solution. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITrF~ STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be prol~erly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed tame frame for processing the Report on Comments. This issue also has not had public review. F99 ROC (Log #233) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 237- (6-26.$.1): Reject SUBMI'ITER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-113 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Samples for conditioning shall be at least ~ m (~. -~x~_,:q"_?_~-: l m (1 vd] souare of material." SUBST.~NTIATION: It is unreasonable to require a minimum of 7 yds of fabric to be conditioned in preparation for this test. All other fabric tests require a minimum of 1 yd. ~ COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. . COMMYrTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-127 (Log #109) and 1971-239 (Log #235). (Log #175) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 288- (6-26.4): Accept SUBMITTER= Diane B. Hess, Celanese Acetate - Advanced Fiber Materials COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Change to read: 6-26.4 Procedure. Soecimens shall be tested in accordance with Method 5504. "Water Resistance of Coated Cloth: Snrav Absorntion Method'. of Federal Test Method Standard 191A. Textile Test Methods. The normal outer surface shall be exnosed to the water sorav. SUBSTANTI~kTION: Based on the Durability Task Group round robin testing results, the AATCC Method 70 is variable at best. Also, I do not believe that the action of the tumble jar accurately reflects the water exposure that the fire fighter sees. I believe that the Spray Method (5504) may be variable also, but that the fire service industry has more experience with this test method at this time. There are also ways that this test method can be modified to improve the lab to lab variability and better represent what the fire fighter actually sees. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-127 (Log #109) and 1971-239 (Log #235). (Log #255) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 239 - (6-26.4): Accept in Principle SUBMITIT~- Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-114 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: ~Spedmens shall be tested in accordance with ?~TCC 70, T~= k AS.z.~rp~n Federal Test Standard 191A Method 5504. "Water Resistance of Coated Cloth: Snrav Absorntlon Method...". SUBSTANTIATION: The TC-a/~pointecl Durability Task group was assigned the review of the proposal (Log #124c) which suggests the inclusion of AATCC 70. The task group ultimately recommended to reject Log #124C based on the following: (1) Multiple round robin testing revealed extreme variation in test results. (2) The test specimen is actually submerged in water and agitated for 20 minutes; thisprocedure does not replicate fireground exposure as Log #124c claims. (3) One test facility was unable to prevent leakage of water from the exposure vessel as it turned e n d o v e r end during the test. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-127 (Log #109). (Log #197) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 236 - (6-26.2): Reject SUBMITrER= Julie Bellar, Lion Apparel COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Paragraph should read: "Two specimens consisting of 5 square pieces each, are cut from the sample...". Delete the last sentence: "The test shall be run in duplicate...". SUBSTANTIATION: The number of s p e d m e n s to be prepared and tested, while correct, is confusing and should be rewritten. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-127 (Log #109) and 1971-239 (Log #235). (Log #153) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 240 - (6-26.4, Chapter 7): Hold SUBMITTER: Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph to read: 6-26.4 Specimens shall be tested in accordance with AATCC 42, Water Resistance: Impact Penetration Test. Add new test method reference to Chapter 7. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed test method (AATCC 70) results in generally a ~-fold increase in fabric weight due to the 502 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C determine the effectiveness of pass/fail level for samples tested after 10 cycles of washing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-245 (Log #229). immersion process used for exposing spedmens. This exposure rOCeSS does not simulate real exposure any better than the rmerly specified test method (VI'MS 191A, 5504). Despite the change in the test method a n d the concurrent impact on materials, no change in the performance criterion has been recommended. The test method suggested in this comment reflects the AATCC method most similar to the incumbent method (FTMS 191A, 5504). (Log #229) Committee: FAE-SFF COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This comment recommends issues that can not be prol~erly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed ume frame for processing the Report on Comments. 1971- 245 - (6-98.$.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-15 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 6-28.3.5 Moisture harrier material shall be tested after being v:~ce subjected to the following conditioning. SUBSTANTIATION: Since seams h a d previously not been subjected to liquid penetration challenges in the 1997 edition of NFPA 1971, the Liquid Penetration Task Group spent a great deal of time evaluating seam seal methods against the various liquid challenges, after one preconditioning cycle. It was determined that while not every sample tested was able to pass all six challenges, at least one of every sample from different sources were able to pass at least once. Thus, the task group concluded that ff one could pass, the technology existed to insure that all couldpass. After the Liquid Penetration Task Group h a d been disbanded, the Durability Task Group increased the preconditioning samples on both the material and the seams. However, the only testing that was done on sealed seams prior to this decision was one one of the liquids, not all. While increasing the n u m b e r of preconditioning cycles was the recommendation of the Task Group on Durability, the Technical Committee needs to insure that it does not confuse wash/dry preconditioning with durability in the field, a n d in so doing create an unrealistic expectation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee's intention is to force the durability issue by increasing the preconditioning which will further stress these important components. These changes were made in response to a proposal from the Philadelphia Fire Department and after study by the task group on durability. The two preconditioning cycles will remain. (Log #255) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 241 - (6-27.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Ross Cochcan, Securitex Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Specimens shall be tested at !.7~ k g / c m ~ 172 kPa (25 psi)." SUBSTANTIATION: kPa are the correct SI unit for pressure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #279) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 242 - (6"28.2): Accept SUBMITITER: Catherine IL Dodgen, .Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 6-28.2 Specimens. Samples for conditioning shall c:.:'.:':t ~f "..~rc: 75 .."~.'q (~ i.n.) =qz=arc f~r c=c.~. ..-'z:tc.'~a! .%~c be as specified in 628.7.1 for moisture barriers and moisture harrier seams. 6-28.8.2 for glove materials, and 6-28.9.1 for footwear materials. SUBSTANTIATION: The existing wording is contradictory to later paragraphs of the test method; the proposed wording eliminates potential confusion. