Report of the Committee on

Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment

Technical Correlating Committee

Richard M. Duffy, Chair Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters, DC

Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Fighters

Thomas Augherton, Safety Equipment Inst., VA Joseph A. Bigler, Mine Safety Appliances Co., PA

Rep. Compressed Gas Assn. Dennis W. Browner, Scott Aviation, NC

Rep. Industrial Safety Equipment Assn. Robert H. Chiostergi, Southern Mills, Inc., GA Loui Clem, Alpine Center for Rescue Studies, CO

Rep. Nat'l Assn. for Search and Rescue Paul H. Crawford, Riverside Fire Dept., CA

Rep. Southern Area Fire Equipment Research Robert A. Freese, Globe Mfg. Co., NH William L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg., Co., OH

Rep. Fire and Emergency Mfrs. and Services Assoc. Tod L. Jilg, Hoechst Celanese Corp., NC James S. Johnson, Lawrence Livermore Nat'l. Labs, CA Cy Long, TX Commission on Fire Protection, TX David C. Matthews, UK Fire Brigades Assn., England

Rep. Int'l Standards Organization J~u~Minx, Oklahoma State Firefighters Assn., OK

Putnam, USDA Forest Service, MT Jeffrey O. Stull, Austin, TX Bruce H. Varner, City of Garrollton Fire Dept., TX

Rep. Int'l Fire Service Training Assn. John Watt, California Dept. of Forestry, CA Thomas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., NC

Alternates

Mark B. Chambers, TX Gommission on Fire Protection, TX (Alt. to C. Long)

Robert Dahl, The duPont Co., DE (Alt. to T. L Jilg)

Ann Marie W'dliams, Springs Industries, SC (Alt. to R. H. Chiostergi)

Committee Scope: Tiffs Committee shall have primary responsibil- ity 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 dur ing 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

Ftre Service Protective Clothing and Equipment

IGrk H. Owen, Chair Piano Fire Dept., TX

Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section

Wayde B. Miller, Secretary Mine Safety Appliances Co., PA

(nonvoting)

Peter V. Aekerman, South Plainfield, NJ Rep. Nat'l Volunteer Fire Council

Donald Aldridge, Lion Apparel Inc., OH Curtis Berger, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, CA

Rep. Northern Area Fire Equipment Research Organization Joseph A. Bigler, Mine Safety Appliances Co., PA

Rep. Compressed Gas Assn. Donna P. Brehm, Virginia Beach Fire Dept., VA Dennis W. Browner, Scott Aviation, NY

Rep. Industrial Safety Equipment Assn. Rand-Scott Coggan, City Redmond Fire Dept., WA

Rep. Int'l Assn. of Fire Ghiefs Christopher E. Coombs, Cairns & Brother Inc., NJ Paul H. Crawford, Riverside Fire Dept., CA

Rel?. Southern Area Fire Equipment Research PauaciaA. Freeman, Globe Fire Fighters Suits, NH

Glen E. Gardner, U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Admin, DC Daniel Gohlke, W. L. Gore & Assoc., MD J~nlllathan J. Greenawah, Kitsap Cnty Fire" District #2, WA

am L. Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg. Co., OH Bryan C. Heirston, Oklahoma State Dept. of Labor, OK James IL Lawson, U.S. Nat'l Inst. of Standards and Technology, MD Cy Long, TX Commission on Fire Protection, TX RobertT. McCarthy, U.S. Fire Administation, MD Robert William O'Gorman, ETL Tegting Laboratories Inc., NY Christopher B. Preu, Louisville Division of Fire, KY Ray Reed, Dallas Fire Dept., TX Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY Brian A. Stoneback, U.S. Air Force Fire Protection, FL Jeffrey o . Stuli, Austin, TX Bruce H. Varner, City of Carrollton Fire Dept., TX J r T e s H. Veghte, Biotherm Inc., OH

omas L. Wollan, Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., NC

Alternate

Roger L. Barker, N. Carolina State University, NC (Alt. to P. A. Freeman)

Robert E. Gray, Cairns & Brother, Inc., (Alt. to C. E. Coombs)

Mary L Grilliot, Morning Pride Mfg. Co. Inc., OH (Alt. to W. L. Grilliot)

Thomas A. Hillenbrand, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL (Alt. to T. L. Wollan)

Dominick A. Martucci, United States Testing Co., NJ (Vot. Alt. to USTC Rep.)

