2012 Fall Revision Cycle Report on Proposals - nfpa.org · Report on Proposals 2012 Fall Revision Cycle ... and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement

Report onProposals

2012 Fall Revision Cycle

NOTE: The proposed NFPA documents addressed in this Report on

Proposals (ROP) and in a follow-up Report on Comments (ROC) will only

be presented for action at the NFPA June 2013 Association Technical

Meeting to be held June 10–13, 2013, at the McCormick Place Convention

Center, Chicago, IL, when proper Amending Motions have been submitted

to the NFPA by the deadline of October 5, 2012. Documents that receive

no motions will not be presented at the meeting and instead will be

forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. For more

information on the rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and

deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.

nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Standards Administration.

ISSN 1079-5332 Copyright © 2012 All Rights Reserved

NFPA and National Fire Protection Association are registered trademarks of the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA 02169.

National Fire Protection Association®1 BATTERYMARCH PARK, QUINCY, MA 02169-7471

A compilation of NFPA® TechnicalCommittee Reports on Proposals for public review and comment

Public Comment Deadline: March 2, 2012

Information on NFPA Codes and Standards Development

I. Applicable Regulations. The primary rules governing the processing of NFPA documents (codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides) are the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (Regs). Other applicable rules include NFPA Bylaws, NFPA Technical Meeting Convention Rules, NFPA Guide for the Conduct of Participants in the NFPA Standards Development Process, and the NFPA Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council. Most of these rules and regulations are contained in the NFPA Directory. For copies of the Directory, contact Codes and Standards Administration at NFPA Headquarters; all these documents are also available on the NFPA website at “www.nfpa.org.”

The following is general information on the NFPA process. All participants, however, should refer to the actual rules and regulations for a full understanding of this process and for the criteria that govern participation.

II. Technical Committee Report. The Technical Committee Report is defined as “the Report of the Technical Committee and Technical Correlating Committee (if any) on a document. A Technical Committee Report consists of the Report on Proposals (ROP), as modified by the Report on Comments (ROC), published by the Association.”

III. Step 1: Report on Proposals (ROP). The ROP is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees, accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more proposals on text for a new document or to amend an existing document.” Any objection to an action in the ROP must be raised through the filing of an appropriate Comment for consideration in the ROC or the objection will be considered resolved.

IV. Step 2: Report on Comments (ROC). The ROC is defined as “a report to the Association on the actions taken by Technical Committees and/or Technical Correlating Committees accompanied by a ballot statement and one or more comments resulting from public review of the Report on Proposals (ROP).” The ROP and the ROC together constitute the Technical Committee Report. Any outstanding objection following the ROC must be raised through an appropriate Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting or the objection will be considered resolved.

V. Step 3a: Action at Association Technical Meeting. Following the publication of the ROC, there is a period during which those wishing to make proper Amending Motions on the Technical Committee Reports must signal their intention by submitting a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Documents that receive notice of proper Amending Motions (Certified Amending Motions) will be presented for action at the annual June Association Technical Meeting. At the meeting, the NFPA membership can consider and act on these Certified Amending Motions as well as Follow-up Amending Motions, that is, motions that become necessary as a result of a previous successful Amending Motion. (See 4.6.2 through 4.6.9 of Regs for a summary of the available Amending Motions and who may make them.) Any outstanding objection following action at an Association Technical Meeting (and any further Technical Committee consideration following successful Amending Motions, see Regs at 4.7) must be raised through an appeal to the Standards Council or it will be considered to be resolved.

VI. Step 3b: Documents Forwarded Directly to the Council. Where no Notice of Intent to Make a Motion (NITMAM) is received and certified in accordance with the Technical Meeting Convention Rules, the document is forwarded directly to the Standards Council for action on issuance. Objections are deemed to be resolved for these documents.

VII. Step 4a: Council Appeals. Anyone can appeal to the Standards Council concerning procedural or substantive matters related to the development, content, or issuance of any document of the Association or on matters within the purview of the authority of the Council, as established by the Bylaws and as determined by the Board of Directors. Such appeals must be in written form and filed with the Secretary of the Standards Council (see 1.6 of Regs). Time constraints for filing an appeal must be in accordance with 1.6.2 of the Regs. Objections are deemed to be resolved if not pursued at this level.

VIII. Step 4b: Document Issuance. The Standards Council is the issuer of all documents (see Article 8 of Bylaws). The Council acts on the issuance of a document presented for action at an Association Technical Meeting within 75 days from the date of the recommendation from the Association Technical Meeting, unless this period is extended by the Council (see 4.8 of Regs). For documents forwarded directly to the Standards Council, the Council acts on the issuance of the document at its next scheduled meeting, or at such other meeting as the Council may determine (see 4.5.6 and 4.8 of Regs).

IX. Petitions to the Board of Directors. The Standards Council has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the codes and standards development process and the issuance of documents. However, where extraordinary circumstances requiring the intervention of the Board of Directors exist, the Board of Directors may take any action necessary to fulfill its obligations to preserve the integrity of the codes and standards development process and to protect the interests of the Association. The rules for petitioning the Board of Directors can be found in the Regulations Governing Petitions to the Board of Directors from Decisions of the Standards Council and in 1.7 of the Regs.

X. For More Information. The program for the Association Technical Meeting (as well as the NFPA website as information becomes available) should be consulted for the date on which each report scheduled for consideration at the meeting will be presented. For copies of the ROP and ROC as well as more information on NFPA rules and for up-to-date information on schedules and deadlines for processing NFPA documents, check the NFPA website (www.nfpa.org) or contact NFPA Codes & Standards Administration at (617) 984-7246.

i

2012 Fall Revision Cycle ROP Contents

by NFPA Numerical Designation

Note: Documents appear in numerical order.

NFPA No. Type Action Title Page No.

10 P Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers ........................................................................................................ 10-1 14 P Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems ........................................................................ 14-1 17 P Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems ....................................................................................... 17-1 17A P Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems .................................................................................... 17A-1 22 P Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection .................................................................................... 22-1 36 P Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants ........................................................................................................... 36-1 52 P Vehicular Gaseous Fuel Systems Code .......................................................................................................... 52-1 67 N Guideline on Explosion Protection for Gaseous Mixtures in Pipe Systems .................................................. 67-1 68 P Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting .......................................................................... 68-1 70B P Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance ................................................................. 70B-1 140 P Standard on Motion Picture and Television Production Studio Soundstages, Approved Production Facilities, and Production Locations ........................................................................ 140-1 211 P Standard for Chimneys, Fireplaces, Vents, and Solid Fuel–Burning Appliances ........................................ 211-1 225 P Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard ....................................................................................... 225-1 241 P Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations ...................................... 241-1 259 P Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials .................................................................. 259-1 260 P Standard Methods of Tests and Classification System for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of Components of Upholstered Furniture ..................................................................................................... 260-1 261 P Standard Method of Test for Determining Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Material Assemblies to Ignition by Smoldering Cigarettes.......................................................... 261-1 270 P Standard Test Method for Measurement of Smoke Obscuration Using a Conical Radiant Source in a Single Closed Chamber .............................................................................................................. 270-1 274 P Standard Test Method to Evaluate Fire Performance Characteristics of Pipe Insulation ............................ 274-1

289 P Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages ........................................................................ 289-1 290 P Standard for Fire Testing of Passive Protection Materials for Use on LP-Gas Containers ......................... 290-1 495 P Explosive Materials Code ............................................................................................................................. 495-1 496 P Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment ............................................... 496-1 498 P Standard for Safe Havens and Interchange Lots for Vehicles Transporting Explosives ............................. 498-1 501 P Standard on Manufactured Housing ............................................................................................................. 501-1 501A P Standard for Fire Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities .......... 501A-1 505 P Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use, Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations ................................................................................................. 505-1 551 P Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments ..................................................................................... 551-1

705 P Recommended Practice for a Field Flame Test for Textiles and Films ....................................................... 705-1

ii

801 P Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials ................................................ 801-1 900 P Building Energy Code ................................................................................................................................... 900-1

909 P Code for the Protection of Cultural Resource Properties — Museums, Libraries, and Places of Worship.......................................................................................................................................... 909-1 1006 P Standard for Technical Rescuer Professional Qualifications ..................................................................... 1006-1 1061 P Standard for Professional Qualifications for Public Safety Telecommunicator ........................................ 1061-1 1404 P Standard for Fire Service Respiratory Protection Training ........................................................................ 1404-1 1451 P Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program (will be retitled as NFPA 1451, Standard for a Fire and Emergency Service Vehicle Operations Training Program) .................................................................................................................... 1451-1 1600 P Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs ................................. 1600-1 1851 P Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting ................................................................................. 1851-1 1852 P Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) ..................................................................................................................... 1852-1 1855 N Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Technical Rescue Incidents ......................................................................................................................... 1855-1 1925 P Standard on Marine Fire-Fighting Vessels ................................................................................................. 1925-1 1962 P Standard for the Inspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and the Service Testing of Fire Hose (will be retitled as NFPA 1962, Standard for the Care, Use, Inspection, Service Testing, and Replacement of Fire Hose, Couplings, Nozzles, and Fire Hose Appliances ............................................. 1962-1 1964 P Standard for Spray Nozzles ......................................................................................................................... 1964-1 1981 P Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services ............................................................................................................................. 1981-1 1982 P Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) .................................................................................. 1982-1 1989 P Standard on Breathing Air Quality for Emergency Services Respiratory Protection ................................ 1989-1 1999 P Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations ....................................................... 1999-1

TYPES OF ACTION

P Partial Revision N New Document R Reconfirmation W Withdrawal

iii

2012 Fall Revision Cycle ROP Committees Reporting

Type Action Page No. Building Code Building Systems 900 Building Energy Code P 900-1 Chimneys, Fireplaces, and Venting Systems for Heat-Producing Appliances 211 Standard for Chimneys, Fireplaces, Vents, and Solid Fuel–Burning Appliances P 211-1 Construction and Demolition 241 Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations P 241-1 Cultural Resources 909 Code for the Protection of Cultural Resource Properites — Museums, Libraries, and Places of

Worship P 909-1

Dry and Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems 17 Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems P 17-1 17A Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems P 17A-1 Electrical Equipment in Chemical Atmospheres 496 Standard for Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment P 496-1 National Electrical Code Electrical Equipment Maintenance 70B Recommended Practice for Electrical Equipment Maintenance P 70B-1 Emergency Management and Business Continuity 1600 Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs P 1600-1 Explosion Protection Systems 67 Guideline on Explosion Protection for Gaseous Mixtures in Pipe Systems N 67-1 68 Standard on Explosion Protection by Deflagration Venting P 68-1 Explosives 495 Explosive Materials Code P 495-1 498 Standard for Safe Havens and Interchange Lots for Vehicles Transporting Explosives P 498-1 Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment Electronic Safety Equipment 1982 Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS) P 1982-1 Emergency Medical Services Protective Clothing and Equipment 1999 Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations P 1999-1 Respiratory Protection Equipment 1852 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus

(SCBA) P 1852-1

1981 Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services P 1981-1 1989 Standard on Breathing Air Quality for Emergency Services Respiratory Protection P 1989-1 Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment 1855 Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Technical Rescue Incidents

N 1855-1

Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment 1851 Standard for Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting

and Proximity Fire Fighting P 1851-1

Fire Hose 1962 Standard for the Inspection, Care, and Use of Fire Hose, Couplings, and Nozzles and the Service

Testing of Fire Hose P 1962-1

1964 Standard for Spray Nozzles P 1964-1 Fire Protection for Nuclear Facilities 801 Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials P 801-1 Fire Risk Assessment Methods 551 Guide for the Evaluation of Fire Risk Assessments P 551-1

iv

Fire Service Training 1404 Standard for Fire Service Respiratory Protection Training P 1404-1 1451 Standard for a Fire Service Vehicle Operations Training Program P 1451-1 Fire Tests 259 Standard Test Method for Potential Heat of Building Materials P 259-1 260 Standard Methods of Tests and Classification System for Cigarette Ignition Resistance of

Components of Upholstered Furniture P 260-1

261 Standard Method of Test for Determining Resistance of Mock-Up Upholstered Furniture Material Assemblies to Ignition by Smoldering Cigarettes

P 261-1

270 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Smoke Obscuration Using a Conical Radiant Source in a Single Closed Chamber

P 270-1

274 Standard Test Method to Evaluate Fire Performance Characteristics of Pipe Insulation P 274-1 289 Standard Method of Fire Test for Individual Fuel Packages P 289-1 290 Standard for Fire Testing of Passive Protection Materials for Use on LP-Gas Containers P 290-1 705 Recommended Practice for a Field Flame Test for Textiles and Films P 705-1 Industrial Trucks 505 Fire Safety Standard for Powered Industrial Trucks Including Type Designations, Areas of Use,

Conversions, Maintenance, and Operations P 505-1

Manufactured Housing 225 Model Manufactured Home Installation Standard P 225-1 501 Standard on Manufactured Housing P 501-1 501A Standard for Fire Safety Criteria for Manufactured Home Installations, Sites, and Communities P 501A-1 Marine Fire Fighting Vessels 1925 Standard on Marine Fire-Fighting Vessels P 1925-1 Motion Picture and Television Industry 140 Standard on Motion Picture and Television Production Studio Soundstages, Approved Production

Facilities, and Production Locations P 140-1

Portable Fire Extinguishers 10 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers P 10-1 Professional Qualifications Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications 1006 Standard for Technical Rescuer Professional Qualifications P 1006-1 Public Safety Telecommunicator Professional Qualifications 1061 Standard for Professional Qualifications for Public Safety Telecommunicator P 1061-1 Solvent Extraction Plants 36 Standard for Solvent Extraction Plants P 36-1 Standpipes 14 Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems P 14-1 Vehicular Alternative Fuel Systems 52 Vehicular Gaseous Fuel Systems Code P 52-1 Water Tanks 22 Standard for Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection P 22-1

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2012 Fall Revision CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDT, March 2, 2012

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date 8/1/200X Name John B. Smith Tel. No. 253-555-1234

Company Email

Street Address 9 Seattle St. City Tacoma State WA Zip 98402

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any) Fire Marshals Assn. of North America

1. (a) NFPA Document Title National Fire Alarm Code NFPA No. & Year NFPA 72, 200X ed.

(b) Section/Paragraph 4.4.1.1

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 72-7

3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

Delete exception.

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

A properly installed and maintained system should be free of ground faults. The occurrence of one or more ground faults should be required to cause a ‘trouble’ signal because it indicates a condition that could contribute to future malfunction of the system. Ground fault protection has been widely available on these systems for years and its cost is negligible. Requiring it on all systems will promote better installations, maintenance and reliability.

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)

I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.

Signature (Required)

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: [email protected]

11/17/2011

FORM FOR COMMENT ON NFPA REPORT ON PROPOSALS 2012 Fall Revision CYCLE

FINAL DATE FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS: 5:00 pm EDT, March 2, 2012

For further information on the standards-making process, please contact the Codes and Standards Administration at 617-984-7249 or visit www.nfpa.org/codes.

For technical assistance, please call NFPA at 1-800-344-3555.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Log #:

Date Rec’d:

Please indicate in which format you wish to receive your ROP/ROC electronic paper download (Note: If choosing the download option, you must view the ROP/ROC from our website; no copy will be sent to you.)

Date Name Tel. No.

Company Email

Street Address City State Zip

***If you wish to receive a hard copy, a street address MUST be provided. Deliveries cannot be made to PO boxes.

Please indicate organization represented (if any)

1. (a) NFPA Document Title NFPA No. & Year

(b) Section/Paragraph

2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP):

3. Comment Recommends (check one): new text revised text deleted text

4. Comment (include proposed new or revised wording, or identification of wording to be deleted): [Note: Proposed text should be in legislative format; i.e., use underscore to denote wording to be inserted (inserted wording) and strike-through to denote wording to be deleted (deleted wording).]

5. Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Comment: (Note: State the problem that would be resolved by your recommendation; give the specific reason for your Comment, including copies of tests, research papers, fire experience, etc. If more than 200 words, it may be abstracted for publication.)

6. Copyright Assignment

(a) I am the author of the text or other material (such as illustrations, graphs) proposed in the Comment.

(b) Some or all of the text or other material proposed in this Comment was not authored by me. Its source is as follows: (please identify which material and provide complete information on its source)

I hereby grant and assign to the NFPA all and full rights in copyright in this Comment and understand that I acquire no rights in any publication of NFPA in which this Comment in this or another similar or analogous form is used. Except to the extent that I do not have authority to make an assignment in materials that I have identified in (b) above, I hereby warrant that I am the author of this Comment and that I have full power and authority to enter into this assignment.

Signature (Required)

PLEASE USE SEPARATE FORM FOR EACH COMMENT

Mail to: Secretary, Standards Council · National Fire Protection Association 1 Batterymarch Park · Quincy, MA 02169-7471 OR

Fax to: (617) 770-3500 OR Email to: [email protected] 11/17/2011

v

COMMITTEE MEMBER CLASSIFICATIONS1,2,3,4

The following classifications apply to Committee members and represent their principal interest in the activity of the Committee. 1. M Manufacturer: A representative of a maker or marketer of a product, assembly, or system, or portion thereof,

that is affected by the standard. 2. U User: A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the

standard. 3. IM Installer/Maintainer: A representative of an entity that is in the business of installing or maintaining a product,

assembly, or system affected by the standard. 4. L Labor: A labor representative or employee concerned with safety in the workplace. 5. RT Applied Research/Testing Laboratory: A representative of an independent testing laboratory or independent

applied research organization that promulgates and/or enforces standards. 6. E Enforcing Authority: A representative of an agency or an organization that promulgates and/or enforces

standards. 7. I Insurance: A representative of an insurance company, broker, agent, bureau, or inspection agency. 8. C Consumer: A person who is or represents the ultimate purchaser of a product, system, or service affected by the

standard, but who is not included in (2). 9. SE Special Expert: A person not representing (1) through (8) and who has special expertise in the scope of the

standard or portion thereof. NOTE 1: “Standard” connotes code, standard, recommended practice, or guide. NOTE 2: A representative includes an employee. NOTE 3: While these classifications will be used by the Standards Council to achieve a balance for Technical Committees, the Standards Council may determine that new classifications of member or unique interests need representation in order to foster the best possible Committee deliberations on any project. In this connection, the Standards Council may make such appointments as it deems appropriate in the public interest, such as the classification of “Utilities” in the National Electrical Code Committee. NOTE 4: Representatives of subsidiaries of any group are generally considered to have the same classification as the parent organization.