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #240) Committee: FAF_~FF (Log #15) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 246 - (6-28.3.5): Reject SUBMITrER: Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-76 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: ~Moisture barrier material and moisture barrier seam specimens shall be tested after being v - z : subjected to the following conditioning." SUBSTANTIATION: All testing performed by the Liquid Penetration Task Group was conducted following one, nottwo, o/des of preconditioning. While further study continues on the effect of two cycles of preconditioning, this edition should mandate just one. Even one cycle of preconditioning is a giant leap forward considering that seams are not subjected to chemical penetration testing in any form in NFPA 1971-1997 edition. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-245 (Log #229). 1971- 243 - (6-28.$.5): Reject SUBMITrER: William Grob, Aldan Industries, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-48, 1971-56 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Moisture barrier materials a n d moisture barrier seam specimens shall be tested after being v:-cc subjected to the following conditioning." SUBSTANTIATION: Insufiqcient cross over data was evaluated between the Durability and Liquid Penetration task groul~s. Durability was focused mainly on a composite precondiuoning method whereas Liquid Penetration on testing seams after five launderings. Durability seam testing done at ten launderings only included viral and fuel G penetration resistance and not battery acid. Liquid Penetration evaluated seams after five non-composite launderings. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-245 (Log #229). (Log #18) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #198) 1971- 247- (6-28.3.5, 6-29.$.5): Reject SUBMrFrER= William Grob, Aldan Industries, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-76 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: (a) Specimens shall first be subjected to the procedure specified in 6-1.2 ¢~Igept wash temperature shall be 54°C+0°/-6°G ( 1 S0°F40°/-10°FL SUBSTANTIATION: As preconditioning moves toward composite simulation, wash temperatures should be adjusted conforming to SCAM requirements for closer approximation to field recommendations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. C ommittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 244- (6-28.S.5): Reject SUBMITI~R: Julie Bellar, Lion Apparel COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Moisture barrier materials a n d moisture barrier seam specimens shall be tested after being ~C=e subjected to the following conditioning." SUBSTANTIATION: The word twice refers to the a, b, c, d, conditioning routine which in effect would take the samples through two sets of wash for a total of 10 cycles and two sets of oven conditioning. All data from the liquid penetration testing is based on 5 wash cycles only. No studies have been completed to 503 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This is a materials test precondition and has no relation to any user washing instructions that may be given by the manufacturer or user oriented documents. Create a new 6-28.7.1.1 to read: 6-28.7.1.1 Where the layer intended to be the moisture barrier is configured of a composite that includes outer shell, moisture barrier, or thermal barrier combinations, the samples to be preconditioned shall be constructed using those materials. Create a new 6-28.7.2.1 to read: 6-28.7.2.1 Where the moisture barrier is configured as indicated in 6-28.7.1.1, specimens shall be permitted to be a composite of layers providedthat the layer intended to be the moisture barrier is visible in e test cell, and provided that the specimen was preconditioned according to 6-28.7.1.1. COMMIITEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the intent but provided detailed requirements as to when the composite can be the specimen. (Log #193) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 248- (6-28.3.5(d), 6-29.3.5(d)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Daniel Gohlke, W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Add to end: "This conditioning requires that the requirement in 6-1.5(f) be related to 8 hr." SUBSTANTIATION: 6-28.3.5(d) and 6-29.3.5(d) are in conflict with 6-1.5(0. This new language allows 6-1.5(0 to be related in this case. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-193 (Log #275). (Log #164) Committee: FAE-SFF 1071- 252- (6-28.0.2): Accept SUBMITTER= Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6-28.9.2 to read: "Three specimens each shall be taken from the upper, upper seam area, and the vamp seam area." SUBSTANTIATION: To address committee's decision on FI 1971-9%2 regarding inclusion of the reference to vamp seam in the test method to be consistent with the performance requirements. (5-4.6) COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #225) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 249 - (6-28.7.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 6-28.7.1 Samples for conditioning shall be at least 380 m m (15 in.) square and shall consist of a composite constructed using a layer of 7.5 oz natural Nomex, the moisture barrier, a layer of Q9 thermal barrier material, and another layer of 7.5 oz natural Nomex. Where the sample includes the seam, the moisture barrier layer shall be constructed with a center seam that shall extend across the entire 380 mm (15 in.) width of the specimen. The four layer composite shall be stitched around the entire periphery. SUBSTANTIATION: Without the added verbiage, the argument could be made that since the preconditioning samples are required to have a center seam, and since moisture barrier suppliers do not actually cut, stitch, or seam seal the fabric, it will not be possible to have the moisture barrier fabric component recognized. Adding this sentence does not change the preconditioning requirements, but it does clarify the preconditiomng to insure that the fabric itself can be tested, with or without the seam. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #280) Committee: F-AE-SFF 1971- 253- (6-29.2): Accept SUBMYITER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 6-29.2 Specimens. Samples for conditioning shall z~m';~t ~f ~ r : z 75 .."~,."~(3 L-:.) ~q~v.=c f~r eacP...matcr'al ,'~c be as specified in 629,7.1 for moisture barriers and moisture barrier seams. 6-29.8.2 for glove materials, and 6-29.9.2 for footwear materials. SUBSTANTIATION: The existing wording is contradictory to later paragraphs of the test method; the proposed wording eliminates potential confusion. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #230) Committee: FAF~FF (Log #19) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 254- (6-29.3.5): Reject SUBMITrER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-15 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 6-29,3.5 Moisture barrier material and moisture barrier seams shall be tested after being e:Ace subjected to the following conditioning. SUBSTANTIATION: The issue of multiple preconditioning was not examined by the Lic)uid Penetration Task Group at all, even though a great deal of Ume was spent on testing seam seal methods against the various liquid challenges, after one preconditioning cycle. It was determined that while not every sample tested was able to pass all six challenges, at least one of every sample from different sources were able to pass at least once. Thus, the task .group concluded that if one could pass, the technology existed to insure that all could pass. After the Liquid Penetration Task Group had been disbanded, the Durability Task Group increased the preconditioning samples on both the material and the seams, for both viral and liquid challenges. While increasing the number of preconditioning o/des was the recommendation of the Task Group on Durability, the Technical Committee needs to insure that it does n o t confuse wash/dry preconditioning with durability in the field, and in so doing create an unrealistic expectation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Proposed changes would reduce the severity of the test below the ROP text and the requirement in the current 1997 edition. The Committee does not agree with reducing the test. 1971- 250 - (6-28.7.