Joanne E. Slattery, U.S. Dept. of Labor OSHA, DC (Alt. to G. E. Gardner)

Richard L. Stein, Survivair, CA (Alt. to D. W. Browner)

Jerry Swinford, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX (Alt. to C. Long)

Frank P. Taylor, Lion Apparel Inc., OH (AlL to D. Aldridge)

Robert Vettori, U.S. Nat'! Inst. of Standards and Technology, MD (Alt. toJ. 1L Lawson)

Staff Liaison: Bruce Teele

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibil- ity for documents on the design, construction, and performance criteria for protective clothing and equipment for the fire service including chemical protective clothing and aircraft rescue and fire fighting protective clothing.

This portion of the Report of the Committee on Fire and Emer- gency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment is presented for adoption.

This Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire Service Protective Clothing and Equipment and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components, 1990, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1995 Annual Meeting.

This Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Fire Service Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of ")9 voting members; of whom ")7 voted affirmatively, and 2 abstained (Messrs. Gardner and McCarthy).

Mr. Gardner abstained although he concurs with the actions taken by th~ committee, OSHA's policy is not to vote on committee ballots.

Mr. McCarthy abstained as the USFA is reviewing its policy on voting on committee ballots.

This Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Fire and Emergency Services Protective Clothing and Equipment, which consists of 19 voting members of whom all 19 voted affirmatively.

274

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C °

(Log #172) 1983- 1 - (Entire Document ) : Reject SUBMITTER: Mark Holl ingshead, Uppe r Arlington Firefighters Local 1521 COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: I urge you to reconsider immedia te adopt ion of the p roposed 1983 standard. SUBSTANTIATION: This d o c u m e n t will have long te rm and far reaching effects when adopted. However, it has been primarily developed without the participation of the very firefighters it is des igned to effect. Unfor tunate ly for all of us, the organization represent ing the majority of professional firefighters was absent f rom NFPA dur ing these deliberations.

We fear that the d o c u m e n t may not correctly address some major concerns to professional firefighters. We feel that the document , even if valid in all o ther respects, will no t be properly accepted by the Fire Communi ty , for no other reason, than that the IAFF was left out.

Unlike other NFPA standards which impact many differing e lements of the fire, construction, engineer ing, and o ther fields; 1983 addresses only firefighters, and especially emphasizes professional firefighters. Therefore, it is very important , for the creditability of this document , that this s tandard include inpu t f rom those same firefighters. As one of the few local un ions who actively endorse manda to ry physical fitness training, I feel you should know that the s tandard will never receive widespread acceptance by our member s until it receives this increased scrutiny.

Delaying adopt ion until that inpu t takes place will be crucial to the eventual acceptance and success of this s tandard. Delaying the adopt ion to include firefighters participation will only make the final product a better one that all of us can live with.

We urge you to encourage a p ruden t approach that will hear all sides of this issue. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee that developed this revision is a balanced commit tee including fire service and other user representatives and operates as a consensus committee. Some fire service members of the Commit tee are affiliated with a labor organization. The IAFF was not "left out" because they were no t members of the Commit tee a s a n y IAFF m e m b e r could submit public commen t s on the ROP. This revision of NFPA 1983 was accompl ished in accordance with the Regulat ions Governing Commit tee Projects.

(Log #91) 1983- 2 - (1-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, 'Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to testing. 1-1.1 to read:

"This s tandard specifies m i n i m u m performance and design criteria for new life safety..." SUBSTANTIATION: Test ing me thods are outside the purpose zt~ stated in section 1-2.1. NFPA 1983 originated as a per formance s tandard and should remain so. Since there are adequate, existing testing me thods and s tandards (Fed 191A, ANSI A10.14, ANSI Z359.1) no res ta tement is required. The combinat ion of these s tandards cover material and usage testing for equ i pmen t specified within this s tandard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Test ing is no t outside the scope of NFPA 1983. The m e t h o d of measur ing per formance to de te rmine compliance with the per formance requi rements is by a specified test m e t h o d so that all evaluations will be conducted in an alike manner . The test metl iods suggested by the submit ter are not appropriate for this document . See Commit tee Action on 1983-95 (Log #114).