Sequence of Events Leading to Issuance of an NFPA Committee Document

Step 1 Call for Proposals

▼ Proposed new document or new edition of an existing document is entered into one of two yearly revision cycles, and a Call for Proposals is published.

Step 2 Report on Proposals (ROP)

▼ Committee meets to act on Proposals, to develop its own Proposals, and to prepare its Report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Proposals. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Proposals (ROP) is published for public review and comment.

Step 3 Report on Comments (ROC)

▼ Committee meets to act on Public Comments to develop its own Comments, and to prepare its report.

▼ Committee votes by written ballot on Comments. If two-thirds approve, Report goes forward. Lacking two-thirds approval, Report returns to Committee.

▼ Report on Comments (ROC) is published for public review.

Step 4 Association Technical Meeting

▼ “Notices of intent to make a motion” are filed, are reviewed, and valid motions are certified for presentation at the Association Technical Meeting. (“Consent Documents” that have no certified motions bypass the Association Technical Meeting and proceed to the Standards Council for issuance.)

▼ NFPA membership meets each June at the Association Technical Meeting and acts on Technical Committee Reports (ROP and ROC) for documents with “certified amending motions.”

▼ Committee(s) vote on any amendments to Report approved at NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

Step 5 Standards Council Issuance

▼ Notification of intent to file an appeal to the Standards Council on Association action must be filed within 20 days of the NFPA Annual Membership Meeting.

▼ Standards Council decides, based on all evidence, whether or not to issue document or to take other action, including hearing any appeals.

The Association Technical Meeting

The process of public input and review does not end with the publication of the ROP and ROC. Following the completion of the Proposal and Comment periods, there is yet a further opportunity for debate and discussion through the Association Technical Meeting that takes place at the NFPA Annual Meeting.

The Association Technical Meeting provides an opportunity for the final Technical Committee Report (i.e., the ROP and ROC) on each proposed new or revised code or standard to be presented to the NFPA membership for the debate and consideration of motions to amend the Report. The specific rules for the types of motions that can be made and who can make them are set forth in NFPA’s rules, which should always be consulted by those wishing to bring an issue before the membership at an Association Technical Meeting. The following presents some of the main features of how a Report is handled.

The Filing of a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. Before making an allowable motion at an Association Technical Meeting, the intended maker of the motion must file, in advance of the session, and within the published deadline, a Notice of Intent to Make a Motion. A Motions Committee appointed by the Standards Council then reviews all notices and certifies all amending motions that are proper. The Motions Committee can also, in consultation with the makers of the motions, clarify the intent of the motions and, in certain circumstances, combine motions that are dependent on each other together so that they can be made in one single motion. A Motions Committee report is then made available in advance of the meeting listing all certified motions. Only these Certified Amending Motions, together with certain allowable Follow-Up Motions (that is, motions that have become necessary as a result of previous successful amending motions) will be allowed at the Association Technical Meeting.

Consent Documents. Often there are codes and standards up for consideration by the membership that will be noncontroversial and no proper Notices of Intent to Make a Motion will be filed. These “Consent Documents” will bypass the Association Technical Meeting and head straight to the Standards Council for issuance. The remaining documents are then forwarded to the Association Technical Meeting for consideration of the NFPA membership.

What Amending Motions Are Allowed. The Technical Committee Reports contain many Proposals and Comments that the Technical Committee has rejected or revised in whole or in part. Actions of the Technical Committee published in the ROP may also eventually be rejected or revised by the Technical Committee during the development of its ROC. The motions allowed by NFPA rules provide the opportunity to propose amendments to the text of a proposed code or standard based on these published Proposals, Comments, and Committee actions. Thus, the list of allowable motions include motions to accept Proposals and Comments in whole or in part as submitted or as modified by a Technical Committee action. Motions are also available to reject an accepted Comment in whole or part. In addition, Motions can be made to return an entire Technical Committee Report or a portion of the Report to the Technical Committee for further study.

The NFPA Annual Meeting, also known as the NFPA Conference & Expo, takes place in June of each year. A second Fall membership meeting was discontinued in 2004, so the NFPA Technical Committee Report Session now runs once each year at the Annual Meeting in June.

Who Can Make Amending Motions. NFPA rules also define those authorized to make amending motions. In many cases, the maker of the motion is limited by NFPA rules to the original submitter of the Proposal or Comment or his or her duly authorized representative. In other cases, such as a Motion to Reject an accepted Comment, or to Return a Technical Committee Report or a portion of a Technical Committee Report for Further Study, anyone can make these motions. For a complete explanation, the NFPA Regs should be consulted.

Action on Motions at the Association Technical Meeting. In order to actually make a Certified Amending Motion at the Association Technical Meeting, the maker of the motion must sign in at least an hour before the session begins. In this way a final list of motions can be set in advance of the session. At the session, each proposed document up for consideration is presented by a motion to adopt the Technical Committee Report on the document. Following each such motion, the presiding officer in charge of the session opens the floor to motions on the document from the final list of Certified Amending Motions followed by any permissible Follow-Up Motions. Debate and voting on each motion proceeds in accordance with NFPA rules. NFPA membership is not required in order to make or speak to a motion, but voting is limited to NFPA members who have joined at least 180 days prior to the Association Technical Meeting and have registered for the meeting. At the close of debate on each motion, voting takes place, and the motion requires a majority vote to carry. In order to amend a Technical Committee Report, successful amending motions must be confirmed by the responsible Technical Committee, which conducts a written ballot on all successful amending motions following the meeting and prior to the document being forwarded to the Standards Council for issuance.

Standards Council Issuance

One of the primary responsibilities of the NFPA Standards Council, as the overseer of the NFPA codes and standards development process, is to act as the official issuer of all NFPA codes and standards. When it convenes to issue NFPA documents, it also hears any appeals related to the document. Appeals are an important part of assuring that all NFPA rules have been followed and that due process and fairness have been upheld throughout the codes and standards development process. The Council considers appeals both in writing and through the conduct of hearings at which all interested parties can participate. It decides appeals based on the entire record of the process as well as all submissions on the appeal. After deciding all appeals related to a document before it, the Council, if appropriate, proceeds to issue the document as an official NFPA code or standard. Subject only to limited review by the NFPA Board of Directors, the decision of the Standards Council is final, and the new NFPA code or standard becomes effective twenty days after Standards Council issuance.

1981-1

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Report of the Committee on

Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-AAC)

William E. Haskell, III, ChairNational Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, MA [E]

Eric J. Beck, SecretaryMine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M]

Rep. Compressed Gas Association

Jason L. Allen, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] Leslie Anderson, US Department of Agriculture, MT [E] Roger L. Barker, North Carolina State University, NC [SE] Brian D. Berchtold, US Department of the Navy, DE [RT] Steven D. Corrado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] Richard M. Duffy, International Association of Fire Fighters, DC [L] Cristine Z. Fargo, International Safety Equipment Association, VA [M] Robert A. Freese, Globe Manufacturing Company, NH [M] Patricia A. Gleason, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] James S. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA [RT] David G. Matthews, Fire & Industrial (P.P.E) Ltd., United Kingdom [SE] Rep. International Standards Organization Gary L. Neilson, Sparks, NV [U] Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section Anthony D. Putorti, Jr., National Institute of Standards & Technology, MD [RT]Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] William A. Van Lent, Veridian Ltd., Inc., IA [M] Rep. Fire & Emergency Manufacturers & Services AssociationRichard H. Young, DuPont Protection Technologies, VA [M]

Alternates

Chris Bain, Oklahoma State Firefighters Association, OK [C] (Voting Alt. to OSFA Rep.) Louis Carpentier, Innotex Inc., Canada [M] (Alt. to William A. Van Lent) Brandi L. Chestang, US Department of the Navy, FL [RT] (Alt. to Brian D. Berchtold) Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC, NH [M] (Alt. to Robert A. Freese) David V. Haston, US Department of Agriculture, CA [E] (Alt. to Leslie Anderson)Kimberly M. Henry, PBI Performance Products, Inc., NC [M] (Alt. to Richard H. Young)Pamela A. Kavalesky, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (Alt. to Jason L. Allen) Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion, OH [M] (Alt. to Nicholas J. Curtis) Robin B. Royster, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to Steven D. Corrado) Michael T. Rupert, Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] (Alt. to Eric J. Beck)Stephen R. Sanders, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] (Alt. to Patricia A. Gleason)Grace G. Stull, International Personnel Protection Inc., TX [SE] (Alt. to Jeffrey O. Stull)Donald B. Thompson, North Carolina State University, NC [SE] (Alt. to Roger L. Barker)

Nonvoting

Christina M. Baxter, US Department of Defense, VA [E] Rep. TC on Hazardous Materials PC&E Dean W. Cox, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department, VA [U] Rep. TC on Special Operations PC&E Stephen J. King, Babylon, NY [SE] Rep. TC on Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting PC&E Daniel N. Rossos, Portland Fire & Rescue, OR [U] Rep. TC on Respiratory Protection Equipment Rick L. Swan, IAFF Local 2881/CDF Fire Fighters, CA [L] Rep. TC on Wildland Fire Fighting PC&E Bruce H. Varner, Goodyear, AZ [E] Rep. TC on Electronic Safety Equipment

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 operations. This Committee shall also have the primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of such protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.

Report of the Committee on

Electronic Safety Equipment (FAE-ELS)

Bruce H. Varner, ChairGoodyear, AZ [SE]

Christina Spoons, SecretaryWestmont Fire Department, IL [C]

Jason L. Allen, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] Robert J. Athanas, FDNY/SAFE-IR, Incorporated, NY [U] Nelson P. Bryner, National Institute of Standards & Technology, MD [RT] John P. Campman, Grace Industries, Inc., PA [M] Louis Chavez, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] Michael G. Feely, Boston Fire Department, MA [U] Wayne C. Haase, Summit Safety, Inc., MA [M] William E. Haskell III, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, MA [E] Jeffrey L. Hull, District of Columbia Fire & EMS Department, DC [E] Richard Katz, Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] Michael F. McKenna, Antelope, CA [SE] John H. Morris, ISG Infrasys, GA [M] Lawrence M. Nyberg, Motorola Solutions Inc., IL [M] Craig Parkulo, Tyco/Scott Health and Safety, NC [M] Kevin M. Roche, Phoenix Fire Department, AZ [U] Stephen R. Sanders, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] Gordon R. Sletmoe, Medford Fire-Rescue, OR [U] Steven H. Weinstein, Honeywell Safety Products, CA [M] Rep. International Safety Equipment Association Timothy W. Wolf, Scottsdale Fire Department, AZ [C]

Alternates

Craig Gestler, Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] (Alt. to Richard Katz) Patricia A. Gleason, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] (Alt. to Stephen R. Sanders) Zachary Stephen Haase, Summit Safety, Inc., MA [M] (Alt. to Wayne C. Haase) John Jarboe, Grace Industries, Inc., MD [M] (Alt. to John P. Campman) Robert M. Knabbe, FDNY/SAFE-IR, Incorporated, NY [U] (Alt. to Robert J. Athanas) Mark Krizik, Motorola, Inc., IL [M] (Alt. to Lawrence M. Nyberg) Neil P. Lakomiak, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT] (Alt. to Louis Chavez) Jeffrey L. Landis, Tyco/Scott Health and Safety, NC [M] (Alt. to Craig Parkulo) David A. Little, ISG Infrasys, GA [M] (Alt. to John H. Morris) Nick Luzie, Honeywell Safety Products, CA [M] (Alt. to Steven H. Weinstein) Chad A. Morey, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (Alt. to Jason L. Allen) Timothy R. Rehak, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, PA [E] (Alt. to William E. Haskell III) Kate A. Remley, National Institute of Standards & Technology, CO [RT] (Alt. to Nelson P. Bryner)Steven D. Townsend, City of Carrollton Fire Department, TX [E] (Voting Alt. to Carrollton F.D. Rep.)

Committee Scope: This committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the design, performance, testing, and certification of electronic safety equipment used by fire and emergency services personnel during emergency incident operations, and shall also have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of electronic safety equipment.

1981-2

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Report of the Committee on

Emergency Medical Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-EMS)

William E. Haskell III, ChairNational Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, MA [E]

Karen E. Lehtonen, SecretaryLion, OH [M]

Jason L. Allen, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] Michael L. Aries, Town of Natick Fire Department, MA [L] Rep. International Association of Fire Fighters Steven D. Corrado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] James E. Davis, Columbus Firefighters Local 67, OH [L] Todd P. Davis, Town of Longmeadow Fire Department, MA [C] William A. Fithian, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] Daniel J. Gohlke, W. L. Gore and Associates, MD [M] Donald F. Groce, Best Glove Inc., GA [M] Eugene M. Novak, Jr., Commonwealth of Massachusetts, MA [E] Richard W. Patrick, US Department of Homeland Security, MD [E]

Alternates

Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to Karen E. Lehtonen) Pamela A. Kavalesky, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (Alt. to Jason L. Allen) Angie M. Shepherd, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, PA [E] (Alt. to William E. Haskell III) Gregg A. Skelly, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to Steven D. Corrado)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory protective equipment, that provides hand, torso, limb, and face protection for fire fighters or other emergency services responders during incidents that involve emergency medical operations. These operations include first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, basis life support, advanced life support, and other medical procedures provided to patients prior to arrival at a hospital or other health care facility. Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of emergency medical protective clothing and protective equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.


Respiratory Protection Equipment (FAE-RPE)

Daniel N. Rossos, ChairPortland Fire & Rescue, OR [U]

Steven H. Weinstein, SecretaryHoneywell Safety Products, CA [M]

Rep. International Safety Equipment Association

Heinz W. Ahlers, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, PA [E] Jason L. Allen, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] Christopher Anaya, Sacramento Metropolitan Fire Department, CA [C] Rep. California State Firefighters Association David T. Bernzweig, Columbus (OH) Division of Fire, OH [L] Rep. Columbus Fire Fighters Union W. Lee Birch, Luxfer Gas Cylinders, CA [M] A. Paul Bull,Charles Town,WV [SE] Rodney V. Colbert, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department, VA [U]Brian H. Cox, Clovis Fire Department, CA [U] Deborah L. Crisher, City of Virginia Beach Fire Department, VA [U] Nathan Dower, Dallas Fire-Rescue Department, TX [U] Robin R. Gainey, Jacksonville Fire Rescue Department, FL [L] Rep. International Association of Fire Fighters Ed Golla, TRI/Air Testing, TX [RT] A. Ira Harkness, US Department of the Navy, FL [RT] David V. Haston, US Department of Agriculture, CA [RT] John Jarboe, Grace Industries, Inc., MD [M] James S. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA [RT] Clint Kaller, Los Angeles County Fire Department, CA [U] Craig Martin, Avon-ISI, GA [M] Ian Maxwell, Interspiro AB, Sweden [M]

Stephen T. Miles, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, WV [E] Rep. National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health Ruby Ochoa, Trace Analytics LLC, TX [RT] Jerry Phifer, Tyco/Scott Health & Safety, NC [M] Samuel C. Pitts, US Marine Corps Systems Command, VA [E] Michael T. Rupert, Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] Stephen R. Sanders, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] Robert Sell, Draeger Safety, Inc., PA [M] Richard S. Tobin, Jr., Fire Department City of New York, NY [U] Kenton D. Warner, KDW Consulting, LLC, FL [SE]

Alternates

Marshall J. Black, US Department of the Navy, FL [RT] (Alt. to A. Ira Harkness) John P. Campman, Grace Industries, Inc., PA [M] (Alt. to John Jarboe) J. Michael Carlson, TRI Air Testing, TX [RT] (Alt. to Ed Golla) Dennis K. Davis, US Department of Agriculture, MT [RT] (Alt. to David V. Haston) Beverly F. Gulledge, Tyco/Scott Safety, NC [M] (Alt. to Jerry Phifer) David Hodson, Draeger Safety UK Ltd., United Kingdom [M] (Alt. to Robert Sell) John F. Kuhn, Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] (Alt. to Michael T. Rupert) Beth C. Lancaster, US Marine Corps Systems Command, VA [E] (Alt. to Samuel C. Pitts) Nick Luzie, Honeywell Safety Products, CA [M] (Alt. to Steven H. Weinstein) Clint Mayhue, International Safety Instruments (ISI), GA [M] (Alt. to Craig Martin) Chad A. Morey, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (Alt. to Jason L. Allen) William T. Mundy, Fire Department City of New York, NY [U] (Alt. to Richard S. Tobin, Jr.) Kenneth A. Pravetz, City of Virginia Beach Fire Department, VA [U] (Alt. to Deborah L. Crisher) Timothy M. Radtke, US Department of the Interior, CO [E] (Voting Alt. to USDOI Rep.) Norman Seals, Dallas Fire-Rescue Department, TX [U] (Alt. to Nathan Dower) Dick Smith, Trace Analytics LLC, TX [RT] (Alt. to Ruby Ochoa) Jonathan V. Szalajda, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, PA [E] (Alt. to Heinz W. Ahlers)

Nonvoting

Matthew I. Chibbaro, US Department of Labor, DC [E] John Steelnack, US Department of Labor, DC [E] (Alt. to Matthew I. Chibbaro) Rep. Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on respiratory equipment, including breathing air, for fire and emergency services personnel during incidents involving hazardous or oxygen deficient atmospheres. This Committee shall also have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of respiratory protection equipment and systems by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.


Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SCE)

Dean W. Cox, ChairFairfax County Fire & Rescue Department, VA [U]

Karen E. Lehtonen, SecretaryLion, OH [M]

Jason L. Allen, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] Collin M. Byrne, Lynchburg Police Department, VA [U] Steven D. Corrado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Shawn G. Davis, Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services, Canada [U] Keith B. Dempsey, City of Dalton Fire Department, GA [C] James A. Frank, CMC Rescue, Inc., CA [M] Stephen J. Geraghty, Fire Department City of New York, NY [U] Daniel J. Gohlke, W. L. Gore and Associates, MD [M]

1981-3

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 William E. Haskell III, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, MA [E] Diane B. Hess, PBI Performance Products, Inc., NC [M] Gavin P. Horn, University of Illinois Fire Service Institute, IL [SE] Steve Hudson, Pigeon Mountain Industries, Inc., GA [M] H. Dean Paderick, Special Rescue International, VA [SE] Jack E. Reall, Columbus (OH) Division of Fire, OH [U] Stephen R. Sanders, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] Michael T. Stanhope, TenCate/Southern Mills, Inc., GA [M] R. Douglas Stephenson, City of Johns Creek Fire Department, GA [U]

Alternates

Charles S. Dunn, TenCate/Southern Mills, GA [M] (Alt. to Michael T. Stanhope) William A. Fithian, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] (Alt. to Stephen R. Sanders) Kimberly M. Henry, PBI Performance Products, Inc., NC [M] (Alt. to Diane B. Hess) Pamela A. Kavalesky, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (Alt. to Jason L. Allen) Kim Klaren, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department, VA [U] (Alt. to Dean W. Cox) Loui McCurley, PMI-West, CO [M] (Alt. to Steve Hudson) James E. Murray, Fire Department City of New York, NY [U] (Alt. to Stephen J. Geraghty) Ashley M. Scott, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to Karen E. Lehtonen) Angie M. Shepherd, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, PA [E] (Alt. to William E. Haskell III) Beverly Wooten Stutts, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to Steven D. Corrado)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on special operations protective clothing and protective equipment, except respiratory equipment, that provides hand, foot, torso, limb, head, and interface protection for fire fighters and other emergency services responders during incidents involving special operations functions including, but not limited to, structural collapse, trench rescue, confined space entry, urban search and rescue, high angle/mountain rescue, vehicular extraction, swift water or flooding rescue, contaminated water diving, and air operations. This Committee shall also have primary responsibility for documents on station/work uniform garments that are not of themselves primary protective garments but can be combined with a primary protective garment to serve dual or multiple functions.