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William Grob, Alden Industries, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-48, 1971-117, 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the paragraph in its entirety and substitute: "$pecim¢os shall ~onsist of a ~;ompgs~t~ 9f layers that act as the barrier. All layers must be arranged in vroner order. Snecimens for testing ~hall be oermitted to be the l~arr]er laver only." SUBSTANTIATIO~I: This wording was inadvertently omitted. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-251 (Log #210). (Log #210) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 251 - (6-28.7.2): Accept in Principle SUBMI'ITER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-48 RECOMMENDATION: 6-28.7.2 should be corrected to read per the committee action on 1971-48: "Soecimens shall consist of a comnosite of layers that act a.q a barrier, and seam areas. All layers shall be arranged in nrover order." SUBSTANTIATION: Paragraph 6-28.7.2 of the F99 Report on Proposals does not read per the committee's action on 1971-48 (Log #7), Either add the above sentence or delete and use the above text. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. 504 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC across the entire 580 mm (15 in.) width of the specimen. The four layer composite shall be stitched around the entire periphery. SUBSTANTIATION: Without the added verbiage, the argument could be made that since the preconditioning samples are required to have a center seam, and since moisture barrier suppliers do not actually cut, stitch, or seam seal the fabric, it will not be possible to have the moisture barrier fabric component recognized. Adding this sentence does not change the preconditioning requirements, but it does clarify the preconditioning to insure that the fabric itself can be tested, with or without the seam. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #259) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 255 - (6-29.$.5): Reject SUBMITTER= Denise N. Statham, Southern Mills, Inc. COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-76 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Moisture barrier material and moisture barrier seam specimens shall be tested after being ~.;-zc subjected to the following conditioning." SUBSTANTIATION: As a means of consistency, the requirement for Viral Penetration Resistance should mandate identical reconditioning to that required in the Liquid Penetration esistance test. It is unreasonable to expect moisture barrier fabrics or seams to face a tougher challenge on viral penetration than on liquid penetration by mandating additional preconditioning. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-254 (Log #250). (Log #160) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 258- (6-29.9.1): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: "Three specimens each shall be taken from the upper, upper seam area and the vamp seam area." SUBSTANTIATION: The testing of the vamp seam area is stated in the performance requirement but was inadvertently left out of the test method. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #201) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 256 - (6-29.4.1): Hold SUBMITrER: Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 197][-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Liquid Penetration resistance testing for moisture barriers and moisture barrier seams, gloves and footwear, add goggles and faceshields and wherever applicable make it composite vs. components test as follows: Delete from: ~;.~.=l! ~". . . . a . . . . "~ "n . . . . . a . . . . . . -..i. Ac'r~m (Log #162) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 259 - (6-$0.9.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITIZR: Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire paragraph as directed in Committee's response to FI 1971,97-2. SUBSTANTIATION: It was the intent of the committee to require functionality testing of footwear hardware. 6-30.9.5 as written specifically stated functionality was NOT to be tested and overrode .general procedure instructions for this test. This comment will ,nsure footwear hardware is tested for functionality after corrosion testing. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Modify the last sentence of 54.17 in the ROP to read: [ " A l l hardware, unless specifically excluded, shall remain ] functional." [ Revise 6-30.9.$ in the Report on Proposals to read: ] "Functionality of the toe cap, sole plate, and ladder shank shall I not be evaluated." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is impossible to evaluate the functionality of certain hardware used in foot wear without performing additional testing. Dk: v 1 ,TA n _ ^ t ~ _ : ^ _ l . ^ e - - ^ "--" - - ' ^ - " Add: "shall be conducted in accordance with annronriatelv modified ASTM F 1862. Standard Test Mgthod for-Resistan~ of Medical Face Masks to Penetration by Synthetic Blgod (Horizontal Projection of fixed volume at Known Velocitv). See article from the Februarv 1999 issue of ASTM Standardization News for i~ descrintion ofASTM F 1862." SUBSTANTIATION: The current test method cannot test composites that represent the PPE (Structural Protective Clothing, footwear and gloves, add goggles and faceshields) as worn by emergency responders. ASTM E 1862 will allow for blood penetration testing to be conducted on conditioned material specimens oriented in the same way as worn in the field. The test method (ASTM F 1862) can be modified to project synthetic blood at a selected worst case velocity at worst case conditioned composites of protective clothing, .gloves, footwear and headwear used by fire department e m e ~ e n c y responders. This new test method appears to better replicate field exposures experienced by emergency responders than ASTM F 1671 which can only manage the moisture barrier components of FF PPE. The current test method, ASTM F 1671, does not accommodate inline production quality control testing of barrier materials or sealed seams on a tamely basis. A modified ASTM F 1862 appears to accommodate quality control testing on sealed seam samples in the plant as they are produced. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Hold. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: this comment recommends issues that can not be properly handled and processed by the Committee in the compressed time frame for processing the Report on Comments. Committee: ( I F ~ 1971- 260 - (6-$1.5.1.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 I RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "...The helmet shall be placed on the ISO size J =c.==an~uc~':z headform specified in Figure 6-16.4.1 6 $.!2.~ and positioned according to the helmet positioning index...'. SUBSTANTIATION: Test line should be drawn using the ISO size J headform to be consistent with all other sections requiring test lines. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #228) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #80) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 257 - (6-29.7.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-29 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: 6-29.7.1 Samples for conditioning shall be at least 380 mm (15 in.) square and shall consist of a composite constructed using a layer of 7.5 oz natural Nomex, the moisture barrier, a layer of Q9 thermal barrier material, and another layer of 7.5 oz natural Nomex. Where the sample includes the seam, the moisture barrier layer shall be constructed with a center seam that shall extend 1971- 261 - (Figure 6-31.5.1.2): Accept SUBMr[TER: Karen E. Strumlock, Intertek Testing Services COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Figure as shown on the next page: 505 N F P A 1971 a Dielectric test line ~ Test line (60 mm = ~ . / . = ~ - ~ ' ¢ ~ above basic plane ~ ......... ~, Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate, using Part C. 6-34.6 Report. 