(Log #148) 1983- 3 - (1-1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mounta in Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add text:

"Where a fire depa r t men t is involved in rescue activities xmtside the fire g round env i ronmen t and beyond the scope of this document , reasonable accepted industry s tandards a n d / o r practices shall be followed." SUBSTANTIATION: In a rural volunteer fire depa r t men t conflicts may arise when the fire depa r t men t is called upon ei ther as a pr imary resource or as an assisting agency to per form rescue operat ions in cave environments , low angle moun t a i n rescues or o ther condit ions to which this s tandard does not apply. Safety hazards and procedural conflicts occur if a t tempts are made to apply

this s tandard (which is in tended to address the fire g r o u n d envi ronment ) to operat ions for which more appropriate s tandards or practices have been established by specialists, such 'as m o u n ta in or cave rescue teams. The in tent of this document , to specifically address the fire g r o u n d envi ronment , should be made clearer. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 1-1.2 to read: "This s tandard shall no t apply to utility rope. This s tandard shall

no t apply to rope and e q u i p m e n t used for special rescue operations, including but no t l imited to m o u n t a i n rescue, cave rescue, water rescue, lead cl imbing operations, or where specific rescue situations dictate o ther per formance requirements . This s tandard shall no t apply to industrial fall applications or for recreational uses." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee agrees with the submit ter ' s in tent and has added text to specifically address this issue rather than the suggested general wording that migh t not be clearly unders tood.

(Log #66) 1983- 4 - (1-1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

1-1.3" This s tandard does not apply to rope or equ ipmen t for operat ions where personnel are requi red to work above anchor points or in opera t ions where impact forces may exceed 1800 lb/f . SUBSTANTIATION: To limit usage of equ ipmen t as per fall factor 0.25 is mis leading and insufficient because impact forces dur ing 0.25 fall factors can exceed 1800 lb force where static ropes are used. Persons subjected to forces greater than 1800 lb can become severely injured. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMII*rEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee does not agree that the text of 1-1.3 in the ROP is misleading, in fact it is more "user friendly" in explaining the fall factor.

(Log #149) 1983- 5 - (1-3 Auxiliary Equipment) : Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mounta in Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Strike the word "buckles" f rom the definition. SUBSTANTIATION: Auxiliary equ ipmen t is now required to be tested in the m a n n e r of function, which is to say as a unit. A buckle does not s tand alone as a piece of auxiliary e q u i p m e n t but may be a par t 'of actual hardware or software, components.. . COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept an Principle.

1. Delete the word "buckle" where it appears in definitions, bu t do no t delete the te rm and definit ion "Buckle."

2. Revise in Section 1-3, Definitions to read: "Buckle. A load-bearing connector utilized to connect two pieces

of webbing as an integral part of an auxiliary equ ipmen t system component . "

3. Revise 4-5.4 and 4-5.5 to read: "Where a buckle is an integral part of an auxiliary e q u i p m e n t

system componen t , the..." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee agrees with the submit ter ' s in tent and revised the text to clarify the text, but re ta ined the te rm and definit ion of "buckle" as it is necessary for under s t and ing the usage within the document .

(Log #57) 1983- 0 - (1-3 Escape Belt): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definit ion of Escape Belt:

Escape Belt. A belt that is certified as compliant with the applicable requi rements of this s tandard and is in t ended for use by the wearer as a lowering device to lower a rescuer to effect a rescue of a person or as an emergency self rescue device. SUBSTANTIATION: After more than 30 years of usage an d tralnirrg un i fo rmed firefighters in the use of life belts, tt is my r ecommenda t i on that the above proposal be included in the standard. Many small fire depa r tmen t s rely on the life belt for rescue operat ions without the possibility of failures or injury. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'I*I'EE STATEMENT: Definition and in ten t of an escape belt is for emergency self rescue and therefore an escape belt is inappropriate for rescue of ano the r person'.

275

N F P A 1 9 8 3 - - A 9 5 R O C

(Log #2) 1983- 7 - (1-3 General Use, Personal Use (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTE~ Ron Zawlocki, City of Pontiac Fire Dept., MI COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: ADD: * General Use (definition)

• Personal Use (definition). SUBSTANTIATION: These terms appear throughout the text and are not easily and clearly defined. By including their definitions under Section 1-3, speculations and interpretations could be minimized. Some of the confusion generated dais lack of definition includes:

1. Does "personal use" mean: (a) Just personal escape techniques (b) Any one person load regardless of rope application (c) Descents conu+olled by the person on the rope (d) Etc.