Additionally, this Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of special operations protective clothing and equipment by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.


Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SPF)

Stephen J. King, ChairBabylon, NY [SE]

Benjamin Mauti, Secretary (Alternate)Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M]

(Alt. to John F. Rihn)

Jason L. Allen, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] Roger L. Barker, North Carolina State University, NC [SE] Brian D. Berchtold, US Department of the Navy, DE [RT] Steven D. Corrado, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] Dean W. Cox, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department, VA [U] Paul F. Curtis, L.N. Curtis & Sons, CA [IM] Rick D. Davis, National Institute of Standards & Technology, MD [RT] Scott R. Doan, Alameda County Fire Department, CA [U]Tim Durby, Phoenix Fire Department, AZ [U] Rep. International Fire Service Training Association Richard C. Edinger, Chesterfield County Fire & Emergency Medical Services, VA [E] Rep. International Association of Fire Chiefs David P. Fanning, E. D. Bullard Company, KY [M] William A. Fithian, Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), VA [RT] Patricia A. Freeman, Globe Manufacturing Company, LLC, NH [M] Richard O. Granger,Jr., Charlotte Fire Department, NC [U] William E. Haskell III, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, MA [E]

Emeral Earl Hayden, City of El Paso Fire Department, TX [L] Rep. International Association of Fire Fighters Steve L. Lakey, Northwest Safety Clean Inc., OR [IM] Rep. Verified Independent Services Providers Association Karen E. Lehtonen, Lion, OH [M] Lance Matiste, Fire-Dex, OH [M] Michael F. McKenna, Antelope, CA [SE] Daniel F. Melia, Fire Department City of New York, NY [U] Andrew R. Oliver,Gear Wash LLC,WI [IM] Louis V. Ott, Gentex Corporation, PA [M] Matthew D. Pegg, Brampton Fire & Emergency Services, Canada [U] Rep. Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs Tom Ragan, Shelby Specialty Gloves, TN [M] John F. Rihn, Mine Safety Appliances Company, PA [M] R. Wendell Robison, Fillmore, UT [C] Rep. National Volunteer Fire Council Kelly Sisson, City of La Mesa Fire Department, CA [U]Douglas Sloan, Honeywell First Responder Products, NY [M] Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] Tim W. Tomlinson, Addison Fire Department, TX [C]

Alternates

Wells Bullard, E. D. Bullard Company, KY [M] (Alt. to David P. Fanning) Nicholas J. Curtis, Lion Apparel, Inc., OH [M] (Alt. to Karen E. Lehtonen) Mark J. Dolim, L.N. Curtis & Sons, CA [IM] (Alt. to Paul F. Curtis)Richard C. Ford, II, Chicago Fire Department, IL [E] (Voting Alt. to Chicago F.D. Rep.) A. Ira Harkness, US Department of the Navy, FL [RT] (Alt. to Brian D. Berchtold) Tricia Hock, Fire-Dex, OH [M] (Alt. to Lance Matiste) Pamela A. Kavalesky, Intertek Testing Services, NY [RT] (Alt. to Jason L. Allen) Kim Klaren, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue Department, VA [U] (Alt. to Dean W. Cox) Michael A. Laton, Honeywell First Responder Products, GA [M] (Alt. to Douglas Sloan) Anthony D. Putorti, Jr., National Institute of Standards & Technology, MD [RT] (Alt. to Rick D. Davis) Robin B. Royster, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., NC [RT] (Alt. to Steven D. Corrado) Angie M. Shepherd, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health, PA [E] (Alt. to William E. Haskell III) Grace G. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc., TX [SE] (Alt. to Jeffrey O. Stull) Donald B. Thompson, North Carolina State University, NC [SE] (Alt. to Roger L. Barker) Robert D. Tutterow, Jr., Charlotte Fire Department, NC [U] (Alt. to Richard O. Granger, Jr.) Don Welch, II, Globe Manufacturing Company, NH [M] (Alt. to Patricia A. Freeman) David K. Whiting, Columbus Division of Fire, OH [E] (Alt. to Richard C. Edinger) Patrick J. Woods, Fire Department City of New York, NY [U] (Alt. to Daniel F. Melia)

Nonvoting

William R. Hamilton, US Department of Labor, DC [E] Andrew Levinson, US Department of Labor, DC [E] (Alt. to William R. Hamilton) Rep. Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Staff Liaison: David G. Trebisacci

Committee Scope: This committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on protective ensembles, except respiratory protection, that provides head, limb, hand, foot, torso, and interface protection for fire fighters and other emergency services responders during incidents involving structural fire fighting operations or proximity fire fighting operations. Structural fire fighting operations include the activities of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation during incidents involving fires in buildings, enclosed structures, vehicles, marine vessels, or like properties. Proximity fire fighting operations include the activities of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation during incidents involving commercial and military aircraft fires, bulk flammable gas fires, bulk flammable and combustible liquids fires, combustible metal fires, exotic fuel fires, and other such fires that produce very high levels of radiant heat as well as convective and conductive heat.

1981-4

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Additionally, this committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on the selection, care, and maintenance of structural and proximity fire fighting protective ensembles by fire and emergency services organizations and personnel.

These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this report. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of the document.

The Report of the Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment is presenting seven Reports for adoption, as follows:

The Reports were prepared by the:

• Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-AAC)

• Technical Committee on Electronic Safety Equipment (FAE-ELS) • Technical Committee on Emergency Medical Services Protective

Clothing and Equipment (FAE-EMS) • Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment (FAE-RPE) • Technical Committee on Special Operations Protective Clothing and

Equipment (FAE-SCE) • Technical Committee on Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting

Protective Clothing and Equipment (FAE-SPF)

Report I: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting, 2008 edition. NFPA 1851-2009 is published in Volume 13 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 1851 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 33 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.

This Report on Proposals has also been submitted to the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment (TCC) in two parts. Part I is a letter ballot on the TCC Actions, if any; and Part II is an informational letter ballot on the Report as a whole. The TCC, which consists of 20 voting members, voted as follows:

Since there were no TCC Actions, there is no ballot on Part I.

Part II: 16 voted affirmatively, and 4 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Putorti). Mr. Stull voted affirmatively stating: The TCC heard a presentation indicating the specific needs for firefighter hygiene and cleaning off ensemble elements following specific fires; this information should be incorporated into the appendix material of NFPA 1851 (and NFPA 1855).

Report II: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 1852, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), 2008 edition. NFPA 1852-2008 is published in Volume 13 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 1852 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, which consists of 31 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.



Part II: 16 voted affirmatively, and 4 ballots were not returned (Barker, Duffy, Putorti, Bain).

Mr. Stull voted affirmatively stating: The issue of continued air quality should be reviewed as it applies to new types of pressure vessels, especially for long term storage.

Report III: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, a new document NFPA 1855, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Technical Rescue Incidents, 2013 edition.

The report on NFPA 1855 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Special Operations Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 19 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.


Part I: 15 voted affirmatively, and 5 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Neilson, Putorti).

Part II: 15 voted affirmatively, and 5 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Neilson, Putorti). Mr. Stull voted affirmatively stating: The TCC was informed of new research that shows the hazards of skin contamination that can attenuated by improved firefighter post scene hygiene and the proper cleaning of ensemble elements. This information should be incorporated into the appendix of NFPA 1855 (and NFPA 1851).

Report IV: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services, 2007 edition. NFPA 1981-2007 is published in Volume 14 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.



Part I: 14 voted affirmatively, 2 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Berchtold, Haston), and 4 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Neilson, Putorti).

Mr. Berchtold voted negatively stating: Committee Action on proposal 1981-14 (Log #CP3), (Sections 3.3, 6.2, and 6.3) is in conflict with CFR/NIOSH/Regulations/Directives.

Mr. Haston voted negatively stating: The TCC actions for proposals 1981-7 (Log #CP1) and 1981-26 (Log #CP7) do not appear to be correlation issues. Both TCC actions involve a considerable amount of new material which was not available for public review during ROP. The TCC direction circumvents the ROP process and is not an appropriate means of adding new material or making major revisions. Public proposals should have been submitted, this TCC direction demonstrates a lack of respect for the process.

Part II: 16 voted affirmatively, and 4 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Neilson, Putorti).

Report V: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 1982, Standard on Personal Alert Safety Systems (PASS), 2007 edition. NFPA 1982 is published in Volume 14 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 1982 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Electronic Safety Equipment, which consists of 22 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.



Part II: 16 voted affirmatively, and 4 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Putorti,).

1981-5

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Report VI: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments

to NFPA 1989, Standard on Breathing Air Quality for Emergency Services Respiratory Protection, 2008 edition. NFPA 1989-2008 is published in Volume 14 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.



Part I: 16 voted affirmatively, and 4 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Putorti).

Part II: 16 voted affirmatively, and 4 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Putorti).

Report VII: The Technical Committee proposes for adoption, amendments to NFPA 1999, Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations, 2008 edition. NFPA 1999-2008 is published in Volume 15 of the 2011 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

The report on NFPA 1999 has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Emergency Medical Services Protective Clothing and Equipment which consists of 12 voting members. The results of the balloting, after circulation of any negative votes, can be found in the report.


Part I: 15 voted affirmatively, and 5 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Neilson, Putorti).

Part II: 15 voted affirmatively, and 5 ballots were not returned (Bain, Barker, Duffy, Neilson, Putorti). Mr. Stull voted affirmatively stating: As identified in the committee statements the incorporation of new test methods should be predicated on the complete validation of those test methods that includes as a minimum interlaboratory testing and correlation with field performances.

1981-6

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 _______________________________________________________________ 1981-1 Log #1 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Note: This Proposal appeared as Comment 1981-33 (Log #5) which was held from the F2006 ROC on Proposal 1981-1.Submitter: Tom Kissner, Smithsburg, MDRecommendation: Instead of changing the cylinders, why don’t you just change the bracket that holds the cylinder? Make all of the manufactures can to a ratchet type assembly. Have NIOSH and OSHA lift there cylinder requirement by the same manufacture to gain there certification for use. Substantiation: Agree, but with changes.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The technical committee rejected this proposal because it is outside the scope of the standard. This is an apparatus design issue. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-2 Log #2 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Note: This Proposal appeared as Comment 1981-5 (Log #14) which was held from the F2006 ROC on Proposal 1981-2.Submitter: David Covington, San Antonio Fire DepartmentRecommendation: It is my understanding that the committee is working on cylinder interoperability compatibility. Although this may be a good idea, I caution the committee to consider it very carefully in light of recent events in San Antonio. We recently experienced a number of o-ring failures where the SCBA valve screws in to the cylinder. After sending units to NIOSH and Southwest Research Institute (a respected research lab in San Antonio), we have found that the type of fitting that we now use in our SCBA cylinders is antiquated and based on a 1965 CGA standard. Substantiation: The engineers at SWRI have concluded that the design is flawed and this would explain our o-ring failures. Our informal poll of departments confirmed that virtually all SCBA manufacturers have o-ring issues. The CGA spec does not include an o-ring but allows it when hand tightening. We have more information if you wish to see it, but the real issue is that it would be wrong to build an interoperability based on a defective design that has plagued the fire service for many years. The correct method would be to consult the dive people who have ditched the design and work out a new fitting that works for firefighters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NIOSH is the federal agency that writes standards for respiratory protection. The CGA fitting specified in 42 CFR Part 84 meets the performance requirements of the current NIOSH and NFPA standards. Since the federal standards incorporated the CGA fitting for cylinder filling in 1972, many hundreds of approvals have been processed. There have been very few complaints relative to the CGA connector, and there is no body of evidence indicating the current CGA standard is inherently flawed. Furthermore, CGA would be the appropriate body to modify this standard. NIOSH uses industry and consensus standards wherever possible. NIOSH does not prohibit the manufacturer from employing other types of connectors in addition to the CGA-compatible connectors. Several SCBA manufacturers incorporate an additional fitting. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-3 Log #3 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Note: This Proposal appeared as Comment 1981-10 (Log #88) which was held from the F2006 ROC on Proposal 1981-2.Submitter: I. David Daniels, International Association of Fire ChiefsRecommendation: The Safety, Health and Survival section of the IAFC is in favor of changes to SCBAs that provide for interoperability. To this end, we believe that the most effective approach would be to require the retroactive installation of a standardized RIC/RIT connection, in addition to requiring that all new assemblies be provided with the connection. We agree that work needs to be done on cylinder standardization, but do not feel it reasonable to expect that this would occur in a reasonable period of time, given the technical financial and legislative changes that will be necessary to accomplish this. Substantiation: The problem with cylinder standardization in the standard is the reality that many agencies will not be able to comply with the requirement in the short term principally for financial reasons. Fire Departments continue to struggle with shrinking budgets; therefore, it does not seem like a good idea to create a requirement that few will strive to achieve due to perceptions barriers, when the same objective can be achieved by alternative means. Further, a requirement in the standard for standardization of cylinders may create a greater safety hazard in its place if organizations elect to ignore it. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: An RIC UAC connection is a required component on all SCBA certified to the 2002 and 2007 Editions of NFPA 1981. Design and performance requirements cannot be added to past editions of NFPA 1981.

However, replacement parts, components and add-on accessories are permitted, as explained in paragraphs 4.2.8.1 and 4.2.8.2 of NFPA 1981, 2007 Edition. An SCBA upgrade to the 2007 Edition of NFPA 1981 is permitted under the conditions specified in NFPA 1852, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), 2008 Edition. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-4 Log #4 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Note: This Proposal appeared as Comment 1981-26 (Log #245) which was held from the F2006 ROC on Proposal 1981-2.Submitter: Roger Donnellan, Waynesville, NCRecommendation: Every new SCBA purchased has a RIT fitting at the cylinder valve. This RIT fitting is universal on all new SCBA no matter the manufacturer. The new NFPA update on SCBA proposed enhanced communications and CBRN, both of these proposed upgrades are long overdue. You should also include a self rescue on SCBA’s harness, when all other avenues are closed. I suggest removal of all 2,200 psi and 3,000 psi SCBA’s cylinders and upgrade to 4,500 psi 1,200, 1800 and 2400 liters. All cylinder valve outlets should be on the same side. Substantiation: I disagree that there will be no more innovations on SCBA’s.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 1981 deals with respiratory protection, not with rescue harnesses. Self-rescue devices are commercially available, and NFPA 1981 does not preclude their use as an accessory in conjunction with an SCBA. The proposer provides no substantiation, so it is difficult to address the portion of the proposal dealing with cylinder pressure. Cylinder pressure does not determine cylinder volume. Limiting pressure would be design-restrictive, and the TC sees no benefit in eliminating pressure options. Again, the proposer provides no substantiation for the portion of the proposal dealing with cylinder valve outlets. There is not enough information provided to determine the need, and the technical committee is rejecting this proposal because it is design-restrictive. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-5 Log #5 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Note: This Proposal appeared as Comment 1981-31 (Log #31) which was held from the F2006 ROC on Proposal 1981-2.Submitter: Tom May, Rochester, NYRecommendation: I would like to comment on the SCBA Standard 1981. The heads up display is a good idea to remind wearers of their air supply, but I have found problems. In very dark conditions the bright lights opposes one’s night vision. While searching for both life and fire I find the heads up display very distracting, and I feel more blind than usual. My suggestion is to try using all red lights to allow better night vision, or just one red light that comes on at 1/2 the bottles capacity. Substantiation: The current heads up display could cause as many problems as it solves. I can imagine that some one could miss the signs of rollover, or miss finding a fire when the glow of a fire is not seen due to that blinding green light in one’s face. I have heard the same comments from other firefighters, but no one seems to know how to make changes. I assume this is a start. I have also heard that NFPA codes are mainly developed by industry and those who do not use the firefighting equipment. I hope that the firefighters who use the equipment are listened to. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The HUD is required to display a signal in at least four increments of pressure to represent the function of a gauge. A single light at 50% would not fulfill this requirement. There is no evidence to suggest that a change to all red lights would improve any issues with glare. Also, there is no concrete evidence indicating one color is less obtrusive than another when utilized in a Heads-Up-Display. In relation to night-blindness, there are compelling arguments both for and against the use of the color red. Additionally, other research has shown the blue/greens and yellow/greens would be preferable. Since there is no definitive evidence that would warrant a HUD light-color mandate, the technical committee rejected the proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-6 Log #10 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept in Principle(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Develop criteria for alternative pressure vessel technology incorporated into SCBA.