6-34.6.1 The average intrinsic thermal resistance (Rcf) of the sample shall be reported. 6-34.6.2 The average apparent intrinsic evaporative resistance (ARcf) of the sample shall be reported. 6-34.6.$ The average total heat loss ( Q 0 of the sample shall be determined and reported. 6-34.7 Interpretation. 6-34.7.1 Pass or fail determination shall be based on the average reported total heat loss measurement of all specimens tested. 6-34.7.2 If an individual result from any test set varies more than +10 percent fi'om the average result, the results from the test set shall be discarded and another set of specimens shall be tested. Delete paragraphs A-6-34.4, A-6-34.5, A-6-34.5.12, A-6-34.5.15, and A-6-34.6.$. Add ASTM F 1868 (1998) to list of test methods in Chapter 7. SUBSTANTIATION: The test procedures currently specified have become part of an available ASTM standard, F 1868. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Test line 85 mrn above .]~__1besic Plane , ~ J Bas=c plane G. I Mid-sagJttal plane Coronal plane ~. F99 ROC I Irtgure 6-$1.5.1.2 Test setup. (Log #180) Committee: FAE-SFF SUBSTANTIATION: The headform used to mark the test line on a helmet is the ISO size J headform. This revised drawing clarifies the positioning of the test line by locating the test line based on the basic plane, not the reference plane. The location of the test line is not changed, the change effects only the point of reference. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 264 - (6-34.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Diane B. Hess, Celanese Acetate - Advanced Fiber Materials COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-34.$ Sample Preparation. 6-$4.3.1 Specimens shall consist of all layers in he protective garment composite arranged in the order and orientation as worn. 6-34.3.2 Specimens to be tested shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.2. Should include section on sample size a n d specimen dimensions: 6-34,$,1 THL testin~ shall be conducted on $ snecimens. ~p¢cimens shall measure xx m m X xx ram. + xx m m and snecimens shall consist of all layers in the nrotective ~-arment comnosite arranged in the order and orientation as worn. SUBSTANTIATION: A statement of specimen size and sample size should be detailed in is section. Sample size a n d specimen dimension are critical for laboratory determination of results. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-263 (Log #151). (Log #169) Committee: FAE~FF 1971- 262- (6-$$.$.2, 6-35.3.$): Accept SUBMITTER: D o n n a P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read: 6-33.$.2 Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to the procedures specified in 6-1.2 and then conditioned as specified in 6-1.3. 6-33.3.$ Specimens shall be tested after being subjected to the procedures specified in 6-1.5 and then conditioned as specified in 6-1.3. Delete 6-33.3.4. SUBSTANTIATION: This is to address the committee's response to an FI: 1971-97-2 regarding preconditioning protocol clarification for gloves. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #43) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 265 - (6-34.$.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Dean William Cox, Fairfax Cnty Fire a n d Rescue Dept., VA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the following: 6-34.3.2 Specimens to be tested shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Current test procedures does not follow manufacturer instructions. Preconditioning not realistic to firefighting care and laundering. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-267 (Log #224). (Log #151) Committee: FAE.SFF 1971- 263- (6-34): Accept SUBMITTER= Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Section 6-34 as follows: 6-$4 Total Heat Loss Test. 6-34.1 Application. 6-34.1.1 This test method shall apply to the protective garment composites. 6-34.2 Specimens. 6-$4.2.1 Total heat loss testing shall be conducted on at least three specimens. Specimens shall consist of all layers in the protecuve garment composite arranged in the order and orientation as worn. 6-34.2.2 Specimens shall be 508 m m (20 in.) squares. 6-34.3 Sample Preparation. 6-54.3.1 Specimens to be tested shall be conditioned as specified in 6-1.3. 6-$4.3.2 Samples for conditions shall he at lest a 1-m (1-yd) square of each material. 6-34.4 Apparatus. 6-$4.4.1 The test apparatus shall be as specified in ASTM F 1868, Standard Test M e t h o d f o r Thermal a n d Evaporative Resistance of Clothing Materials Using a Sweating Hot Plate. 6-34.5 Procedure. 6-34.5.1 Testing shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM F 1868, Standard Test Method for Thermal a n d Evaporative (Log #191) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 266 - (6-34.3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Ronald L Bove, W. L Gore & Assoc., I n s COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 [ RECOMMF2qDATION: Revise text: 6-$4.$.2 Specimens to be tested shall be conditioned as specified in 51.9 6-1.$. SUBSTANTIATION: The requirement to conduct Total Heat Loss (TILL) testing after wash/dry preconditioning adds uncertainty a n d variability to the body of information that exists at this time for this test methodology. Until most recently, all of the THL information (and the similar Skin Model information out of 506 N F P A 1 9 7 1 - - 1'99 R O C (Log #281) •' Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 270 - (6-38.S.1): Accept • S U ~ ~ Catherine R.. DodKen , Intertek TestlngServices, HA COMMENT ON PROPOSALNO: 1971~182 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "A minimum of three glove pairs each for size small and size large ~:=h -~= ~L-~-.~._=:.~=._-~ _~.: --='L"shall be used fortesfing? S~ANTI~TION: Proposed werding makes the dexterity/hand funclion teat comisten't with other whole glove testa r(i.e., water tigh~imegrity~ liner retention, d o n n i n g / d b ~ n g , grip). Testing using all five sizes as in the current 1997 edition is extremely'time c o m u n ~ g and labor intensive, and has not provided additional the European c o m n u ~ v / ) has been based on "as received" or pristine samples. While the addition o~a ~ TI~_ p.e.rf~rmagtCe re~ju'wement to the ~ is • ~oQdStel~.tor a~Clre~f.ng nre s~hter ne~t mess.rmuctiOn,.~o~m~,.m ~ a . " wath/d/y preconditiol~ing requirement w~uld. I ~ e n ~ '. requirement in a wa]~Oa~.~~hasnot yet tlaa'C,0!y~let~. ~i'e~tific . . expmure an~ a n m ~ H m e uommit~ee aeslres to have e m e m m e THL value that is representalive of washed g-arments (and amuming washed samples are r e p r o v e of worn and w~thed garmenm), than the agreed minimum as received~ THL value should be -. inflated by an appropriate amount to compemm~ f6r file reduction cmmecUb~ wa~ing. " C O ~ ACTION: Accept. ] useful information. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Committee: FAESFF 10T/- 267- (6-34.3.2): Acce~t Patri~ia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Co., Inc, COMMEN~ O N PROPOSAL NO.- 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise.text: • (Log #285) Committee: FAF_~FF 1971- 271 - (6-38.4.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete f~8.4.1 in its entirety and renumber approl~iately. S~NTIATION: Since,the hand function test has been narrowed down to one production (the peg board test), the paragraph-is unnecessary. C ~ ACTION: Accept. " _ 6-34.3,2 Spedmens shall be cenditioned as q~ecified in r ~ 6-1.3., . . - " SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed THL test hm several variables that appear to be inherent te Oae~fal~cs being tested. By. eliminating the r a s h / d r y precondltioning~we are ~emovsng one of the variable~ Since both Oaf IAFF and~ the N ~ A R e s e a r c h studies were conducted .on garments and ~ m re c.~'ved, ao~.~due chozen for ~ wash preconditioning ~ U only be a best guess,, based upon very limlt~-d a~r~. The Teclmical Conmdttee needs to be sure that the preconditioning fur ~ is not confused ~dth the lau~~tructions on finished ~ n t s that g o into the field. C~OMMrITEEMMrIWEE ACTION: Accept. ". _ (Log #282) Committee: FAF__~FF .