2. Does "general use" mean: (a) 2-person loads (b) 2-person or greater loads (c) Anything other than personal escape operations (d) Anything other than one-person rappels (e) Etc.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new definitions to Section 1-3 Definitions, to read: General Use. A designation of auxiliary equipment system

components in tended for use where the system could be subjected to a two person load+

Personal Use. A designation of auxiliary equipment system components in tended for the sole use of the rescuer for personal escape or self rescue, or for the sole use of the rescuer in gaining access to victims. COMMITI~i~. STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has developed the requested definitions.

(Log #71) 1983- 8 - (1-3 Impact Load): Accept in Principle SUBMITTF_~ Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition of Impact Lo~d to reack

Impact Load. The resultant energy produced when a falling mass comes to final rest over an abrupt interval of time during which the f ~ r ~ T b e c a m e arrested.

IATION: This proposal may be a clearer and cbrrect description of impact load. COMMITrl~.I~. ACTION: Accept in Principle. C O M M r r r E E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-9 (Log #150).

(Log #150) 1983- 9 - (1-3 Impact Load): Accept in Principle SUBMITTE~ Loui H. Glem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Reword definition.

"Sudden application of a force which causes kinetic energy and momen tum to be converted into other forms of energy, such as heat or deformation. For the purposes of this document , fall factors greater than 0.25 generate unacceptable impact loads." SUBSTANTIATION: Impact loads have noth ing to do with a "relatively large force", nor is the impact load the energy itself. This re-wording makes for a bet ter definition. COMMIT]'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 1-3 Definitions to read: Impact Load. Sudden application of a force which causes kinetic

energy and momen tum to be converted into other forms of energy. For the purposes of this document , fall factors greater than 0.25 generate unacceptable impact loads. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and revised the suggested text for clarity.

(Log #58) 1983- l0 - (1-3 Ladder /Escape Belt): Reject S U B ~ Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983"1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise definition of Ladder /Escape Belt:

Ladder /Escape Belt. A belt tfiat is certified as compliant with the applicable requirements of this s tandard for both a ladder belt and an escape belt, and is in tended for use by the wearer as a lowering device to lower a rescuer to effect a rescue of a person or as an emergency self rescue device.

SUBSTANTIATION: As an experienced user of life belts and ladder belts for more than 30 years, and having trained thousands of uniformed firefighters in the use of such belts, it is my recommendat ion that the above proposal be included in the standard. There is little or no documentat ion to provide reason for the belts to not ificlude methods of belayed rescue usage. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Definition and intent of a ladder / escape belt is for securing a fire fighter to a ladder and for emergency self rescue, therefore a ladder /escape belt is inappropriate for rescue of another person.

(Log #74) 1983- 11 - (1-3 Melt (New)): Accept in PrinCiple

• SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition to read:

Mel t A material response to heat evidenced by softening of the filer polymer that results in flowing or dripping. SUBSTANTIATION: Definition of melt is not included in ROP, and is stated in several sections. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new definition to 1-3 Definitions to read: Melt. A response to heat by a material resulting in evidence of

flowing or dripping. COMMITI'EESTATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the intent of the submitter and modif ied the suggested text to conform with the standardized definitions used in these documents.

(Log #70) 1983- 12 - (1-3 Minimum Breaking Strength): Reject S U B ~ Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMFNDATION: Revise definition of Minimum Breaking Strength to read:

Minimum Breaking Strength. The result in pounds force after loading equipment samples to the point o f failure or breakage. All samples submit ted must meet required minimum breaking strengths for acceptance and certification of a manufacturing lo t SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal may be a better and more understanding definition of breaking strengths. Also, to use a formula to provide min imum breaking strengths is misleading and may allow substandard equipment to become approved. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The definition in the ROP identifies the desired reliability of product.

(Log #3) 1983- 13 - (1-3 Operational Safety Factor (New)) : Reject SUBMITI~R: Ron Zawlocki, City of Pontiac Fire Dept., MI COMMENT ON PROPOS.~L NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

Operational Safety Factor: A ratio calculated by examining the entire rope system and finding the weakest link in the life safety rope and system components . (1) Breaking strengths (ropes, knots, webbing, descent control devices, rope grabs, ascenders, carabiners, snap links, and all o ther ancillary equipment, as well as the effect [damage] the their application has on the rope). (2) Are divided by the amount of mass that will be placed on that rope system. (See

and ~ definitions for amount of mass). A min imum operational safety factor (ratio) of 10 to 1 is required

for double rope techniques. A minimum operations safety factor (ratio) of 15 to 1 is required

for single rope techniques. SUBSTANTIATION: 4-1.21" Addresses calculating maximum working load for life safety rope by dividing the new rope minimum breaking strength...by a factor of not less than 15. This then gives us a safety factor (ratio) of at least 15 toe