1981-7

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Substantiation: Consideration should be provided in the revision of NFPA 1981 to alternative pressure vessels. One such pressure vessel technology based on an array of multiple non-metal lined pressures should be used as a model for the development of new criteria that anticipate alternative pressure vessel implications for design and performance criteria provided in NFPA 1981. A project team lead by the IAFF will be willing to propose specific criteria for the committee’s consideration. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee meeting action on 1981-26 (Log #CP7). Committee Statement: NFPA 1981 does not preclude alternative pressure vessel technology to be incorporated into SCBA. However, should a specific alternative pressure vessel be developed and certified that cannot be tested to existing NFPA 1981 test methods, the technical committee will develop or modify test methods that would accommodate such technology. See also 1981-26 (Log #CP7). Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-7 Log #CP1 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(Entire Document)_______________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC directs the TC to address the restructuring of NFPA 1981 to address the needs of emergency services users who are not using SCBA in fire suppression operations. In addition, the TCC directs the TC to address specific types of emergency services, for example, military services (defense operations), hazardous materials operations emergency services and law enforcement. The TCC believes that the work of the TC during the remainder of this cycle may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the needs of emergency services users who are not using SCBA in fire suppression operations may be better served by a separate standard. The TCC invited public comment on this possibility. Proposed Changes to NFPA 1981. The Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment formed a Task Group to address the needs of defense and emergency services community within the structure of NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services. The Task Group, with the assistance of representatives from the law enforcement, defense and hazardous materials response communities, determined that the current standard, with modifications, could be used to address Structural Firefighting and Emergency Response. The proposed path forward includes the incorporation of three new chapters within the NFPA 1981 framework to address Design Requirements, Performance Requirements and Test Methods for the Emergency Responder which represents all response elements with the exception of structural firefighting. All attempts will be made to use as many of the current test methods as is possible with different performance criteria as appropriate to minimize the effects on the test community and the developers while providing respiratory protection suitable for non-fire suppression operations. In Chapter 9, Design Requirements for Emergency Response, the following differences shall be incorporated (in comparison to Chapter 6): • Section 9.2.4.3 shall be modified to require that the Emergency Response SCBAs not use audible alarms. • Sections 9.2.4.5 (requiring the use of multiple senses for EOSTI detection), 9.5.3 (visual signal for low power source), and 9.5.4 (visual signal for low power source) will be removed. In Chapter 10, Performance Requirements for Emergency Response, the only affected section shall be 10.14.4 which will be removed as it is a test specifically for operations in smoke and haze environments. In Chapter 11, Test Methods for Emergency Response, sections 11.5.4.3.3, 11.5.5.5, 11.6.5.5, 11.6.5.7, 11.6.7 and 11.11 will be altered to have lower temperature end points (when compared to Chapter 8 end points) which are operationally relevant to the tactical responders. Sections 11.14.4.3 and 11.23.4.2 will be modified to incorporate non-structural firefighting examples. Sections 11.18 (HUD Obscuration Test) and 11.24 (Heat and Immersion Leakage Test) will be removed as they are specific to firefighting operations. New test methods will be added to address: • A system-level test to measure the external visibility of a HUD device • A system-level test to determine the “direction” of sound produced from the device • A system-level test to determine the maximum level of external noise to be allowed when the SCBA is in operation. Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals to do so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required. Substantiation: To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptCommittee Statement: The technical committee reviewed the entire document to update any extracted material, and reviewed and update references to other organizations documents. Separate proposals were prepared as required.

Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-8 Log #CP4 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(Chapters 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)_______________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC directs the TC to address requirements for interoperability of EBSS. Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Add a new paragraph 1.3.1.1 as follows:1.3.1.1 If the SCBA is equipped with an EBSS, the EBSS performance requirements set forth in this standard shall only apply to open-circuit SCBA and combination SCBA/SARs used by the fire service for respiratory protection of its personnel during the applications listed in 1.3.1. Revise text as follows: 3.3.X EBSS Abbreviation for emergency breathing safety system. 3.3.X Emergency Breathing Safety System (EBSS). A device on an SCBA that allows users to share their available air supply in an emergency situation. (See Table 4.3.9 on on the following page.)5.2.6 (5) Emergency procedures to be followed in the event of an out-of-air situation. 6.6 Emergency Breathing Safety System (EBSS) Design Requirements 6.6.1 If an SCBA is equipped with an EBSS, it shall meet the performance requirements of 7.20 and 8.27. 6.6.2 Each EBSS shall operate off the pressure after the first stage pressure reducer of the SCBA. 6.6.3 The EBSS shall have an operating pressure of at least 5.5 bar (80 psi). 6.6.4 The EBSS shall have a male and female connection with a check valve feature to prevent inward contaminants. 6.6.5 The EBSS pressure hose assembly shall be a minimum of 20” long.6.6.6 The EBSS shall be accessible by the wearer.6.6.7 The EBSS shall require only one action for connection of the donor’s fitting to the receiving SCBA’s fitting. 6.6.8 The EBSS shall require two distinctive actions to disconnect the fitting between the donor SCBA and receiving SCBA. 6.6.9 The EBSS fitting(s) shall be equipped with a dust cap or sealing plug to prevent dust, dirt, and debris from entering the fitting(s). 6.6.10 The connection of two EBSS shall be independent of the facepieces.7.20 Emergency Breathing Safety System Cold Temperature Performance Requirements7.20.1 Each SCBA shall be tested independently for airflow performance as specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test, and the SCBA facepiece pressure shall not be less than 0.0 mm (0.0 in.) water column and shall not be greater than 89 mm (3½ in.) water column above ambient pressure from the time the test begins until the time the test is concluded. 7.20.2 Each SCBA shall be tested independently for activation of EOSTI during the airflow performance testing specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test, and each EOSTI shall activate as specified in 6.2.2 and shall continue to operate throughout the remainder of the airflow performance test. 7.20.3 Each SCBA shall be tested independently for proper functioning of the HUD breathing air cylinder content informational display and visual alert signals during the airflow performance testing specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test, and the HUD shall display the visual information for the breathing air cylinder content as specified in 6.3.9.5 and shall display the visual alert signal as specified in 6.3.8.5. 7.20.4 The SCBA classified as the donor shall start at full cylinder pressure and the SCBA classified as the receiving SCBA shall have a pressure of 7 bar + 0.6 bar/- 0 bar (100 psi + 10 psi/- 0). 7.20.5 Both SCBA shall be connected through the EBSS and shall be tested for cold environment as specified in 8.X and the SCBA facepiece pressure shall not be less than 0.0 mm (0.0 in.) water column and shall not be greater than 89 mm (3½ in.) water column above ambient pressure from the time the test begins until the time the test is concluded. 7.20.6 The donor SCBA shall be tested for activation of EOSTI during the environmental temperature performance as specified in Section 8.X, Emergency Breathing System Cold Temperature Performance Test. 7.20.7 The donor SCBA shall be tested for the proper functioning of the HUD breathing air cylinder content informational display and the visual alert signal during the environmental temperature performance as specified in Section 8.X, Emergency Breathing System Cold Temperature Performance Test.8.27 Emergency Breathing Safety System Cold Temperature Performance Test 8.27.1 Application. This test method shall apply to two complete SCBA.8.27.2 Samples. Each sample to be tested shall be as specified in 4.3.9.8.27.3 Specimen Preparation.8.27.3.1 Specimens for conditioning shall be two complete SCBA.8.27.3.2 Prior to testing, the SCBA shall be placed in an ambient environment of 22°C, ± 3°C (72°F, ±5°F) and RH of 50 percent, ±25 percent for a minimum 12-hour dwell period. 8.27.3.3 The air used in the SCBA breathing air cylinders shall comply with the quality requirements of NFPA 1989, Standard on Breathing Air Quality for Fire and Emergency Services Respiratory Protection. 8.27.4 Apparatus.

1981-8

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981

Table 4.3.9 Test Series

TestOrder

Category A (SCBA #1)

Category B (SCBA #2)

Category C (SCBA #3)

Category D (SCBA #4)

Category E (SCBA #5)

Category F (SCBA #6)

Category G (Component

Tests)

Category H (Additional

SCBA as required)

1 Airflow (Section 8.1)

Airflow (Section 8.1)



HUDvisibilityperformance (Sections 8.17 through 8.19)

Low power capacity test (Section 8.26)

Fabric flame resistance (Section 8.4)

EOSTI independentactivation(Section 8.13)

2 Facepiece carbon dioxide content (Section 8.12)

Breathing air cylinder and valveassembly retention test (Section 8.22)

Vibration resistance(Section 8.3)

Heat and flame resistance(Section 8.11)

HUD low power source visual alert signal test (Section 8.16)

Heat and immersion leakage tests (Section 8.24)

Fabric heat resistance (Section 8.5)

EOSTI recognition performance (Section 8.14)

3 Mechanical voice diaphragm test (Section 8.10)

Cylinder connectionsandaccessibilitytest (Section 8.23)

— — Wiring connectionperformance (Section 8.15)

— Thread heat resistance (Section 8.6)

Lens Convection(Section 8.29)

4 Voice communications system test (Section 8.25)

RIC UAC cylinder refill breathing performance (Section 8.20)

— — Lens RadiantHeat(Section8.28)

— Facepiece lens abrasion resistance (Section 8.9)

—

5 Environmental temperature (Section 8.2)

RIC UAC system fill rateperformance (Section 8.21)

— — — — — —

6 Particulate resistance(Section 8.8)

Accelerated corrosion resistance(Section 8.7)

— — — — — —

EBSS Cold

Temp. PerformanceTest (+)(Section 8.27)

EBSS ColdTemp. PerformanceTest (+)(Section 8.27)

— — — — —

7 Particulate resistance (Section 8.8)

Accelerated corrosion resistance(Section 8.7)

— — — — — —

+ to be tested together

1981-9

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 8.27.4.1 The SCBA shall be placed in an environmental chamber and positioned to simulate the normal wearing position of the SCBA on a person as specified by the manufacturer. 8.27.4.2 During the cold temperature exposures the SCBA shall be mounted on a Scott Aviation Model No. 803608-01 or 803608-02 test head form or equivalent. 8.27.4.3 The thermocouple or other temperature-sensing element used shall be mounted within the chamber in a manner in which it will be exposed directly to the chamber atmosphere. 8.27.4.4 Two test head forms shall be connected to two breathing machines specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test. 8.27.4.5 The breathing machines shall be permitted to be located either inside or outside the environmental chamber. 8.27.5 Procedure.8.27.5.1 The variation in pressure extremes caused by the cold temperature performance test configuration shall be determined in the following manner. The airflow performance test as specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test, shall be carried out using the configuration specified in 8.2.4 at the 103 L/min, ±3 L/min ventilation rate. The difference in pressure between the two tests shall be calculated by subtracting the values obtained using the configuration defined in 8.2.4 from the values obtained using the configuration specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test. 8.27.5.1.1 The breathing machine for the donor SCBA and for the receiving SCBA shall be such that they initially operate out of phase of each other. At lease twice during the test duration the breathing machines must operate in phase with each other. 8.27.5.2 The facepiece pressure during each entire test shall be read from the strip chart recorder and corrected by adding the value of the difference in pressure calculated in 8.2.5.1 to determine pass or fail as specified in 7.2.1.1. 8.27.5.3 The dwell period between cold temperature tests shall be used for refilling the breathing air cylinder and visually inspecting the SCBA for any gross damage that could cause unsafe test conditions. 8.27.5.4 The SCBA shall be cold soaked at -32°C, ±1°C (-25°F, ±2°F) for a minimum of 12 hours. 8.27.5.5 The SCBA shall then be tested for airflow performance as specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test, at a chamber air temperature of -32°C, ±5°C (-25°F, ±10°F). 8.27.5.5.1 For the EBSS cold temperature performance test the airflow performance test shall begin after five cycles of the breathing machine and shall continue to operate through at least 36 bar (520 psi) of cylinder inlet pressure. 8.27.6 Report.8.27.6.1 The facepiece peak inhalation pressure and peak exhalation pressure shall be recorded and reported for each test condition. 8.27.6.2 The activation and operation or the failure to activate and operate of the donor SCBA EOSTI shall be recorded and reported. 8.27.6.3 The activation and identification of the donor SCBA HUD visual alert signals shall be recorded and reported. 8.27.7 Interpretation.8.27.7.1 The peak inhalation and peak exhalation shall be used to determine pass or fail performance for each test procedure. 8.27.7.2 One or more specimens failing this test shall constitute failing performance. 8.27.7.3 Failure of the donor SCBA EOSTI alarm signal to activate and remain active during the test shall constitute failing performance. 8.27.7.4 Failure of the donor SCBA HUD to display the breathing air cylinder content or to display the visual alert signal during the test shall constitute failing performance. Substantiation: EBSS have advanced technologically over the years and, with proper training, can increase user safety in emergency scenarios. At the ROP meeting in July 2011, the technical committee was informed by NIOSH representatives that NIOSH is expected to change its policy regarding the use of EBSS via the issuance of a policy amendment in August 2011. It is anticipated that NIOSH will rescind its former prohibition of EBSS for fire fighting, and will allow certification and use of EBSS for that application only. The technical committee believes that, since EBSS will soon become a permissible optional component of an SCBA, NFPA 1981 should include the minimum EBSS performance requirements. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-9 Log #8 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(1.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Suleiman Said Al Adawi, Petroleum Development OmanRecommendation: The standard should specify the spare self contained breathing apparatus cylinders proportionate to the number of breathing apparatus sets based on decided numbers of BA sets in fire stations. For instance 1 BA set should have 1 spare cylinder. NOTE: I tried to read different standards and seek/exchange ideas with my colleagues but never come across to the standard specifying the number of spare cylinders against BA sets. Substantiation: The proposal will assist when new introduced fire station

(zero base fire station i.e. if the fire station decided to have 10 BA sets (including appliances and back up sets in general) then the required of additional 10 spare BA cylinders might be essential. Thus will cover for BA wearer to use 2 cylinders plus contingencies such as lost of air incase face mask visor broken any other technical faults that cause lost of air, vast emergencies, volunteers, outage of cylinders for hydrostatic pressure test etc. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: NFPA 1981 is a performance standard, not a use or selection, care and maintenance standard. The proposal deals with an issue related to SCBA selection. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-10 Log #CP2 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(Chapters 2, 3, 6, 7, 8)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Add the following new references to Chapter 2:2.3.X IEC Publications. International Electrotechnical Commission, 3, rue de Varembé P.O. Box 131, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland 2.3.X.1 IEC 60268-16:2003, Sound System Equipment – Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index. Add the following definitions to Chapter 3: 3.3.X (HATS) Head and Torso Simulator. A Head and Torso Simulator is a mannequin with built-in ear and mouth simulators that provides a realistic reproduction of the acoustic properties of an average adult human head and torso. 3.3.X.1 (STI) Speech Transmission Index. A measure of intelligibility of speech quality on a scale of intelligibility whose values varies from 0 = completely unintelligible to 1 = perfect intelligibility. 3.3.X.2 (SPL) Sound Pressure Level. The local pressure deviation from the ambient (average or equilibrium) atmospheric pressure caused by a sound wave. 6.1.10 All SCBA shall have a voice communications system that, at a minimum, shall consist of a mechanical speaking diaphragm. 6.1.10.1 The voice communications system shall be designed to project sound without other persons needing a receiver to hear the voice communications. 6.1.10.2 Where the voice communications system uses electronics, the design shall incorporate an indicator that the system is “on.” This indicator shall be permitted to be positioned outside the user’s field of vision with the SCBA facepiece properly donned. 6.1.10.3 Where the voice communications system uses electronics, the power source shall display a visual alert signal indicating low power capacity. 6.1.10.4 Where the voice communications system uses electronics, the voice communications system shall be designed to be switched off and on manually without the performance of the SCBA being affected. 6.1.10.5 Where the voice communications system is automatically activated, the operation of the on/off control shall override the auto activation of the voice communications system without affecting the performance of the SCBA. 6.1.10.6 Where the voice communications system uses electronics, the voice communications system shall be permitted to be equipped with an adjustable volume (gain) control. Revise text to read as follows: 7.10 Non-Electronic Mechanical Diaphragm Communications Performance Requirements. The SCBA non-electronic voice communications system shall be tested for communications performance as specified in Section 8.10, Mechanical Voice Diaphragm Non-Electronic Communications Test, and shall have a Speech Transmission Index (STI) value of not less than 80 0.45 percent. 7.17 Supplementary Voice Communications System Performance Requirements. If the SCBA is equipped with a supplementary voice communications system as identified by the SCBA manufacturer, it shall be tested for communications performance as specified in Section 8.10 25, Mechanical Voice Diaphragm Voice Communications System Test, and shall have a Speech Transmission Index (STI) value of not less than 80 0.50 percent. 8.10 Mechanical Voice Diaphragm Non-electronic Communications Test. 8.10.1 Application. This test method shall apply to complete SCBA facepiece(s) and second stage regulator(s). 8.10.2 Samples. Each sample to be tested shall be as specified in 4.3.9 with all voice communications systems installed, including supplementary voice communications systems, and in the “off” mode per manufacturer instructions. 8.10.3.2 Specimens for conditioning shall be complete medium size SCBA facepiece(s) and inner mask(s) with the second stage regulator(s) installed in the as worn position as specified by the manufacturer and with the regulator set in breathing mode and sealed from the ambient environment. 8.10.4.1 Testing shall be conducted in a chamber that absorbs a minimum of 90 percent of all sound from 500 Hz to 5000 Hz having the following characteristics: (1) Room dimensions (minimum) with acoustic treatments: 3.6 m long X 3.0 m wide X 2.4 m high (12 ft long X 10 ft wide X 8 ft high) with a minimum volume of 27.2 m3 (960 ft3). (2) Construction: Hemi-anechoic (3) Ambient noise level inside chamber: <40 dBA/<50 dBC (4) Walls and ceiling: ≥90% absorptive between 125 Hz and 8 kHz