(Log#S08> Committee: Accept. FAE-SFF 1971- 268- (6-34.4): Reject SuBMrI'TER: Harry Wmer, U.S. Navy COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-34.4 and substitute paragraph 4 ~ r apparatus and chamber of ISO 11092. .. " ~ U I ~ A N T I ? t T I O N : To improve consk~ncy b e t ~ e n lal~ • " COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. " COMMITTEE STATEMENT: T h e submitter, Mr..Winer is a Committee m e m b e r and was present at the Report on -Comments meeting on I M a y 1909 a n d a~ked the Committee to not con~|delr this comment. 197i, 272- (6-38,4.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COI~SW~T ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-1~t'2 RECOMMENDATION: Revlse as followE "A minimum of f~e-diff~ee~three ~leve pairs shall be evaulated." SUIgSTANTIATIOiq: Proposedwording makes the dexterity/han~ function test comistem with other whole glove tests (i.e., water t i ~ h t j l ~ t y , liner ~retention, ~ d o . . ~ , grip). Testi'ng nsmg an lave sizes as in.me a u r r ~ t 1997 editicm is~extremely time commning and labor intensive, and has not provided additional useful i r ~ ' o r m a f i o n . , " COMMEvrEE ACTION: Accept. (Log r284) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- ~ 3 - (6-38.4.$): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine IL Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete and substitute as follows: "Test subjects shall be selected such that their hand dimensions fall within the range for hand and digit lenr._h and circumference as medfied in Table 4-$.5.$(b) or T-able 4--3.5.3(dL For dk, it |enOch and clrcumference, a maximum of three m*.~mlrementa shaJl be o e r m i t t ~ m fall Outside of the range mecitled, orovlded that no measurement exceeds thesoecified range by more than "25 oercent. Three test anhiecls shall I~e selected for t ~ a r size ~lovea, and three teat mhiects Shall be selected for testi~a~ size srlaall 1971- 269 - (5~34,5): R e j e c v SUBMITTER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: 6-34.5.6 insert: ~Bare place calibration should be performed initially, during the test and at the conclusion of the text." 6-34.5.8 insert: ~I'his calibration shall be done quarterly and recorded in a log." 6-34.5.16 same as above. SUBSTANTIATION: Test method does not state how often you calibrate equipment. COMMITTEE AG'rION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT.. The submitter, Mr. Winer is a Committee member and was present at the Report on Comments meeting on 1 May 1999 and ~ k e d the Committee to not consider this comment. ~O*4~S ors v SUBSTANTIATION: "As dose as possible" is too subjective, and could lead to inappropriately sized test subject (i.e., based on availability rather than making sure that the correct size subjects are identified). Since dexterity/hand function is critically affected by fit of the glove, it is important to specify the hand size of the subjects to be used. Also, experience has shown that text subjects falling into all specified ranges are rare, so application of a ag5 percent rule" as proposed would provide guidance in correctly conducting the test. Use of more than one test subject per size also helps minimize bias due to subject-to-subject variability in the test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 507 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC dexterity limes of that person's last three repetitions does not exceed ".-.-~. 57 n c m c r : ~:.=: 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the average of three repetitions, and multiplying by 100. The . . . . . . . . . . . . . . z ....... cf ~'~.cI:~: .'~.rcc average of the three repetitions shall be used as the baseline dexterity test time (DTTb), and shall be between 25 - 45 ~ test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each renetition test." SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to clarify the procedure and to provide for ~reater reproducibility a n d more meaningful data by setting linuts o n the baseline dexterity times to attempt to remove subject-to-subject bias. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #285) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 274- (6-38.4.5): Accept SUBMITEER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-$8.4.5 in its entirety a n d r e n u m b e r accordingly. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and interdab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-38.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information above the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #297) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #94) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 279 - (6-$8.4.6.6): Accept SUBMITYER: Catherine 1L D o d g e n , / n t e r t e k Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Each test subject shall then perform the test gloves following the steps in 6-38.4.6.2 through 6-38.4.6.4 with the pair of test gloves until the variance of the dexterity times of that person's fastest three repetitions does not exceed ~ f f i ~ - b g - z N ~ a o ~ ~z.a 8 percent. Variance shall be calculated as in 6-38.4.6.5 The average of the three fastest renetitions r..~_-.z=rz~ ~zx~r'~" ~.c:~. ~mc shall be used as the dexterity-test time with gloves (D'Iq'g). The test shall be conducted without the test subject's knowledge of the dexterity test time for each renetition ~ " SUBSTANTIATION: Proposed wording is necessary to clarify the procedure a n d provide for greater reproducibility and more meaningful data. Modifications to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 275 - (6-38.4.6.1): Accept SUBMrrrER: Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-38.4.6.1 A peg board apparatus shall be used that consists of 25 stainless steel pins with a medium diamond knurled 30 degrees, (25 teeth per in.) surface, a n d a peg board. SUBSTANTIATION: Type of surface of pins was not specified. A polished surface would be more of a grip test not a dexterity test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #294) Committee: FAF~FF 1971- 276- (6-38.4.6.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Before each test, the pegs ~ shall be placed on the (Log #286) C ommittee: FAE-SFF ~.=~ k.~':A-.z~ tc=t =::~jcct~,) w h i c h shall be a n o m i n a l l y 600 m m x 900 m m (24 in. x 36 inA sheet of 1.6 m m (0.06~21 in.) Neoprene havin~ a hardness of 50 ~5 Shgre A and a t h i c k n ~ of 1.6 m m (0.06~5 in.~ +_10 uercent. The ne~s shall be randomly scattered in the workin~ area most comfortable to the test subject (i.e.. right side for r i c h ( handed subjects, left ~igte for l~f~-han-d¢~ ~ s t sulphate, directlyin front, etc.~ ." SUBSTANTIATION: Since the working surface can significantly impact the dexterity times observed, the proposed language would standardize this variable to allow better reproducibility of the test. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. 1971- 280- (6-38.4.7): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-38.4.7 in its entirety and r e n u m b e r appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental a n d inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove a n d laboratory results is the peg board test (6-38.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information above the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #296) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 277- (6-38.4.6.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 6-38.4.6.3 as follows: "In starting the test, each peg shall be picked up using a pincer grasp near the center of the barrel of the peg, and shall be placed in the peg board beginning at the upper left cornerleft to right and top to bottom". SUBSTANTIATION: Modifications to the existing language are necessary to provide sufficient guidance in conducting the test for the data to be meaningful and reproducible. COMMYITEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #287) Co mmittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 281 - (6-38.4.8): Accept SUBMITTER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-38..4.8 in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove a n d laboratory ' results is the peg board test (6-38.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information above the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #295) Committee: FAE~SFF 1971- 278- (6-38.4.6.5): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "Each test subject shall perform the test without gloves following the steps in 6-58.4.6.2 through 6-38.4.6.4 until the variance of the 508 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information above the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #288) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 282 - (6-38~.1): Accept S U B M I T r E ~ Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-38.5.1 in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab wc~k on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-38.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or: do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information above the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (LOg #299) Committee: FAE~FF 1971- 287- (6-38.6.2): Accept SUBMITIT,R: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows." . . . . .-2~_'.:'.-: _. The average percentage of bare-handed control for size small and size large shall be used to determine pags or fail performance. Failure of either size shall constitute failure of the test." SUBSTANTIATION: Modifies the interpretation criteria to reflect other proposed changes to this test procedure and performance criteria. COMMrIWEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #298) Committee: FAF~FF 1971- 283 - (6-38.5.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL N O : 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows: "F~r C r ~ D~=~-.~" Pr~=~a.:zr= ~-. The tk~Iag£ percentage of bare-hand control shall be reported for each test subject. The average percentage of bare-handed control for all test subjects shall be c~'.==:r~ reuorted for each size." SUIkSTANTIAT-ION: Clarifies reporting requirements based on other proposed changes to this section. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #289) Committee: F-AE-,S~. 1971- 284- (6-38_5.$): Accept SUBMIT1TAh Catherine R: Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-$8.5.3 in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter4ab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-$8.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unlque information above the glove's performance. COMMrUFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #'292) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 288- (6-38.6.3): Accept SUBM1TrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO:. 1971-1P2 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-38.6.$ in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTI~T|ON: Developmental and inter4ab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-38.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better • or unique information above the glove's performance. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept. (Log #295) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- ~ 9 - (6-38.6.4): Accept SUBMITITJk Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-182 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-38.6.4 in its entirety and renumber appropriately. , SUBSTANTrATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-88.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terrm of better or unique information above the glove's performance. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #'290) Committee: FAF~FF 1971- 285 - (6-38~.4): Accept SUBMITgER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-38.5.4 inits entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter4ab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best correlation between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-38.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do not provide a significant contribution to the user in terms of better or unique information above the glove's performance. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. I, Com ttee: 1971- 290- (646.2~2): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Robert L J e m e n , SM COMMENT ON PROPO~SAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Change order of two sentences. The first sentence should become the second sentence, and the second sentence should become the first sentence. SUBSTANTIATION: The second sentence applies to all spea.mens, whereas the first sentence only applies to some trim ~OMMITIT£ ectmens" ACTION: Accept. (Log #291) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 286 - (6-38.6.1): Accept SUBMITUFA~ Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT 0~[ PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6-38.6.1 in its entirety and renumber appropriately. SUBSTANTIATION: Developmental and inter-lab work on the proposed dexterity test procedures have determined that the best Correlation.between field performance of a glove and laboratory results is the peg board test (6-38.4.6). The other three proposed techniques are either not reproducible, too cumbersome, or do (Log #'261) Committee: FAF.~FF 1971- 291 - (6-46.4.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Robert L. J e m e n , SM COMMENT ON PROPO]~4J~ NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Delete rainfall test in paragraph 6-46.4.3; delete reference to rainfall test in paragraphs 6M6.5.1, 6-46.6.2 a n d 6-46.6.1. Delete reference to EN 471 i~Chapter 7. 509 N F P A 1971 - - F 9 9 R O C The bottom edge of the tave or nlastic ba~ shall not come within 25 m m (1 in.) of the collar seam." SUBSTANTIATION: The current wording is unclear and has to be interpreted by each lab. Each lab is taping differently thus getting different results. The above wording should remove any reason for interpretation. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-293 (Log #126). SUBSTANTIATION: Experience with the subject test requirement has shown that the test is inherently imprecise and does not provide consistent test results. Insufficient detail is provided in the referenced test method for laboratories to reproducibly conduct this test. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Visibility under rainfall conditions has been identified as a safety concern. While the current test may have significant variability it represents the only methodology currently available to evaluate this performance. (Log #137) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #60) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 295- (6-51.2): Accept SUBMrlq'ER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Remove the reference to baseline sample from this section. Provide a baseline developed using 6-51.4.3 (baseline CCHR) using a composite rated at B5 TPP. List this figure as the minimum or baseline in 5-1.23. SUBSTANTIATION: The testingprocedure described in 6-51 seems to develop a relative figure for a baseline. A composite of thick materials with a high TTP would, by default, need a reinforcement that provided a high TPP; yet a composite of the minimums, with a TPP of 35, would not require as much reinforcement. The inverse would be more desirable. A minimum composite with a substantial reinforcement or a higher TPP composite with a lesser reinforcement. I suggest providing the baseline as required in 6-51.4.$ in the standard. The minimum TPP is 35; it would seem logical that that must be the true baseline. The manufacturer could then substantiate their claims for the various reinforcements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). 