1981-10

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 8.10.4.1.1 All surfaces above the floor shall be acoustically treated for internal acoustic absorption, as well as for external noise mitigation.8.10.4.2 Five listening subjects and five talkers consisting of four males and one female shall be available for testing. The alternative of electronic recording of five talkers for testing automation and repeatability shall be permitted.8.10.4.2 The Head and Torso Simulator (HATS) test mannequin having the following characteristics shall be used: 8.10.4.2.1 The mouth simulator shall be capable of producing 112 dB/1 kHz sine tone at 25 mm (1 inch) with the mouth reference point un-equalized and the total harmonic distortion (THD) shall be ≤ 3%. 8.10.4.2.2 The mouth simulator frequency response shall be able to be equalized flat ± 2 dB between 180 Hz and 10 kHz and the response shall be -15 dB or less at 100 Hz and -20 dB or less at 15 kHz. 8.10.4.2.3 The head of the HATS shall be anatomically correct to ensure the proper fit of the facepiece. 8.10.4.3 The subjects participating as listeners shall have “audiometrically normal” hearing as defined in Section 5.3 of ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems, in the range of 500 Hz to 3000 Hz and shall not be permitted to use any device that would enhance their ability to hear.8.10.4.3 A sound pressure level (SPL) meter having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The SPL meter shall be capable of applying an equivalent continuous sound pressure level (Leq) with A and C weighting filters. (2) The SPL meter shall have a dynamic range from 30 dB (or less) to 130 dB (or more). (3) The SPL meter shall display the measurement to at least one decimal place.8.10.4.4 Talkers and listeners shall be selected and trained according to Section 7 of ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems.8.10.4.4 Test signal/pink noise analog audio signal generators having the following characteristics shall be used: 8.10.4.4.1 One generator shall be capable of playing wave files in the following format: (1) 48 kHz, 16-bit mono at an output level of 0 dB, FS=18 dBu sine according to EBU R68 8.10.4.4.2 The second generator shall be capable of generating pink noise and sine waves from -80 dBu to -2 dBu in one digit steps with a THD+N of -90 dB (0.0032%) at 8 dBu noise floor typ 25uv. (1) The frequency range shall be 10 Hz to 20 kHz in 1 digit steps ±0.01%. (2) The amplitude accuracy shall be within ±0.5 dB or less.8.10.4.5 The five talkers shall not have facial hair, any unusual facial characteristics, or any other condition that could cause interference with the seal of the facepiece.8.10.4.5 A digital equalizer having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The digital equalizer shall be capable of at least two concurrently selectable equalizer sections: (a) One-31 band graphic with an adjustment range of at least ±18 dB. (b) A ten band parametric with an adjustment range of at least ±18 dB. (2) The digital equalizer shall have a dynamic range of ≥112 dB. (3) The digital equalizer shall be capable of: (a) equalizing the frequency response of the HATS mannequin to flat ±2 dB between 180 Hz and 10 kHz, (b) applying a 180 Hz high pass filter with a slope of -24 dB octave, (c) applying a 10 Hz low pass filter with a slope of -24 dB octave (-15 dB at 100 Hz – 20 dB at 15 kHz).8.10.4.6 The talkers shall perform and pass a qualitative facepiece-to-face fit check per the SCBA manufacturer’s instructions.8.10.4.6 A powered speaker having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) A sensitivity of ≥84 dB at one watt at 1 meter. (2) The frequency response shall be rated at ≤80 Hz to ≥13 kHz. (3) The amplifier shall be able to deliver ≥10 watts with a total harmonic distortion <1%.8.10.4.7 Where the talker is qualified to wear several sizes of facepieces, the talker shall choose the facepiece that is most comfortable.8.10.4.7 A microphone having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The microphone shall be a condenser type. (2) The microphone polar pattern shall be omni-directional. (3) The frequency response shall be flat ±0.5 dB from 100 Hz to 15 kHz. (4) The residual noise shall be ≤-30 dB. (5) The microphone shall accept signals of at least 130 dBA.8.10.4.8 The five talkers shall be trained in the donning and usage of the SCBA per manufacturer’s instructions. 8.10.4.8 A Speech Transmission Index (STI) analyzer having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The STI PA analyzer shall be capable of measuring and displaying a single value STI PA result to two decimal places with a 7 octave band modulated noise test signal using the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) verified algorithm. (2) The STI PA analyzer shall conform to IEC-60268-16:2003, Sound System Equipment – Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index. 8.10.4.9 All of the apparatus identified in 8.10.4.2, 8.10.4.3, 8.10.4.4, 8.10.4.5, 8.10.4.6, and 8.10.4.7 shall be located in the hemi-anechoic chamber (Figures 8.10.4.9a and 8.10.4.9b).

EqualizerSTI PA Test signal

output

STI Test signal

Pink noise

Computer

Acoustic analyzer

Audio signalgenerator

HA TS Testmannequin

Microphone

Poweredspeaker

8 ft

10 ft

12 ft

USSIMannequin

MaskMannequin

Microphone

Microphone

Speaker

1.5 m

1.5 m

65 dBCPink noise

80 dBC SPLSTI PA

Test signal

STI-PA Spacing

STI-PA Spacing

Speaker

Mask

Figure 8.10.4.9(a) Hemi-Anechoic Chamber

Figure 8.10.4.9(b) Hemi-Anechoic Chamber

1981-11

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 8.10.4.9 The five talkers shall have no obvious speech defect or strong regional accent.8.10.4.10 The HATS test mannequin shall be positioned in the chamber in the following manner: 8.10.4.10.1 The distance between the HATS test mannequin and the microphone shall be 1.5 m, +25 mm/−0 mm (5 ft, +1 in/−0 ft), and they shall be facing each other. 8.10.4.10.2 The distance between the HATS test mannequin’s mouth and the floor shall be 1.5 m, +25 mm/−0 mm (5 ft, ± 4 in). 8.10.4.10.3 The distance between the microphone and the floor shall be 1.5 m, ± 100 mm (5 ft ± 4 in).8.10.4.10 The distance between the talker and the listener(s) shall be 1.5 m, +305 mm/−0 mm (5 ft, +1 ft/−0 ft), and they shall be facing each other. 8.10.4.11 The test chamber shall be filled with broadband “pink” noise with a tolerance of 6 dB per octave band from 400 100 Hz to 4000 10 kHz. 8.10.4.12 The forward axis of the powered speaker loudspeaker shall be oriented away from the listener group HATS test mannequin microphone. 8.10.4.13 The distance between the powered speaker loudspeaker and the HATS test mannequin microphone listeners shall be as great as possible so as to create a quasi-uniform sound field over the listening group hemi-anechoic chamber microphone.8.10.4.15 The STI test signal from the mannequin shall be adjusted to achieve a C-weighted sound level of 105.5 dB, +0 dB/ -1 dB at the mouth reference point (MRP), 50 mm (2 in) from the test mannequin’s mouth ±3 mm (1/8 in).8.10.4.16 The gain of the powered speaker used to generate the pink noise shall be adjusted to achieve a C-weighted sound level of 15 dB ±0.5 dB below the signal level generated as identified in 8.10.4.15 measured at the microphone placed as identified in 8.10.4.10.1. 8.10.5.1 The method for measuring speech transmission index word intelligibility shall be as specified in ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems IEC 60268-16:2003, Sound System Equipment – Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index, using the STI-PA technique, with the modified apparatus specified in 8.10.4. 8.10.5.2 The medium size facepiece with inner mask and second stage regulator in the normal use mode shall be fitted to the HATS test mannequin in the following manner: (1) Place the chin of the mannequin in the “chin cup” of the facepiece. (2) Place the facepiece to seal against the face of the HATS test mannequin. (3) The head harness of the facepiece shall be passed over the HATS test mannequin and tightened in a manner that maintains the symmetry of the facepiece on the HATS test mannequin with talc to minimize friction between the HATS test mannequin and strap. (4) The straps shall be tightened to a tension of 50 N (11.2 lbf).8.10.5.2 The test material shall be the reading of one complete list of modified rhyme words as contained in Table 2 of ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems. 8.10.5.2.1 The words shall be spoken singularly in the following carrier sentence: “Would you circle [list word] now?” 8.10.5.2.2 The rate shall be approximately one test word every 6 seconds. 8.10.5.2.3 The talkers shall be trained to talk at 75 dBA to 85 dBa without an SCBA facepiece, measured at the listener’s ear, placing no unusual stress on any word. 8.10.5.2.4 Training shall include the use of background noise as defined in 8.10.4.11 through 8.10.4.15. 8.10.5.2.5 The talkers shall not vary their voice level from that used without the facepiece after the facepiece is donned. 8.10.5.2.6 The listeners shall circle each word as they hear it. 8.10.5.3 Three medium size facepieces The talkers shall be tested conduct two tests in the chamber having an ambient noise field as specified in 8.10.4.11 through 8.10.4.156. using a different word list for each of the following conditions. Each facepiece shall be mounted as specified in 8.10.5.2, and then tested as follows: (1) With no SCBA Five separate readings shall be recorded for each donning of the facepiece (2) With SCBA worn and operated per the SCBA manufacturer’s instructions Three separate donnings shall be performed8.10.5.4 Talkers’ speech shall be monitored during the tests to determine if the talkers conform to the word list specified for that test.8.10.5.5 Each listener’s response form shall be scored as to the number of correct responses out of the 50 words recited.8.10.5.51. Listeners’ scores shall be based on the words actually spoken by the talkers.8.10.5.5.2 Listeners’ scores shall not be reduced because of speaking mistakes of the talkers. 8.10.5.5.3 All of the listeners’ scores without the SCBA used by the talker shall be averaged, and all of the listeners’ scores with the SCBA used by the talker shall be averaged. 8.10.5.5.4 The average score of the five listeners for the talker using the SCBA shall be divided by the average score of the five listeners for the talker without using the SCBA, and the result shall be called the “score value.” This procedure shall be performed for each of the five talkers. 8.10.5.6 The average of the score values obtained in 8.10.5.5.3 and 8.10.5.5.4 shall be calculated. 8.10.5.6.1 Where the average of the score values is ≥80 percent, this average

score value shall be used to determine pass or fail. 8.10.5.5 All of the readings obtained from 8.10.5.3 shall then have the standard deviation calculated to determine the pass or fail performance.8.10.5.5.1 The sample standard deviation (s.d.) of the score values shall be calculated in the following manner:

s dx x

Ni

N

i. . =

−( )−

=Σ

1

2

1

where: x = score values x = average of the score values N = sample size (number of score values recorded) 8.10.5.6.3 Where the calculated sample standard deviation of the test score values is ≥10.0, the test shall be invalidated and the procedures of 8.10.5.2 through 8.10.5.6.6 shall be repeated.8.10.5.6.4 Where the calculated sample standard deviation of the test score values is <10.0, a test statistic, T-value, shall be calculated to determine if the average of the score values obtained is or is not equivalent to 80 percent. The T-value shall be calculated in the following manner: 8.10.5.6.5 For T-values ≤2.13, the score value shall be considered 80 percent and shall be used to determine pass or fail. 8.10.5.6. For T-values >2.13, the score value shall be as calculated in 8.10.5.6, and this calculated score value shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. 8.25.1 Application. This test method shall apply to complete SCBA facepiece(s) and second stage regulator(s). 8.25.2 Samples. Each sample to be tested shall be as specified in 4.3.9. 8.25.3.2 Specimens for conditioning shall be complete SCBA medium size SCBA facepiece(s) and inner mask(s) with the second stage regulator(s) installed in the as worn position as specified by the manufacturer. 8.25.4.1 Testing shall be conducted in a chamber that absorbs a minimum of 90 percent of all sound from 500 Hz to 5000 Hz. having the following characteristics shall: (1) Room dimensions (Minimum): 3.6 m long X 3.0 m wide X 2.4 m high (12 ft long X 10 ft wide X 8 ft high) with a minimum volume of 27.2 m3 (960 ft3). (2) Construction: Hemi-anechoic (3) Ambient noise level inside chamber: <40 dBA/<55 dBC (4) Walls and ceiling: ≥90% absorbtive above 100 Hz8.25.4.1.1 All surfaces above the floor shall be acoustically treated for internal acoustic absorption, as well as for external noise mitigation.8.25.4.2 Five listening subjects and five talkers consisting of four males and one female shall be available for testing. The alternative of electronic recording of five talkers for testing automation and repeatability shall be permitted.8.25.4.2 The Head and Torso Simulator (HATS) test mannequin having the following characteristics shall be used: 8.25.4.2.1 The mouth simulator shall be capable of producing 112 dB/1 kHz sine tone at 25 mm (1 inch) with the mouth reference point un-equalized and the total harmonic distortion (THD) shall be ≤ 3%. 8.25.4.2.2 The mouth simulator frequency response shall be able to be equalized flat ± 2 dB between 180 Hz and 10 kHz and the response shall be -15 dB or less at 100 Hz and -20 dB or less at 15 kHz. 8.25.4.2.3 The head of the HATS shall be anatomically correct to ensure the proper fit of the facepiece.8.25.4.3 The subjects participating as listeners shall have “audiometrically normal” hearing as defined in Section 5.3 of ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems, in the range of 500 Hz to 3000 Hz, and shall not be permitted to use any device that would enhance their ability to hear.8.25.4.3 A sound pressure level (SPL) meter having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The SPL meter shall be capable of applying an equivalent continuous sound pressure level (Leq) of A and C weighting filters. (2) The SPL meter shall have a dynamic range from 30 dB (or less) to 130 dB (or more). (3) The SPL meter shall display the measurement to at least one decimal place.8.25.4.4 Talkers and listeners shall be selected and trained according to Section 7 of ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems.8.25.4.4 Test signal/pink noise analog audio signal generators having the following characteristics shall be used: 8.25.4.4.1 One generator shall be capable of playing wave files in the following format: (1) 48 kHz, 16-bit mono at an output level of 0 dB, FS=18 dBu sine according to EBU R68 8.25.4.4.2 The second generator shall be capable of generating pink noise and sine waves from -80 dBu to -2 dBu in one digit steps with a THD+N of -90 dB (0.0032%) at 8 dBu noise floor typ 25uv.

1981-12

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 (1) The frequency range shall be 10 Hz to 20 kHz in 1 digit steps ±0.01%. (2) The amplitude accuracy shall be within ±0.5 dB or less.8.25.4.5 The five talkers shall not have facial hair, any unusual facial characteristics, or any other condition that could cause interference with the seal of the facepiece.8.25.4.5 A digital equalizer having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The digital equalizer shall be capable of at least two concurrently selectable equalizer sections: (a) One-31 band graphic with an adjustment range of at least ±18 dB. (b) A ten band parametric with an adjustment range of at least ±18 dB. (2) The digital equalizer shall have a dynamic range of ≥112 dB. (3) The digital equalizer shall be capable of: (a) equalizing the frequency response of the HATS mannequin to flat ±2 dB between 180 Hz and 10 kHz, (b) applying a 180 Hz high pass filter with a slope of -24 dB octave, (c) applying a 10 Hz low pass filter with a slope of -24 dB octave (-15 dB at 100 Hz – 20 dB at 15 kHz).8.25.4.6 The talkers shall perform and pass a qualitative facepiece-to-face fit check per the SCBA manufacturer’s instructions.8.25.4.6 A powered speaker having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) A sensitivity of ≥84 dB at one watt at 1 meter. (2) The frequency response shall be rated at ≤80 Hz to ≥13 kHz. (3) The amplifier shall deliver ≥10 watts with a total harmonic distortion <1%.8.25.4.7 Where the talker is qualified to wear several sizes of facepieces, the talker shall choose the facepiece that is most comfortable. 8.25.4.7 A microphone having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The microphone shall be a condenser type. (2) The microphone polar pattern shall be omni-directional. (3) The frequency response shall be flat ±0.5 dB from 100 Hz to 15 kHz. (4) The residual noise shall be ≤-30 dB. (5) The microphone shall accept signals of at least 130 dBA.8.25.4.8 The five talkers shall be trained in the donning and usage of the SCBA per manufacturer’s instructions.8.25.4.8 A Speech Transmission Index (STI) analyzer having the following characteristics shall be used: (1) The STI PA analyzer shall be capable of measuring and displaying a single value STI PA result to two decimal places with a 7 octave band modulated noise test signal using the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) verified algorithm. (2) The STI PA analyzer shall conform to IEC-60268-16:2003, Sound System Equipment – Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index. 8.25.4.9 All of the apparatus identified in 8.25.10.4.2, 8.25.4.3, 8.25.4.4, 8.25.4.5, 8.25.4.6, 8.25.4.7 shall be located in the hemi-anechoic chamber (Reference Figure 8.25.4.9a and 8.25.4.9b).

EqualizerSTI PA Test signaloutput

STI Test signal

Pink noise

Computer

Acoustic analyzer

Audio signalgenerator

HA TS Testmannequin

Microphone

Poweredspeaker

8 ft

10 ft

12 ft

USSIMannequin

MaskMannequin

Microphone

Microphone

Speaker

1.5 m

1.5 m

65 dBCPink noise

80 dBC SPLSTI PA

Test signal

STI-PA Spacing

STI-PA Spacing

Speaker

Mask

8.25.4.9 The five talkers shall have no obvious speech defects or strong regional accents.8.25.4.10 The HATS test mannequin shall be positioned in the chamber in the following manner: 8.25.4.10.1 The distance between the HATS test mannequin and the microphone shall be 1.5 m, +25 mm/−0 mm (5 ft, +1 in/−0 ft), and they shall be facing each other. 8.25.4.10.2 The distance between the HATS test mannequin’s mouth and the floor shall be 1.5 m, +25 mm/−0 mm (5 ft, ± 4 in). 8.25.4.10.3 The distance between the microphone and the floor shall be 1.5 m, ± 100 mm/(5 ft ± 4 in).8.25.4.10 The distance between the talker and the listener(s) with the SCBA donned shall be 3 m, +305 mm/−0 mm (10 ft, +1 ft/−0 ft), and they shall be facing each other. 8.25.4.10.1 The distance between the talker and the listener(s) without the SCBA donned shall be 3 m, +305 mm/−0 mm (10 ft, +1 ft/−0 ft), and they shall be facing each other. 8.25.4.11 The test chamber shall be filled with broadband “pink” noise with a tolerance of 6 dB per octave band from 400 100 Hz to 4000 10 kHz. 8.25.4.12 The forward axis of the powered speaker loudspeaker shall be oriented away from the listener group HATS test mannequin microphone. 8.25.4.13 The distance between the powered speaker loudspeaker and the HATS test mannequin microphone listeners shall be as great as possible so as to create a quasi-uniform sound field over the listening group hemi-anechoic chamber microphone.8.25.4.15 The STI test signal from the mannequin shall be adjusted to achieve a C-weighted sound level of 105.5 dB, +0 dB/ -1 dB at the mouth reference point (MRP), 50 mm (2 in.) from the test mannequin’s mouth ±3 mm (1/8 in). 8.25.4.16 The gain of the powered speaker amplifier used to generate the pink noise shall be adjusted to achieve a C-weighted sound level of 15 dB ±0.5 dB below the signal level generated as identified in 8.25.4.15 measured at the microphone placed as identified in 8.25.4.10.1. at each listener’s the test mannequin’s head position. without listeners present. 8.25.5.1 The method for measuring speech transmission index word intelligibility shall be as specified in ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems IEC 60268-16:2003, Sound System Equipment – Part 16: Objective Rating of Speech Intelligibility by Speech Transmission Index, using the STI-PA technique, with the modified apparatus specified in 8.25.4.