1971- 292- (6-48.2.1): Accept in Prindple SUBMITTER: Peter Wirth, FireGear Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-48.2.1 A minimum of three specimens shall be tested. Specimens shall consist of individual coats, trousers, coveralls, or sets of coats and trousers. Each element shall have in place all layers that are required for the element to be compliant. For the ournos¢ of Annual R~certifi~ation. a minimum of one specimen as cleft-ned above shall be tested. SUBSTANTIATION: Requiring three complete garments for liquid penetration testing for annual recertification is redundant. The N-FPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 1997 edition requires that only a single garment be tested for liquid penetration. The proposed Mannequin test requires only one sample. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-34 (Log #9). (Log #126) Committee: FAE-SFF (Log #154) Committee: FAF~ FF 1971- 296 - (6-51.2, 6-51.B): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Jeffrey O. Stull, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc~ COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Replace Sections 6-61.2 and 6-51.2 with the following: 6-51.2 Samples. 6-51.2.1 Samples shall consist of composites representative of the reinforced knee and reinforced shoulder areas, including all layers uses in the construction of the reinforced area. Specimens shall be prepared by sewing along two adjacent sides, material layers that measure 200 m m x 305 m m (8 in. x 12 in.) to form a reinforcement area composite specimen. 6-51.2.2 A minimum of three specimens shall be tested for each reinforced area. 6-51.3 Specimen Preparation. 6-51.3.1 Samples for conditioning shall be the reinforcement area composite specimens. 6-51.3.2 Specimens shall first be conditioned as specified in 6-1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: The proposed requirement uses only room temperature conditioning. The conductave heat resistance of a reinforcement area will change with subsequent exposures. Some materials, particularly leather, may become embrittled and change in their conductive heat transfer characteristics. The proposed conditioning requirement simulates repeated exposures and use of protective clothing (in a manner similar as used for moisture barriers (Sections 6-98 and 6-29). A larger specimen size is required to accommodate the conditioning requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). 1971- 293 - (6-48.8.3, 6-48.10.3): Accept SUBMI~ Tlaomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-48.8.$ The coat collar shall be placed in the up position on the mannequin with the collar closure system fastened in the closed position. The head of the mannequin shall be sealed off with a plastic bag. The plastic bag shall extend downward over the collar l~ya distance of not greater than 25.-4 mm (1 in.) and shall be taped down using duct tape or similar waterproof tape. The tape shall not extend downward more than 75 mm 13 in.) from the tot) 9f the collar. The bottom edge of the tape and the plastic bag shall not come closer than 25 mm (I in.) of hte collar seam where a collar seam is present. Where present the collar neck seam shall not be covered. 6-48.10.3 The coat collar shall be placed in the up position on the mannequin with the collar closure system fastened in the closed position. The head of the mannequin shall be sealed off with a plastic bag. The plastic bag shall extend downward over the c o l l a r / ~ a distance of not greater than 25.-4 mm (I it).) and shall be taped down using duct tape or similar waterproof tape. The tape shall not extend downward more than 75 mm (3 inA frorrl the ton of the collar. The collar neck seam shall not be covered. SUBSTANTIATION: Clarifies current practice. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #221) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 294 - (6-48.8.3, 6-48.10.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSALNO: 1971-ig2 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the last two sentences and replace with the following: "The nlastic bag shall extend over the collar bv a distance of not ~reater than 50 mm (2 inA and shall be taped down using 50 m m (2 inA duct tane or similar wateroroof tane. The tane shall extend UD over the bottom edge of the nlastic bag by at least 19 mm (3/4 in.) and down onto the surface of the collar between the collar seam and the bottom edge of the bag by at least 19 mm (3/4 in,). (Log #61) C om~ittee: FAE-SFF 1971- 297 - (6-51.2.2): Accept in Prindple SUBMITI'ER: Peter Wirth, FireGear Inc.. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "The baseline samples shall consist of the outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermalbarrier composite from the manufactur~I~ lowest TPP material comnusite that meet the TPP requirement set 510 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC forth in this standard. "]'his baseline composite shall not be from the reinforced shoulder or knee areas or from any other reinforced areas of the garment." SUBSTANTIATION: ~lhe intent of this test is to insure that knee and shoulder reinforcement under compression is at least equal in thermal performance to that of the baseline garment composite. In the original text, mmlufacturers would be required to submit nine composites of every combination of outer shell, moisture barrier, and thermal liner for testing. Since this is a minimum standard, using the minimum TPP composite for this test makes sense, plus Harry thought it was a good idea. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-295 (Log #137). and contradictory so that it would be difficult if not impossible for any glove to meet all of the proposed criteria- Measurements are not made in an accurate or reproducible manner, confounding the results and making interpretauon highly variable. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #72) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 302 - (6-52.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Ronald Mis, Gloves, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "6-52.2.1 te~ three test subjects." SUBSTANTIATION: Ten test subjects for each size would require 50 people for this one test. It would be very difficult to even find 10 test subjects with size extra small hands. Same results could be achieved with 3 test subjects per size. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The test as been deleted. See Committee Action on Comment 1971-178 (Log #146). (Log #150) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 298 - (6-51.5.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-51.3.2 All specimens shall be conditioned as specified in 6-|.~ ~I.~. SUBSTANTIATION: Subjecting the specimens to the washing and drying cycles should provide an opportunity for durability problems to appear. The cycles will also somewhat simulate ensemble usage. Section 6-51.2.1 (specimen description) will need to be modified to require that the layered composite be stitched around the periphery. Recommendation 1971-78 (6-x (New)) does refer to 6-1.2. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). (Log #155) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 50S - (6-54.5.2): Reject SUBMITI"ER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "The amount of water to be applied is not specified by volume or weight". SUBSTANTIATION: Recommendation 1971-40 (5-1.x, 6-1.x (New)) in section 6-x.$.2 does not specify the quantity of water to be applied. While i will always defer to Mr. Lawson's conclusion, I do have a question. 1. ff an ensemble has a highly water repellent finish and the balance of the test water is applied to the thermal liner, is the ensemble's performance penalized in this test due to the shell repeUency? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: Test method deleted. See Committee Action on Commetn 1971-157 (Log #45). (Log #93) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 299 - (6-51.3.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Harry Wlner, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-51.5.5 All specimens for wet testing shall be conditioned as follows: Saturate 225 m m x 225 mm (9 x 9 in.) blotter paper in distilled water. Run two sheets together of paper through wringer from AATCC Test Method 70 with a weight of 60 lb/liner in. Place inner most layer of total composite to be tested between two sheets of blotting paper. Insert two sheets of paper and innermost layer into one-gallon size zip lock bag and close. Condition in zip lock bag for 24 hr. Samples are not to be out of bag more than 5 m i n rior to testing. UBSTANTIATION: Correction to test procedure by NFPA 1971 Task Group. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). (Log #132) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 304- (A-4-1.11): Reject SUBMITrER: William Thomas, Lubbock Fire Dept., TX COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Ballooning only the back edge could minimize the maneuverability problem. A trouser pocket ballooned 1 in. on the front edge and 2 in. on the back edge might be an accentable alternative to address maneuverabilitv oroblems and cargo capacity," SUBSTANTIATION: Our department performed extensive field test involving 4 major manufacturers. We used full bellowspockets (ballooned 2 in. front and rear) and semi-bellows pockets (flush on the front edge and ballooned 2 in. on the rear). We found that the full bellows pockets did seem to catch on objects and impede mobility. The semi-bellows pockets eliminated the mobility problem, however, the cargo capacity and ease of access was a disadvantage. Our trousers use a tapered bellows pocket 1 in. ifi the front and 2 in. on the back. The pocket does seem to be good compromise and has performed well during its 17 months of service. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Although the submitter has suggested a possible design, the Committee does not want to appear to be recommending any specific design as there is a possibility of many other configurations that would work satisfactorily. The Committee thanks the submitter for his careful review of the ROP and for submitting his ideas. g (Log #91) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 300 - (6-51.4.6): Accept SUBMITTER= Harry Winer, U.S. Navy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: 6-51.4.6 Take out all references to degrees F. Starting temperature will be 25°C and will rise 24°C to 49°C. SUBSTANTIATION: Correction to test procedure. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. See Committee Action on Comment 1971-140 (Log #92). (Log #500) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 301 - (6-52): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 ] RECOMMENDATION: Delete section in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: Experience with this test procedure in NFPA 1977 proves that the te.,;t is highly subjective, excessively stringent, 511 NFPA 1971 -- F99 ROC (a) !t "s .n! 7 :.= m'!~ :=':.a.:==m:x'2 z= : t 12:': "::~=k !e'::!: *&zt (Log #47) Committee: FAF_~FF ;ff . . . . . . . : . . . . ¢^.*: . . . . l~k." . . . . *~,~'-I . . . . I:I.-I.. ¢^ I~ . . . . . . . . -vv. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fxrefi~hter perceptions of differences in protective clothin~ materials mav be based more other factors ~{~chas garment we-i~ht and may not correlate with their physiological resnonses. (b) -Differen-ces in nrotectJve clothin~ materials are more likely to impact firefi~hter physiolo~cal resnoz~es at moderate to high work Fates as comoared to low work rates or very high work rates. however, t h e effects of nrote~tlve clothine materials on fire fighter nhvsiolo~rical responses will vary with the environmental ~onditions. the type of other dothin~r and equipment worn. the physical condition and acdimizationof the individual fire fighter. and the tvoe and duration of ohvsical activitv. (c) Heart rate may not be a-~ood nredictor of heat stress when varied work loads are undertaken. (d) In the most stressful situations of high temperature or high work rates, material changes are unlikely to make any significant improvements in tolerance time. (e) Heat stress should be addressed through other means in addition to, ^ - :. . . . . .i ~f, material specifications. SUBSTANTIATION: Not all of the statements provided in paragraph A-6-$4 are entirely correct. The IAFF Indianapolis Field Study has shown that significant physiological differences in fire fighter response can be observed at moderate to high work rate for a specific set of work activities and environmental conditions. The recommended changes reflect the findings of the IAFF Indianapolis Field Study. C O M M r r r E E ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add A-6-34 to read: Copies of the IAFF report can be obtained from: International Association of Fire Fighters Departmeni of Health and Safety, 1750 NewYork Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Copies of the NFPRF report can be obtained from: National Fire Protection Research Foundation, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee would rather provide information as to where the complete reports can be obtained rather than pick small portions that do not adequately present the full issues. 1971- 305 - (A-5-3.10(k) and (1)): Accept SUBMITTER: Larry Horn, Pordand Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-1~2 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: "Critical performance needs...(k)...durability is addressed in ~ ~.2 "(l)...durability is addressed in g-g~3-2...'. SUBSTANTIATION: 3-3.2 does not exist; probably should be $-2. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept• (Log #52) Committee: FAF.~ FF 1971- $06- (A-5-$.14): Accept SUBMITTER: Larry Horn, Portland Fire Bureau, OR COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-71 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: ~rhe ~ referenced in the body of the standard...should read: "The _~love hand function test referenced in the body of the standard...'. SUBSTANTIATION: The "glove hand function tesC replaces the "Bennett dexterity test". COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. (Log #152) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 307 - (A-6-$4): Accept in Prindple SUBMITTER: Jeffrey o . Stuil, Int'l Personnel Protection, Inc. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-152 RECOMMENDATION: Revise paragraph A-6-34 as follows: A-6-34 -yr.. . . . ~ . . . . : . . . . . . i > . . . . . . : . . ^ r , , _ a . . : _ _ ~" . . . . ~,^ :=.:@.:.a_.ol~g7 b m = ~ ;~ @.: b:r.tc~ :;':ez.~2.~gn~. . . . . _~^.~ v . . . . =~:.-z.t'.::. (Log #301) Committee: FAE-SFF 1971- 308- (A-6-38.4.6.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Catherine R. Dodgen, Intertek Testing Services, NA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1971-132 RECOMMENDATION: Insert new text: "The test surface specified is identical to the calibration material specified in the cut resistance test found in Section 6-22 that references ASTM F 1790." SUBSTANTIATION: Explanatory material/source and detail for the test surface specified. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. --~. . . . . s v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . A simple criterion--the watts/m2 of heat transferred through the composite by the combined dry and evaporative heat exchanges from a 95°F (35°C), fully sweating test plate surface in a 77°F (25°C), 65 percent RH environment--provides a single number for companng each fabric ensemble. The actual differences in garments made up from these fabric ensembles will be much smaller because the insulation of the garments w i l l be 2 to $ times greater due to the air layers in garments that are not accounted for on the flat test plate. Therefore, the actual watts/m2 of heat transfer ~ may be between one-half to one-third of the values ohtained by the test method. The actual heat transfer w'2! may be decreased even farther by environmental temperatures and humidifies that are higher than those used m the test procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . The followin~ factors should be considered in interoretation reoorted total heat loss values for protective clothinv 512