Figure 8.25.4.9(a)

Figure 8.25.4.9(b)

1981-13

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 8.25.5.2 The medium size facepiece with inner mask and second stage regulator in the normal use mode shall be fitted to the HATS test mannequin in the following manner: (1) Place the chin of the mannequin in the “chin cup” of the facepiece. (2) Place the facepiece to seal against the face of the HATS test mannequin. (3) The head harness of the facepiece shall be passed over the HATS test mannequin and tightened in a manner that maintains the symmetry of the facepiece on the HATS test mannequin with talc to minimize friction between the HATS test mannequin and strap. (4) The straps shall be tightened to a tension of 50 N (11.2 lbf).8.25.5.2.1 Where the voice communications system is equipped with an adjustable volume (gain) control, the volume control shall be set at the lowest level during testing. 8.25.5.3 If the voice amplification system is integrated into the SCBA, the SCBA shall be mounted on the test mannequin to simulate the correct wearing position on a person as specified by the SCBA manufacturer’s instructions. The speaker of the voice amplification system shall face in the direction of the microphone to within +/- 10 degrees. 8.25.5.3.1 Where the voice communications system is equipped with an adjustable volume (gain) control, the volume control shall be set at the lowest level during testing.8.25.5.3 The test material shall be the reading of one complete list of modified rhyme words as contained in Table 2 of ANSI S3.2, Method for Measuring the Intelligibility of Speech over Communication Systems. 8.25.5.3.1 The words shall be spoken singularly in the following carrier sentence: “Would you circle [list word] now?” 8.25.5.3.2 The rate shall be approximately one test word every 6 seconds. 8.25.5.3.3 The talkers shall be trained to talk at 75 dBA to 85 dBA without an SCBA facepiece, measured at 1.5 m, +305 mm/−0 mm (5 ft, +1 ft/−0 ft) distance at the height of the listener’s ear, placing no unusual stress on any word. 8.25.5.3.4 Training shall include the use of background noise as defined in 8.25.4.11 through 8.25.4.15. 8.25.5.3.5 The talkers shall not vary their voice levels from that used without the facepiece after the facepiece is donned. 8.25.5.3.6 The listeners shall circle each word as they hear it. 8.25.5.4 Three medium size facepieces The talkers shall be tested conduct two tests in the chamber having an ambient noise field as specified in 8.25.4.11 through 8.25.4.15. using a different word list for each of the following conditions Each facepiece shall be mounted as specified in 8.25.5.2, and then tested as follows: (1) With no SCBA Five separate readings shall be recorded for each donning of the facepiece (2) With SCBA worn and operated per the SCBA manufacturer’s instructions Three separate donnings shall be performed.8.25.5.5 The talkers’ speech shall be monitored during the tests to determine if the talkers conform to the word list specified for that test. 8.25.5.6 Each listener’s response form shall be scored as to the number of correct responses out of the 50 words recited. 8.25.5.6.1 Listeners’ scores shall be based on the words actually spoken by the talkers. 8.25.5.6.2 Listeners’ scores shall not be reduced because of speaking mistakes of the talkers. 8.25.5.6.3 All of the listeners’ scores without the SCBA used by the talker shall be averaged, and all of the listeners’ scores with the SCBA used by the talker shall be averaged.8.25.5.6.4 The average score of the five listeners for the talker using the SCBA at a distance of 3 m, +305 mm/−0 mm (10 ft, +1 ft/−0 ft) shall be divided by the average score of the five listeners for the talker without using the SCBA at a distance of 1.5 m, +305 mm/−0 mm (5 ft, +1 ft/−0 ft), and the result shall be called the “score value.” This procedure shall be performed for each of the five talkers. 8.25.5.7 The average of the score values obtained in 8.25.5.6.3 and 8.25.5.6.4 shall be calculated. 8.25.5.5 All of the readings obtained from 8.25.5.4 shall then have the standard deviation calculated to determine the pass or fail performance. 8.25.5.7.1 Where the average of the score values is ≥85 percent, this average score value shall be used to determine pass or fail performance. 8.25.5.5.1 Where the average of the score values is <85 percent, The sample standard deviation (s.d.) of the score values shall be calculated in the following manner:

s dx x

Ni

N

i. . =

−( )−

=Σ

1

2

1

where: x = score values x = average of the score values N = sample size (number of score values recorded)

8.25.5.7.3 Where the calculated sample standard deviation of the test score values is ≥10.0, the test shall be invalidated, and the procedures in 8.25.5.3 through 8.25.5.7.2 shall be repeated.8.25.5.7.4 Where the calculated sample standard deviation of the test score values is <10.0, a test statistic, T-value, shall be calculated to determine if the average of the score values obtained is or is not equivalent to 85 percent: 8.25.5.7.5 For T-values ≤2.13, the score value shall be considered to be equivalent to a score value of 85 percent. 8.25.5.7.6 For T-values >2.13, the score value shall be as calculated in 8.25.5.6, and this calculated score value shall be used to determine pass or fail. Annex A Explanatory Material A.7.10 Because the communications test requires human subjects, there were variations in the data used to determine the appropriate pass or fail criteria. Therefore, a statistical approach to analyze the data was required to determine whether an individual SCBA meets the pass or fail criteria of Section 7.10. A null hypothesis test utilizing the Student t-distribution is the appropriate method to do this. The Student t-distribution of 2.13 results from the following conditions: degrees of freedom = 4; confidence level = 95 percent. Refer to any current statistical text for further information.A.7.10 In an effort to improve the consistency and reliability of speech intelligibility measurements, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1981 Technical Committee reviewed several objective test methods in order to replace the subjective Modified Rhyme Test (MRT). The subjectivity of the MRT is associated with the use of human test subjects which resulted in variability in the results obtained. The variances were in the uses of different speakers, the speaker’s vocalization level, the speaker’s accent/dialect differing from the listeners, the general health and wellness of both the speaker and listeners, and the impact of background noise on the listener’s comprehension. In order to find an objective test method the Technical Committee reviewed/conducted: Acoustic standards, research papers, existing scientific studies, and professional acoustic engineers were consulted A trade study for evaluating alternative tests was defined Trade Study criteria Relevance - evaluate relevance to fire service Consistency - evaluate consistency of testing - repeatability/test-to-test variability Comprehensiveness - ability to account for real-life sound degradations Output scale – tests with a higher percentage of the test scale falling within the threshold of acceptability will provide more meaningful information Standardization - utilize established test standards by respected organizations (ISO, IEC, ANSI, etc.) Implementation Effort – how hard is the test to set-up and run Measurement Time – how long does it take to run the test As a result of this effort, the Technical Committee is utilizing the Speech Transmission Index (STI) method which removes the subjectivity which was found with the MRT. A.7.17 In an effort to improve the consistency and reliability of speech intelligibility measurements, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1981 Technical Committee reviewed several objective test methods in order to replace the subjective Modified Rhyme Test (MRT). The subjectivity of the MRT is associated with the use of human test subjects which resulted in variability in the results obtained. The variances were in the uses of different speakers, the speaker’s vocalization level, the speaker’s accent/dialect differing from the listeners, the general health and wellness of both the speaker and listeners, and the impact of background noise on the listener’s comprehension. In order to find an objective test method the Technical Committee reviewed/conducted: Acoustic standards, research papers, existing scientific studies, and professional acoustic engineers were consulted A trade study for evaluating alternative tests was defined Trade Study criteria Relevance - evaluate relevance to fire service Consistency - evaluate consistency of testing - repeatability/test-to-test variability Comprehensiveness - ability to account for real-life sound degradations Output scale – tests with a higher percentage of the test scale falling within the threshold of acceptability will provide more meaningful information Standardization - utilize established test standards by respected organizations (ISO, IEC, ANSI, etc.) Implementation Effort – how hard is the test to set-up and run Measurement Time – how long does it take to run the test As a result of this effort, the Technical Committee is utilizing the Speech Transmission Index (STI) method which removes the subjectivity which was found with the MRT.

1981-14

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Substantiation: The Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection’s Task Group on Communications, in an effort to improve the consistency and reliability of speech intelligibility measurements, reviewed several objective test methods in order to replace the subjective Modified Rhyme Test (MRT). The subjectivity of the MRT is associated with the use of human test subjects which resulted in variability in the results obtained. The variances were in the uses of different speakers, the speaker’s vocalization level, the speaker’s accent/dialect differing from the listeners, the general health and wellness of both the speaker and listeners, and the impact of background noise on the listener’s comprehension. In order to find an objective test method the Technical Committee reviewed/conducted: Acoustic standards, research papers, existing scientific studies, and professional acoustic engineers were consulted A trade study for evaluating alternative tests was defined Trade Study criteria Relevance - evaluate relevance to fire service Consistency - evaluate consistency of testing - repeatability/test-to-test variability Comprehensiveness - ability to account for real-life sound degradations Output scale – tests with a higher percentage of the test scale falling within the threshold of acceptability will provide more meaningful information Standardization - utilize established test standards by respected organizations (ISO, IEC, ANSI, etc.) Implementation Effort – how hard is the test to set-up and run Measurement Time – how long does it take to run the test As a result of this effort, the Technical Committee is utilizing the Speech Transmission Index (STI) method which removes the subjectivity which was found with the MRT. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.Explanation of Negative: SELL, R.: We agree that speech intelligibility can be measured/established by using the Speech Transmission Index (STI) method, but the proposed set-up does not take into account the effects of inhalation and exhalation that occur in real use situations. Breathing can cause noises which compromise intelligibility which is not detected by the proposed set-up, especially when amplified by a voice amplifier. In addition, the STI method is extremely sensitive to clicking or rattling noises which significantly influence the readings. Donning the mask on the Head and Torso simulator with a 2nd stage regulator attached is a good practice since sound propagation would be comparable to actual use but this is only one portion of the process of using a SCBA. The other portion of SCBA use comes when the system is pressurized and without pressurizing the system, the 2nd stage regulator and the mask would not have the internal components pre-tensioned in the manner of actual use. Also, humans always exhale when speaking and this also puts the valves into a defined state of use. During development testing at Ultra Electronics and additional testing at Draeger we have found that a mask/2nd stage regulator without the system being pressurized can emit a rattling or clicking noise that degrades the STI readings. A possible solution to remedy the second part of our objection would be to utilize a blind plug in place of the 2nd stage regulator or to pressurize the system in order to obtain more realistic results. Please reference attachment: NFPA-1981-10-CP2 Objective Estimation of Speech Quality-STI.ppt _______________________________________________________________ 1981-11 Log #9 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept in Principle(2.3.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bob Eugene, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 2.3.6 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 913, Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Sixth edition, July 31, 2006, Revised 2008.Substantiation: Update referenced standard to most recent revision.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee meeting action on 1981-13 (Log #17). Committee Statement: The technical committee accepted the proposal in principle. See 1981-13 (Log 17). Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.

_______________________________________________________________ 1981-12 Log #15 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept in Principle(2.3.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:2.3.6 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 913, Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division I Hazardous (Classified) Locations, 2006, Revised 2008 2010.Substantiation: Reason: Update referenced standards to most recent revisions.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleSee Meeting Action on 1981-13 (Log #17). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 1981-13 (Log #17).Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-13 Log #17 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept in Principle(2.3.6)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: John F. Bender, Underwriters Laboratories Inc.Recommendation: Revise text as follows:2.3.6 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 913, Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Seventh edition, July 31, 2006, Revised 2010.Substantiation: Reason: Update referenced standard to most recent revision.Committee Meeting Action: Accept in PrincipleRevise text to read as follows: 2.3.6 UL Publications. Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096. ANSI/UL 913, Standard for Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1 Hazardous (Classified) Locations, Seventh Edition. Committee Statement: The technical committee accepted the proposal in principle, and decided to reference the seventh edition and not include the date. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-14 Log #CP3 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(3.3 Reserve Air Supply, 6.2, and 6.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:3.3.X Reserve Air Supply. The period of time available for emergency egress, self-rescue, or assisted rescue. 3.3.17 End-of-Service-Time Indicator (EOSTI). A warning device on an SCBA that warns the user that the end of the breathing air supply is approaching. alerts the user that the reserve air supply is being utilized.6.2.6 The EOSTI alarm shall activate at 33%, +5/-0%, of full cylinder pressure.6.3.9.1 HUD shall display visual informational signals for at least breathing air cylinder content as specified in 6.3.9.5.1. 6.3.9.2 In addition to the mandatory visual informational signal specified in 6.3.9.5.1, additional visual informational signals to indicate when other status or conditions have occurred shall be permitted. 6.3.9.5 HUD shall display a visual informational signal for breathing air cylinder content in at least four equal increments of the cylinder’s total rated service content from full to one-quarter 33%.6.3.9.5.1 HUD visual information signals for breathing air cylinder content shall display at 100%, 75%, 50%, and 33%.6.3.9.5.2 Where an analog visual display is used, the gauge shall visually indicate the reserve air zone with a red background. 6.3.9.5.3 Where an electronic visual display is used, the gauge shall visually indicate that reserve air is being utilized with a flash at a frequency of not less than one per second for the remaining duration of the cylinder.Substantiation: Despite an overall decrease in the firefighter fatality rate over the past 30 years, the rate of firefighter deaths inside of structures has not significantly changed. Firefighter asphyxia following getting lost and running out of air accounts for approximately 25% of firefighter deaths inside of structures. The current EOSTI setting of 25% (+/- 2%) may result in EOSTI notification at 23% of cylinder volume. A firefighter working near the end of a work cycle on SCBA is likely to be breathing at a rate greater than the 40 liter per minute rate used to determine rated service time and may have less than three minutes of reserve air. Increasing the EOSTI setting to 33% (+5/-0) will likely provide the user more reserve air for self or assisted escape from the IDLH environment. For more information on this subject, see the NFPA research report “U.S. Fire Service Fatalities In Structure Fires, 1977-2009” (Fahy) Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 31Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.

1981-15

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Explanation of Negative: HARKNESS, A.: The current 42 CFR 84 requirement is that “each remaining service-life indicator or warning device shall give an alarm when the remaining service life of the apparatus is reduced within a range of 20 to 25 percent of its rated service time.” It is anticipated that NIOSH will change this requirement, removing the upper limit, to allow respiratory protection program managers to determine the most appropriate setting for their users. The committee consensus is that the next edition of NFPA 1981 should require that it be 33% of full cylinder pressure for all users of an NFPA approved SCBA. I disagree. NIOSH indicates on its docket pages for docket numbers 034 and 034-A that it is responding to stakeholders. Obviously, NIOSH recognizes that a one-size-fits-all setting does not best serve all users, and that NIOSH believes an organization that uses SCBA knows what setting is best for its users and its tactics, techniques, and procedures. The submissions to the docket are by and large in favor of the change, and not a few would have the setpoint at 50%. The committee suggests in its justification that raising the EOSTI activation setpoint from the current NIOSH mandated 20 to 25 percent of rated duration to a value of 33% of full cylinder pressure will increase NFPA 1981 SCBA user safety by increasing “reserve” air -- i.e., the usable volume of air remaining in the cylinder when the EOSTI begins alarming -- thereby “likely” providing the user more air for escape from the IDLH environment and thereby decreasing the chance that a user will run out of air while still in the IDLH environment. The committee rationale then is in two parts: 1) Increasing the air remaining in the cylinder when the EOSTI begins to alarm is more likely than not to reduce the rate at which users run out of air while still in the IDLH environment, and 2) To that end, the required EOSTI alarm setpoint for all NFPA 1981 SCBA should be increased to 33% of full cylinder pressure. Is this rationale valid? Taking the second point first, it is obvious that not all users of NFPA 1981 SCBA are the same. Indeed, while not even all structural firefighters are the same, the standard is written not just for structural firefighters but for “all open-circuit SCBA... used by emergency services organizations for respiratory protection of its personnel during firefighting, rescue, hazardous materials, terrorist incident, and similar operations where the products of combustion, oxygen deficiency, particulates, toxic products, or other IDLH atmospheres exist or could exist at the incident scene.” Clearly, some of the committee members may know the best setpoint for themselves, but it is impossible for the committee to know the best setpoint for all users, or that 33% is even acceptable for all users. The U.S. Navy, for example, is an NFPA 1981 SCBA user and the 33% setpoint is not appropriate for shipboard firefighting in the U.S. Navy. The Navy practices strict breathing air managment when fighting a shipboard fire and rotates firefighters to maintain an uninterrupted attack. Cylinder sizes are chosen appropriate for the duty. Start times on air are tracked by a repair party leader who estimates when low air alarms will sound, so that reliefs are ready to replace teams exiting, and personnel are requried to exit immediately when their alarm activates. This is the way the U.S. Navy trains, the way it fights, and the way U.S. Navy surface ship firefighting doctrine is written. For the U.S. Navy shipboard firefighter, the current 30 CFR 84 requirement is satisfactory. An EOSTI setpoint value of 33% will have the result of end-of-service alarms activating too early and firefighters exiting too early. What is the solution the committee would advise? Ignore the EOSTI? And what about the thousands of SCBA the U.S. Navy has now on its ships? What about existing instructions and training curriculum? Like any other organization, the U.S. Navy cannot have SCBA with different EOSTI setpoint values. The U.S. Navy will have to pay to have existing units upgraded, and pay to have instructions and curriculum revised, for a purpose that is not even appropriate or necessary for the U.S. Navy. And, that is just the afloat Navy. The ashore Navy, and no doubt many organizations, will be facing the same issues, and may be finding the changes unnecessary, as well as an unnecessary expense. It is obvious a one-size-fits-all solution is not appropriate. This recognition, after all, was part of NIOSH’s rationale for considering a change in the first place. But, will increasing the setpoint as a percentage of full cylinder pressure truly increase firefighter safety? Is it to be expected that increasing the EOSTI setpoint will necessarily lower the rate at which firefighters run out of air while in an IDLH environment? The committee considered no data regarding this question. The reference cited in the committee justification does no even speak to this question. The committee proposal is a guess from assumption. If firefighters ignore the EOSTI now, how will a higher setpoint change this behavior? What will prevent other firefighters from ignoring the EOSTI alarm when it is set at 33%, rationalizing that they still have a third of their air supply when the alarm activates? How does simply increasing the alarm setpoint without actually supplying the firefighter with more air reduce the number of firefighters who run out of air? The committee does not really know. It is guessing. Maybe raising the activation setpoint of the EOSTI is a good idea for some organizations, and maybe 33% is the appropriate value for some, but, NFPA 1981 is a minimum performance standard. The minimum permissible setpoint value defined in the revised regulatory requirement should define the minimum in this instance, and the next edition of NFPA 1981 should required, as it does now, that the EOSTI meet the activation requirements of the NIOSH certification.

Comment on Affirmative: KUHN, J.: It should be understood that the Committee proposal for alarm activation of 33% +/-5% is potentially in conflict with the NIOSH directive that alarm activation occur at 25% +/-2%. Until the NIOSH directive is revised, an SCBA with alarm activation set at 33% can not be approved by NIOSH. _______________________________________________________________ 1981-15 Log #13 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(4.2.8.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: William Antunes, Structural Composites IndustriesRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: Replacements parts, components, and add-on accessories for SCBA’s certified to the 1997 edition or the 2002 edition of NFPA 1981 shall be approved by NIOSH in accordance with 42 CFR 84, “Respiratory Protective Devices, Tests for Permissibility.” Cylinders that meet or exceed NIOSH’s Technical Specifications under 42 CFR 84 are permissible for use by end users provided they are authorized by the Department of Transportation (DOT) approval process. Cylinders must be marked with the required DOT labeling. Manufacturer of these cylinders must maintain as ISO 9001 or AS9100 certification for quality assurance. Cylinders meeting this criteria that are of the same form, fit and function as those originally certified by NIOSH are permissible for use by end users and do not require certification by NIOSH.Substantiation: 1) The current standard results in an economic hardship of end users by; a) Unnecessarily increasing the cost of replacement cylinders without providing any additional value-added benefit b) Requires purchase of new cylinders, prior to end of useful life, by end users when procuring different brands of SCBA 2) Current standard does not allow for cylinder innovation as the NIOSH approval is granted to Respirator Manufacturers who do not manufacture cylinders. 3) NIOSH’s Standard Application Procedure (SAP) does not provide cylinder specific testing and approval certification. NIOSH’s only technical requirement is DOT approval. 4) Cylinder durability is limited as end users are limited to few choices by NIOSH approval holders. 5) Interchangeability of cylinders is made difficult a) Creates a proprietary system which restricts the ability of user to interchange cylinders b) Closed and proprietary systems do nothing to mitigate safety concerns. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: Cylinders are certified by NIOSH as part of the entire SCBA system and are not certified as an independent component. NIOSH certification is required by law and utilizing an aftermarket cylinder would void NIOSH approval. NFPA 1981 requires NIOSH certification, so the technical committee must reject this proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-16 Log #12 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(6.1.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.1.2 Prior to certification of SCBA to the requirements of this standard, SCBA shall be NIOSH certified in accordance with 42 CFR 84, with the following modifications: (1) Each remaining service-life indicator or warning device shall give an alarm when the remaining service life of the apparatus is reduced within a range as specified by the authority having jurisdiction but not less than 20 to 25 percent of its rated service time.Substantiation: The requirement that SCBA be certified to the requirements of 42 CFR Part 84 is understood as OSHA regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910.132 dictated the NIOSH-approved respirators. However, in this case, the Federal regulations handicap the emergency service with requirements that were principally developed for industrial situations. The entire embodiment of NFPA 1981 is a testament to the additional requirements that must be specified for safe and effective use of SCBA for emergency services that are not included in the Federal regulations. Committee Meeting Action: RejectSee Meeting Action on 1981-14 (Log #CP3). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 1981-14 (Log #CP3).Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-17 Log #14 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(6.1.2.2)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Richard M. Duffy, International Association of Fire FightersRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.1.2.2 SCBA shall have a NIOSH-certified rated service time of at least 30 45 minutes.

1981-16

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Substantiation: The fire service experiences a number of injuries and fatalities each year because fire fighters run out of air. The 30 minutes of air because the service life rating is based on 40 liters per minute service life. New cylinder technology is available and will be available that the weight differences for increased service life cylinders will be minimal. Committee Meeting Action: RejectSee Meeting Action on 1981-14 (Log #CP3). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 1981-14 (Log #CP3). The issue with duration is primarily one of escape time, not work time. The TC has proposed a change to 33% for the EOSTI remaining service time. This will provide additional escape time. The AHJ should do a needs assessment to determine which cylinder is appropriate for the application, taking into account the work time and escape time available. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.Explanation of Negative: BERNZWEIG, D.: With the committee action taken on Log CP3 and pending action in NFPA 1500 (Log CP36: 7.14.11 SCBA Cylinder Volume: Standardized IDLH exiting shall require that an exit strategy will be practiced when the SCBA bottle reaches a level of 600 liters or more.), continued use of 1200L (30-minute rated) cylinders by the fire service is difficult to justify. SCBA air allocated for operational period usage would be inadequate under most conditions resulting in the end user having to make a decision to sacrifice reserve air in favor of operational air. With steps finally being taken to address the inadequacy of reserve air, the committee has the responsibility to complete the job and ensure that reserve air is not compromised by operational realities when adequate air for work is not allocated on the front end. The 1200 liter cylinder should be phased out beginning with the 2013 edition of NFPA 1981. _______________________________________________________________ 1981-18 Log #11 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(6.1.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Jeffrey O. Stull, International Personnel Protection, Inc.Recommendation: Delete text as follows: 6.1.3 SCBA that are certified as compliant with NFPA 1981 shall also be certified by NIOSH as compliant with the Statement of Standard for NIOSH CBRN SCBA Testing. Bring these requirements into the standard as new criteria and test methods. Substantiation: The current arrangement for the testing of SCBA by NIOSH for CBRN is awkward. Per OMB Circular A119, the current criteria for CBRN testing for SCBA should become part of NFPA 1981. This would facilitate updating requirements, considering the use of surrogate agents, and other efficiencies that would lessen the costs of testing and allow for more frequent, consensus based reviews of the standard. Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: OMB Circular A119 states “...this Circular directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in lieu of government-unique standards except where inconsistent with law...”. NIOSH is the regulatory agency responsible for respiratory protection in the United States. The requirement for NIOSH certification must remain, as it has legal implications. Inclusion of the CBRN test methods into NFPA 1981 adds a potential failure point within the standard, as the technical committee has no oversight into changes in the NIOSH regulations. A change in NIOSH CBRN regulations could make NFPA 1981 certifications non-compliant with NIOSH. The potential use of chemical surrogates in place of chemical warfare agents has received a lot of attention. To evaluate the characteristics of a warfare agent with simulants will require a series of chemicals to replace each agent, which will increase the number of tests and therefore not necessarily improve efficiencies. The TC on Respiratory Protection Equipment will continue to provide standards which meet or exceed that required by law. The NFPA process ensures that frequent, consensus-based reviews will continue. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-19 Log #16 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(6.2.3)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Christopher Langlois, Omaha Fire Dept. Training BureauRecommendation: Revise text to read as follows: 6.2.3 Each EOSTI shall meet the activation requirements of NIOSH certification as specified in 42 CFR 84. Substantiation: The above 6.2.3 wording should not be changed. NIOSH 42 CFR 84.83 (f) states that the SCBA EOSTI activation should take place when the “remaining service life of the apparatus is reduced within a range of 20 to 25 percent of its rated service time”. We oppose changing the SCBA EOSTI activation level to any other level (i.e.: 33%, 50% or to be decided by the authority having jurisdiction). Please see the below reasons for opposition to changing the EOSTI. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. Committee Meeting Action: RejectSee Meeting Action on 1981-14 (Log #CP3). Committee Statement: See Committee Statement on 1981-14 (Log #CP3).

The technical committee invites the submitter to submit comments on this committee proposal. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-20 Log #CP8 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(6.3.4)_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:6.3.4 Where HUD is provided with an external wiring disconnect, the wiring disconnect shall be designed to prevent accidental disconnection and shall not be capable of being connected in such a manner as to prevent the pneumatic system and the HUD from operating simultaneously.Substantiation: The technical committee is proposing text adding requirements for connection of externally-wired HUDs to be modified to prevent improper connection. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-21 Log #6 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(6.7 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: J. Roger Lackore, Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.Recommendation: Add new text as follows:6.7 Provisions for SCBA Retention in on an Apparatus 6.7.1 Each SCBA shall maintain an area clear of all obstructions forming a cylindrical area concentric with the bottle and one inch greater in radius than the bottle radius. For a cylinder with a dome shaped top this clear area shall begin 1 inch below the point where the spherical top of the bottle transitions into the cylindrical body of the bottle. For cylinders with flat tops, this clear area shall begin 2 inches below the top of the cylinder. This clear cylindrical area shall extend to 4 inches above the top of the bottle (see fig 1). 6.7.2 Each SCBA shall maintain a clear annular area concentric with the bottle, one inch greater in radius than the bottle radius, and 2 inches in height beginning at the back of the SCBA bottle and sweeping 160 degrees both clockwise and counterclockwise around the bottle. This clear annular area shall be located vertically on the bottle beginning on the plane at which the spherical top of the bottle transitions into the cylindrical body of the bottle, and extending downward (see fig 2). This area may overlap with the clear area specified in paragraph 6.7.1. 6.7.3 The bottle valve (or other lowest component) of each SCBA shall include a vertical surface with an area on the side of the bottle where the pack is mounted that is clear of obstructions for 1.5 inches up from the bottom of the component and for 0.5 inches from the valve (see fig 3). 6.7.4 Each SCBA pack shall be attached to the cylinder and constructed in such a manner that the SCBA can be extracted from a retention device that grips the cylinder with a maximum force of 80 lbs without damaging the pack for the expected life of the SCBA. 6.7.5 The SCBA bottle valve shall remain attached to the bottle without damage when a force of 20 times the weight of the bottle and pack is exerted at the CG of the SCBA for 10 seconds with the SCBA being held in two places, at the top of the bottle and at the extreme end of the valve.Substantiation: SCBAs are commonly located inside the occupant area of fire or emergency vehicle apparatus. NFPA 1901 requires that such SCBAs be retained in a bracket to a minimum of 9 gs of deceleration to protect the occupants from the SCBA becoming a projectile in the event of a crash. SCBA retention bracket manufacturers struggle to design devices to adequately grip the bottle. The wide variety of SCBA pack designs, and the constant redesign of these products, makes it very difficult to ensure that a retention bracket will work with any SCBA manufactures product. This restricts inner-operability and places an undue burden on the fire service. This proposal establishes standards that would provide clear areas on each SCBA cylinder around which the SCBA retention device manufacturer can design universal products. It also establishes a minimum standard for SCBA pack durability when subjected to the repeated act of extracting the SCBA from a retention device that grips the cylinder to retain it in a device. The 80 lb extraction force criteria is based on actual measurements of various SCBA holders on the market. As a base-line, the old “broom-clip” style bottle holders require 35 lb extraction force. This value also seems reasonable since the weight of the bottle and pack can weigh as much as 35 lbs, and the pack should survive continually pulling of at least twice its own weight so that it can last through the riggers of use at the fire scene. The SCBA is commonly secured into the holder by gripping the bottle at the top, and the valve at the bottom. Although testing indicates that the typical bottle valve is more than strong enough to withstand the retention forces using this method of gripping, there does not appear to be any minimum valve strength criteria in the standard that would assure that future valves would always be strong enough to be treated in this manner without damage. The factor of 20 is well over the 9 g factor in 1901, but rather matches the FMVSS 207 seating systems. The logic being that if the seat should be held to the vehicle at 20 g, then the pack should be retained in the seat to 20 g.

1981-17

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal is design restrictive. It would prohibit using different pressure vessels other than those in the shape of a cylinder, and it would prohibit different SCBA designs. The bracket referred to in the proposal is not an issue within the scope of NFPA 1981. Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-22 Log #7 FAE-RPE Final Action: Reject(6.7 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC recommends that the submitter of the proposal submit it to the NFPA 1901 technical committee for consideration.Submitter: Roger Lackore, Pierce Mfg.Recommendation: Add new text to read as follows: 6.7 Provisions for SCBA Retention in Fire Apparatus6.7.1 Each SCBA shall maintain a space at the top of the bottle that is clear of all obstructions for retention devices that grab the top of the bottle. This space shall be bounded by a cylindrical volume concentric with the bottle and one inch greater in radius than the bottle radius. For a cylinder with a dome shaped top this clear area shall begin 1 inch below the point where the spherical top of the bottle transitions into the cylindrical body of the bottle (see fig. 1A). For a cylinder with a flat top, this clear volume shall begin 2 inches below the top of the cylinder (see fig. 1B). Each clear volume shall be preserved for at least 4 inches above the top of the bottle. 6.7.2 Each SCBA shall maintain a space near the top of the bottle that is clear of all obstructions for retention devices that grab around the body of the bottle. This space shall be bounded by an annular volume concentric with the bottle, 1.0 inch greater in radius than the bottle radius, and 2.0 inches in height beginning at the back of the SCBA bottle and sweeping 160 degrees both clockwise and counterclockwise around the bottle. For a cylinder with a dome shaped top this clear volume shall begin 1 inch below the point where the spherical top of the bottle transitions into the cylinderical body of the bottle (see fig. 2A). For a cylinder with a flat top, this clear volume shall begin 2 inches below the top of the cylinder (see fig. 2B). This volume may overlap with the volume specified in paragraph 6.7.1. 6.7.3 The bottle valve (or other lowest component) of each SCBA shall include a vertical surface with a volume on the side of the bottle where the pack is mounted that is clear of obstructions to accommodate a retention tab. This space shall be bounded by a rectangular prism that is 1.5 inches high beginning at the bottom of the valve, 0.5 inches deep from the face of the valve, and 3 inches in width centered on the valve (see fig 3). 6.7.4 Each SCBA pack shall be attached to the cylinder and constructed in such a manner that the SCBA can be extracted from a retention device with a force of 80 lbs without damaging the pack straps or frame for the expected life of the SCBA.6.7.5 The SCBA bottle valve shall remain attached to the bottle without damage when a force of 20 times the weight of the bottle and pack is exerted at the CG of the SCBA for 10 seconds with the SCBA being retained by a fixture that grips the top of the bottle and the extreme end of the valve (see figure 4). (See Figures 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, 4 on the following pages.)Substantiation: SCBAs are commonly located inside the occupant area of fire or emergency vehicle apparatus. NFPA 1901 requires that such SCBAs be retained in a bracket to a minimum of 9 gs of deceleration to protect the occupants from the SCBA becoming a projectile in the event of a crash. SCBA retention bracket manufacturers struggle to design devices to adequately grip the bottle. The wide variety of SCBA pack designs, and the constant redesign of these products, makes it very difficult to ensure that a retention bracket will work with all SCBA packs, frames and bottles. This restricts inner-operability and places an undue burden on the fire service. This proposal establishes standards that would provide clear spaces on each SCBA cylinder around which the SCBA retention device manufacturer can design universal products. It also establishes a minimum standard for SCBA pack durability when subjected to the repeated act of extracting the SCBA from a retention device that grips the cylinder to retain it in the holder. The 80 lb extraction force criteria is based on actual measurements of various SCBA holders on the market. As a base-line, the old “broom-clip” style bottle holders require 35 lb extraction force. This value also seems reasonable since the weight of the bottle and pack can weigh as much as 35 lbs, and the pack should survive continually pulling of at least twice its own weight so that it can last through the riggers of use at the fire scene. The SCBA is commonly secured into the holder by gripping the bottle at the top, and the valve at the bottom. Although testing indicates that the typical bottle valve is more than strong enough to withstand the retention forces using this method of gripping, there does not appear to be any minimum valve strength criteria in the standard. Acceptance of this proposal will assure that future valves would always be strong enough to be treated in this manner without damage. The 20 g factor matches the value used in FMVSS 207 for retention of seating systems. The logic for this value is that if the seat should be held to the vehicle at 20 g, then the pack should be retained in the seat to 20 g.Committee Meeting Action: RejectCommittee Statement: The proposal is design restrictive. It would prohibit using different pressure vessels other than those in the shape of a cylinder, and it would prohibit different SCBA designs. The bracket referred to in the proposal is not an issue within the scope of NFPA 1981. Number Eligible to Vote: 31

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T._______________________________________________________________ 1981-23 Log #CP5 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(7.21 and 8.28 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.21 Lens Radiant Heat Resistance Performance. 7.21.1 SCBA shall be tested for lens radiant heat resistance as specified in Section 8.28. SCBA facepiece pressure shall not be less than 0.0 mm (0.0 in.) water column and shall not be greater than 89 mm (3½ in.) water column above ambient pressure from the time the test begins until the time the test is concluded. 7.21.2 The duration of the test as specified in 8.28 will be no less than 80% of the NIOSH-rated duration of the cylinder used. 8.28 Lens Radiant Heat Test. 8.28.1 Application. This test method shall apply to SCBA facepiece assemblies without installed accessories. 8.28.2 Samples. Each sample to be tested shall be as specified in 4.3.9.8.28.3 Specimen Preparation. 8.28.3.1 Prior to testing, specimens shall be conditioned for a minimum of 4 hours and tested at an ambient temperature of 22°C, ±3°C (72°F, ±5°F) and RH of 50 percent, ±25 percent. 8.28.3.2 Specimens for conditioning shall be complete SCBA without installed accessories. 8.28.4 Apparatus. 8.28.4.1 A test headform meeting the requirements specified in 8.1.4.1 shall be provided. 8.28.4.2 The test headform shall be attached to the breathing machine as specified in Figure 8.1.4.9, with the modification that a 38 mm (1½ in.) I.D. breathing hose, not longer than 7.6 m (25 ft), shall be interconnected between the breathing machine and the throat tube of the test mannequin headform. 8.28.4.3 The test headform shall be covered with an undyed aramid hood for protection of the headform during testing. 8.28.4.3.1 The protective hood shall meet the hood requirements of NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting.8.28.4.3.2 The protective hood, when placed on the test headform, shall not affect the seal of the facepiece to the headform. 8.28.4.3.3 The protective hood shall cover the facepiece retention system that holds the facepiece to the headform, the mask-mounted regulator and hoses, but not cover or protect any part of the facepiece lens. 8.28.4.4 The radiant heat test apparatus shall be as specified in ASTM E162 Standard Test method for Surface Flammability of Materials Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source, Section 6.1.1 and Fig. 1, without the inclusion of the Sheet Steel Stack. 8.28.4.5 A radiation shield shall be used to block radiant heat from the headform and facepiece before and after the test. 8.28.4.5.1 The radiation shield shall be at least 64 cm (25 in) wide by at least 56 cm (22 in) high, and be constructed of at least three layers of aluminum sheet separated by air gaps of 2 cm (0.8 in) with a black painted front side, or of similar design sufficient to block the radiant heat. 8.28.4.6 A heat flux transducer, water cooled, total heat flux sensor of Schmidt-Boelter type, with a viewing angle of 180° and a standard range of 0-20 kW/m2, shall be used to measure the heat flux from the radiant heat test apparatus. 8.28.4.6.1 The heat flux transducer shall have been calibrated in the last 12 months. 8.28.4.6.2 The heat flux transducer shall be mounted so the face is vertical and parallel to the face of the radiant heat test apparatus. 8.28.4.6.3 The heat flux transducer shall be centered both horizontally and vertically with respect to the face of the radiant heat test apparatus. 8.28.5 Procedure. 8.28.5.1 The SCBA facepiece shall be mounted on the test headform to simulate the correct wearing position on a person as specified by the SCBA manufacturer’s instructions. 8.28.5.2 The headform shall be positioned (at an angle if necessary) so that the vertical centerline of the facepiece lens is parallel with the face of the radiant heat test apparatus. 8.28.5.3.1 The headform shall be positioned so that the center of the facepiece lens is centered both horizontally and vertically with respect to face of the radiant heat test apparatus. 8.28.5.4 The radiant heat test apparatus shall be ignited and allowed to preheat and stabilize for a minimum of 45 minutes. 8.28.5.4.1 The air flow rate to the radiant heat test apparatus shall be set to 434 L/min, ±22 L/min (950 SCFH, ±50 SCFH). 8.28.5.4.2 The natural gas flow rate to the radiant heat test apparatus shall be set to 30 L/min, ±1.5 L/min (72 SCFH, ±4 SCFH). 8.28.5.4.3 During the conduct of the test, extraneous drafts shall be controlled by closing windows and doors, stopping air-circulating devices, and arranging baffles between the apparatus and any remaining sources of drafts.8.28.5.5 To calibrate the radiant heat apparatus, the heat flux transducer shall be moved in front of the radiant heat test apparatus to a location where the heat flux transducer measures 15 kW/m2 ±0.5 kW/m2 for 5 minutes. 8.28.5.5.1 The output voltage from the heat flux transducer shall be sampled at a minimum rate of 1 Hz by a data acquisition system, which has a minimum

1981-18


1981-19


1981-20


1981-21


1981-22


1981-23


1981-24

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 resolution of 1 part in 4096 of full scale (0.02%). 8.28.5.5.2 The output voltage shall be converted to units of heat flux using the most recent calibration coefficients. 8.28.5.5.3 The heat flux transducer shall be water cooled with 0.4 L/min – 0.8 L/min (0.1 gal/min – 0.2 gal/min) of water at 16°C – 30°C (61°F – 86°F), such that the exit temperature of the water does not vary more than ±2°C (4°F) during the test. 8.28.5.5.3 The horizontal distance from the radiant heat test apparatus to the face of the heat flux transducer shall be located and marked. 8.28.5.5.5 The heat flux transducer shall be removed from exposure to the radiant test apparatus. 8.28.5.6 After the radiant heat test apparatus has been preheated and has a calibration mark for 15 kW/m2, the radiation shield shall be positioned in front of the radiant heat test apparatus. 8.28.5.7 The SCBA facepiece mounted on the test headform at the appropriate angle as described in 8.28.5.3 shall be placed behind the radiation shield. 8.28.5.8 The airflow performance test shall be conducted as specified in 8.1.5, and with the heat flux specified in 8.28.5.5. 8.28.5.9 The airflow performance test shall begin no longer than 30 s before the SCBA facepiece is exposed to the radiant heat apparatus and shall continue for a total duration of 15 min. 8.28.5.10 The ventilation rate shall be set at 40 L/min, ±2 L/min, with a respiratory frequency of 24 breaths/min, ±1 breath/min at ambient conditions as specified in 8.1.3.2. 8.28.5.11 The radiation shield shall be removed, and the headform shall be moved towards the radiant heat apparatus, within 5 seconds of shield removal, so that vertical front face of the facepiece lens is lined up with the calibration mark for 15 kW/m2. 8.28.5.12 After the test headform is placed in the position specified in 8.28.5.9.1, the test exposure time of 5 minutes +2.0 seconds /- 0.0 seconds shall begin. 8.28.5.13 At the completion of the 5-minute exposure, the headform shall be moved away from the radiant heat test apparatus, and the radiation shield will be placed between the radiant heat test apparatus and the headform. 8.28.5.14 Within 15 seconds after the radiant heat exposure has been completed, the test headform shall be raised 150 mm, +6 mm/-0 mm (6 in., +¼ in./-0 in.) and dropped freely. 8.28.5.15 The facepiece pressure during the entire test shall be read from the strip chart recorder to determine pass or fail as specified in 7.21.1. 8.28.5.16 Any pressure spike caused by the impact of the drop test and measured within a duration of three cycles of the breathing machine after the apparatus drop shall be disregarded. 8.28.6 Report. 8.28.6.1 The facepiece pressure peak inhalation and peak exhalation shall be recorded and reported for each test condition. 8.28.7 Interpretation. 8.28.7.1 Pass or fail performance shall be based on the facepiece pressure peak inhalation and exhalation values for the duration of the test. 8.28.7.2 Failure to meet any of the test condition requirements shall constitute failure of the SCBA. Substantiation: The NFPA Respiratory Protective Equipment Committee became aware of a number of fire incidents involving injury & fatalities where the self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) face piece lens was thermally degraded while the fire fighters were likely still on air. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Fire Fighter Fatality and Injury Prevention Program (FFFIPP) investigation results were communicated to the technical committee and a committee task group was established and with the assistance of s number of agencies, users, & manufacturers developed a test procedure to challenge the SCBA face piece lens. With the assistance of National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), thermal exposure tests,Lens Radiant Panel Heat Test and Lens Convection Heat and Flame Resistance Test, were developed and brought to the full committee for consideration. The task group developed two lens tests that would mimic and address the likely conditions experienced by fire fighers during fire operations. The two tests address both the radiant thermal exposure and the convective heat exposure of SCBA lens. The task group presented both tests to the full committee and the full committee agreed that both tests should be added to NFPA 1981 standard to supplement the existing heat and flame test. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.Explanation of Negative: MARTIN, C.: I agree with this in principle but feel that the decision to move forward was rushed without proper justification. The developmental testing was not conducted on all manufacturer’s equipment and the data was not made available to base a logical decision. Comment on Affirmative: SELL, R.: This test will stress the visor in a way which is repeatable and simulates the use of the SCBA while it is service.

_______________________________________________________________ 1981-24 Log #CP6 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(7.22 and 8.29 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:7.22 Convection Lens Heat and Flame Resistance Performance Requirements. 7.22.1 SCBA shall be tested for lens heat and flame resistance as specified in Section 8.29. SCBA facepiece pressure shall not be less than 0.0 mm (0.0 in.) water column and shall not be greater than 89 mm (3½ in.) water column above ambient pressure from the time the test begins until the time the test is concluded. 7.22.2 The duration of the test as specified in 8.29 will be no less than 80% of the NIOSH-rated duration of the cylinder used. 8.29 Lens Convective Heat and Flame Resistance Test. 8.29.1 Application. This test method shall apply to complete SCBA.8.29.2 Samples. Each sample to be tested shall be as specified in 4.3.9.8.29.3 Specimen Preparation. 8.29.3.1 Prior to testing, specimens shall be conditioned for a minimum of 4 hours and tested at an ambient temperature of 22°C, ±3°C (72°F, ±5°F) and RH of 50 percent, ±25 percent. 8.29.3.2 Specimens for conditioning shall be complete SCBA.8.29.4 Apparatus. 8.29.4.1 A test mannequin meeting the requirements specified in Figure 8.29.4.1 shall be provided. (Figure 8.29.4.1 Test Mannequin (Current Edition, Figure 8.11.4.1, not being shown)8.29.4.2 Both the calibration mannequin and the heat and flame test mannequin shall have protective coverings. 8.29.4.2.1 The protective coverings shall be a weld blanket made of fireproof silica cloth of a minimum weight of 18 oz/sq yd. 8.29.4.2.2 The protective coverings shall be designed and constructed to provide coverage over the surface of the mannequins. 8.29.4.2.3 Where additional insulation is needed to protect the mannequin electronics, an additional thermal liner underlayer shall be permitted. 8.29.4.2.4 The complete protective covering shall be discarded and shall not be used where the damage to any portion indicates the covering can no longer provide thermal protection for the test mannequin. 8.29.4.3 A test headform meeting the requirements specified in 8.1.4.1 shall be used on the test mannequin. 8.29.4.4 The test headform shall be attached to the breathing machine as specified in Figure 8.1.4.9, with the modification that a 38 mm (1½ in.) I.D. breathing hose, not longer than 7.6 m (25 ft), shall be interconnected between the breathing machine and the throat tube of the test mannequin headform. 8.29.4.5 The test headform shall be covered with an undyed aramid hood for protection of the headform during testing. 8.29.4.5.1 The protective hood shall meet the hood requirements of NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting.8.29.4.5.2 The protective hood, when placed on the test headform, shall not affect the seal of the facepiece to the headform. 8.29.4.5.3 The protective hood shall not cover or protect any part of the facepiece or the facepiece retention system that holds the facepiece to the headform. 8.29.4.6 The heat and flame test apparatus shall be as specified in Figure 8.29.4.6. (Figure 8.29.4.6 Heat and Flame Test Apparatus (current Figure 8.11.4.6, not being shown)8.29.4.6.1 The test oven shall be a horizontal forced circulating air oven with a range of flow of 38 m/min to 76 m/min (125 ft/min to 250 ft/min). 8.29.4.6.2 The test oven shall have minimum dimensions of 915 mm depth × 915 mm width × 1.22 m height (36 in. depth × 36 in. width × 48 in. height). 8.29.5 Procedure. 8.29.5.1 The SCBA shall be mounted on the test mannequin to simulate the correct wearing position on a person as specified by the SCBA manufacturer’s instructions. 8.29.5.2 The facepiece shall be mounted and tested on the test headform as specified in 8.1.4.1. 8.29.5.3 For calibration prior to the heat and flame test, the mannequin for calibration shall be the same as the test mannequin specified in 8.29.4.1 and shall be exposed to direct flame contact for 10 seconds using the heat and flame test apparatus. 8.29.5.3.1 All peak temperature readings shall be within a temperature range of 815°C to 1150°C (1500°F to 2102°F). 8.29.5.3.2 The average mean of all peak temperature readings specified in 8.29.5.3.1 shall be no higher than 950°C (1742°F). 8.29.5.4 The test oven recovery time, after the door is closed, shall not exceed 1.0 minute. 8.29.5.5 The airflow performance test shall be conducted as specified in 8.1.5, with modifications to the ventilation rate specified in 8.29.5.7 with the test temperatures specified in 8.29.5.3 and 8.29.5.8. 8.29.5.5.1 The variation in pressure extremes caused by the heat and flame test mannequin configuration shall be determined as specified in 8.29.5.5.2 and 8.29.5.5.3.

1981-25

Report on Proposals F2012 — Copyright, NFPA NFPA 1981 8.29.5.5.2 The airflow performance test as specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test, shall be carried out using the configuration specified in 8.29.4.4. 8.29.5.5.3 The difference in pressure between the two tests shall be calculated by subtracting the values obtained using the configuration defined in 8.29.4.4 from the values obtained using the configuration specified in Section 8.1, Airflow Performance Test.8.29.5.6 The airflow performance test shall begin no longer than 60 s before the SCBA and mannequin are placed into the oven with the door closed and shall continue for a total duration of 24 min. 8.29.5.7 The ventilation rate shall be set at 40 L/min, ±2 L/min, with a respiratory frequency of 24 breaths/min, ±1 breath/min at ambient conditions as specified in 8.1.3.2. 8.29.5.8 The SCBA mounted on the test mannequin shall be placed in the test oven at a temperature of 260°C, ±5°C (500°F, ±10°F). 8.29.5.9 After the test oven door is closed and the oven temperature recovers to 260°C, ±5°C (500°F, ±10°F), the test exposure time of 5 minutes +2.0 seconds/- 0.0 seconds shall begin. Recovery time shall be less than 60 seconds. 8.29.5.10 At the completion of the 5-minute exposure, the oven door shall be opened, and the SCBA mounted on the test mannequin shall be moved out of the oven and into the center of the burner array. 8.29.5.12 The SCBA shall then be exposed to direct flame contact for 10 seconds, +0.25 second/-0.0 seconds. 8.29.5.13 This exposure shall begin within 20 seconds of removal of the SCBA from the test oven. 8.29.5.14 The SCBA shall be observed for any afterflame, and the afterflame shall be extinguished with a spray-type device using room temperature water. 8.29.5.15 Within 20 seconds after the direct flame exposure has been completed, the SCBA mounted on the test mannequin shall be raised 150 mm, +6 mm/-0 mm (6 in., +¼ in./-0 in.) and dropped freely. 8.29.5.16 The facepiece pressure during the entire test shall be read from the strip chart recorder and corrected by adding the value of the difference in pressure calculated in 8.29.5.5.1 to determine pass or fail as specified in 7.22.1. 8.29.5.17 Any pressure spike caused by the impact of the drop test and measured within a duration of three cycles of the breathing machine after the apparatus drop shall be disregarded. 8.29.6 Report. 8.29.6.1 The facepiece pressure peak inhalation and peak exhalation shall be recorded and reported for each test condition. 8.29.7 Interpretation. 8.29.7.1 Pass or fail performance shall be based on the facepiece pressure peak inhalation and exhalation values for the duration of the test. 8.29.7.2 Failure to meet any of the test condition requirements shall constitute failure of the SCBA.Substantiation: The NFPA Respiratory Protective Equipment Committee became aware of a number of fire incidents involving injury & fatalities where the self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) face piece lens was thermally degraded while the fire fighters were likely still on air. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Fire Fighter Fatality and Injury Prevention Program (FFFIPP) investigation results were communicated to the technical committee and a committee task group was established and with the assistance of s number of agencies, users, & manufacturers developed a test procedure to challenge the SCBA face piece lens. With the assistance of National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), thermal exposure tests,Lens Radiant Panel Heat Test and Lens Convection Heat and Flame Resistance Test, were developed and brought to the full committee for consideration. The task group developed two lens tests that would mimic and address the likely conditions experienced by fire fighers during fire operations. The two tests address both the radiant thermal exposure and the convective heat exposure of SCBA lens. The task group presented both tests to the full committee and the full committee agreed that both tests should be added to NFPA 1981 standard to supplement the existing heat and flame test. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 26 Negative: 1 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.Explanation of Negative: SELL, R.: This test is a complete SCBA systems test and a not a facepiece visor stress test. Any performance problems related to the SCBA pneumatic system would result in a failure to meet the inhalation and exhalation pressure requirements even if the facepiece lens is intact and functional. This test should be removed as a proposal for the next edition of the NFPA 1981 standard. _______________________________________________________________ 1981-25 Log #18 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept in Principle(8.1.4.8.1 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ Submitter: Bill Parson, Scott SafetyRecommendation: Add text to read as follows:8.1.4.8.1 Air exhaled thru the headform shall be conditioned to an average temperature of 80+-10 degrees F / 27+-12 Degrees C when measured at the breathing passage outlet at the mouth of the test headform.Substantiation: By making the breathing simulator better replicate human respiration the test will better reflect the performance of the respirator in actual use. The mechanical breathing simulator significantly differs from actual measured respiration temperatures due to natural heat exchange in the human respiratory tract.

Design decisions maybe made to optimize respirator performance for breathing simulators rather than for human use. This addition will allow the breathing simulator to better replicate actual human use. Committee Meeting Action: Accept in Principle Add new text to read as follows: 8.1.4.8.1 Air exhaled thru the headform shall be conditioned to an average temperature of 80 +-10 degrees F (27+-6 degrees C) when measured at the breathing passage outlet at the mouth of the test headform.Committee Statement: The technical committee accepted the proposal in principle, and changed the + degrees C from 12 to 6.Number Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.Comment on Affirmative: KUHN, J.: The benefit to the fire service of conditioning the exhaled air from the breathing machine to 80 degrees F is unclear, particularly in light of decades of test results without such conditioning. As such, it seems an unnecessary complication of the test. _______________________________________________________________ 1981-26 Log #CP7 FAE-RPE Final Action: Accept(8.3.4.2.3 (New) )_______________________________________________________________ TCC Action: The TCC directs the Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection to consider the implementation of additional criteria or the modification of existing criteria to address the alternative pressure vessel technologies for possible compliance issues identified in its January 2011 and July 2011 ROP meetings. A list of specific issues as listed in the Minutes for the January 2011 meeting follows: 1. Multiple high pressure connections—the concern is maintaining the integrity of the connection in fire use—perhaps a vibration test necessary [Increase severity of current vibration test (Section 8.3).] 2. Durability of flexible area between arrays, both under pressure and unpressurized; perhaps a flex cycle test necessary [Introduce specific test for flexing array along horizontal axis.] 3. Off-gassing of the materials, externally (creating products of combustion) and internally (affecting air quality) [Apply oven test with collection of gases and subsequently analyze.] 4. Air quality in cylinder at STP over storage time [Create residence test for air quality inside SCBA cylinders.] 5. Breathing air temperature in high heat environment [Instrument facepiece with thermocouple in heat/flame test (Section 8.11).] 6. Ingress of materials through thermoplastic liner [Adapt CBRN chemical agent testing to pressure vessel.] 7. Ability of thermoplastic liner to hold pressure over storage time [Accounted for through ISO 11119-3 requirement (Clause 8.5.12).] 8. Thermal performance of thermoplastic liner [Ascertain through overall heat and flame test (Section 8.11); also accounted for through ISO 11119-3 requirement (Clause 8.5.11).]9. Thermal performance of resin in outer wrap [Ascertain through Heat and Flame Test (Section 8.11); also accounted for through ISO 11119-3 requirement (Clause 8.5.11).] 10. Elevated temperature during a rapid fill (RIC UAC fitting) [Add temperature monitoring requirement to RIC UAC System Fill Rate Test (Section 8.21).] 11. Failure mode of pressure vessel during thermal exposure, at the flex points, during filling, following abrasion and under direct projectile impact [Devise test to mimic multiple cycles of use.] 12. Strength and integrity of the joints between stainless steel end caps and the plastic liner [Accounted for through ISO 11119-3 requirement (Clause 8.5.3).] 13. Conformance of manifold to CGA V1 standard [Modify interpretation requirements in 6.4.3, if warranted.] 14. Decon concerns regarding the protective cover and the pressure vessels [Establish new tests for cover textiles, including decon.] 15. Vibration test box will not accommodate vessels [Permit flexibility for redesign of box (Section 8.3.) 16. Impossible to perform cylinder retention test [Exempt SCBA that do not use back frame from test (Section 8.22).] As part of the consideration for the subject area, the TCC further notes that the TC should investigate the adequacy of NFPA 1981 in relying on the clearance of pressure vessels as established in DOT regulations. The TC should also consider ISO 11119-3, [add formal title].Submitter: Technical Committee on Respiratory Protection Equipment, Recommendation: Add a new paragraph as follows:8.3.4.2.3 If a different geometry of pressure vessels are used compared to the standard industry cylinder construction, the compartments shall be designed to accommodate the size and shape of the different pressure vessel, allowing a clearance of 150 mm (6 in.) between the pressure vessel and all sides of the compartment.Substantiation: The current vibration compartments cannot accommodate different pressure vessel sizes and shapes that are not of the conventional design. Committee Meeting Action: AcceptNumber Eligible to Vote: 31 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 27 Ballot Not Returned: 4 Dower, N., Johnson, J., Kaller, C., Radtke, T.