Many people in the fire service believe that using a rope that has minimum 15 to 1 safety factor provides t hem with a safe system a n d / or operation. My recommendat ion is for the standard to provide an operation safety factor. That is to say, that all components (rope, carabiners, knots, auxiliary equipment, webbing, etc.) would be calculated, using the most recent test results, and the weakest link would need to meet a standardized minimum safety (ratio). For example, some rope teams are currently using an operational safety factor o f 10 to 1 when a main line and separate belay line are used (DRT), and 15 to 1 when single rope techniques are employed.

276

N F P A 1 9 8 3 n A 9 5 R O C

Presently, if we place a "general use" carabiner, that has a major axis minimum breaking strength of 5,500 Ibf, on a system support ing a 600 lb load, our safety factor is jus t slightly greater than 9 to 1. Knowing that, the user could do a number of things to improve the safety factor of that system and meet the "operation" safety factor standard. Afew options would include reducing the total mass of the load (taking one person off the line; getting a stronger carabiner; or placing two 5,500 Ibf carabiners at the point of connection. The same approach can be applied to calculating webbing (what size, sewn or tied, number of wraps, tensionless application, etc.), rope (strength, application technique, knot selection, etc.) and all o ther system components.

Without an "operational" safety factor, many technical rescue teams can and do take their 15 to 1 NFPA life safety rope and end up with alarming low total system (operation) safety factors. While it is true that much of the testing of ropes and ancillary equipment is incomplete; by establishing minimum "operational safety factors, based on c u ~ e n t data, we will increase the safety of fire service rope

erations. MMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Outside scope of this document- The submitter has provided good user information but this document is for use by manufacturers and certification organizations to bui ld / certify compliant product- The submitter 's material will be referred to the appropriate Committee.

(Log #59) 1983- 14 - (1-3 Personal Escape Rope): Reject SUBMITrER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete definition of Personal Escape Rope in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: To include substandard equipment such as Personal Escape Ropes as defined in these standards would be confusing in the concerns of one person land ropes and would cheapen these standards. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Definition is necessary for a component item that will be included in this document-

(Log #151) 1985-15 - (1-3 Rope): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Make ROPE the primary definition. PERSONAL ESCAPE and LIFE SAFETY should be categories, or sub-definitions of ROPE. ONE PERSON and TWO PERSON should be categories or sub- definitions of LIFE SAFETY ROPE, as shown below:

ROPE PERSONAL ESCAPE ROPE LIFE SAFETY ROPE

1-PERSON ROPE 2-PERSON ROPE.

SUBSTANTIATION: Make it clearer that Personal Escape, Life Safety, 1 Person and 2 Person are not all different kinds of rope. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept-

(Log #153) 1983- 17- (1-3 Self Destructive Action): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "dissimilar". SUIKqTANTIATION: When this definition was written to address it's application to paragraph 4-5.1 it was specifically in tended to deal with electrolytic or galvanic reactions between metals. As that section deals with both hardware and software applications, the words serf-destructive action can also be applied-to similar materials, such as the detrimental effects of webbing on webbing or rope on

C°8~MITTEE ACTION: Accept-

(Log #68) 1983- 18 - (1-3 Standard Deviation): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the definition of Standard Deviation in its entirety. SUI~TANTIATION: The use of a formula to determine breaking strengths of ropes is misleading and may permit substandard equipment to pass certification. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement on 1983-12 (Log #70).

(Log #92) 1983- 19 - (2-2.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise reference to certification programming concerning testing and visitation frequency to read:

"Product certification shall include a follow-up inspection program that meets the quality control /quali ty assurance requirements as

ed by the certification organization." TIATION: The certifying organization should be able to

determine the follow-up inspection program based upon internationally acknowledged requirements (i.e., Manufacturers with International Standards Organization ISO 9000 quality cont ro l / quality assuranceprogram certification are already under more stringent overall QA/QC requirements than this document requires.) This change will no t decrease the QA/QC effectiveness of the program and will p romote manufacturers participation and pursuit of International Q A / Q C certification - all to the benefit of users of materials covered in this document .

This section is also in direct conflict with the granting of responsibilities and authority of certifying organizations set forth in section 2-3.1. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Testing is not outside the scope of NFPA 1983. The method of measuring performance to determine compliance with the performance requirements is by a specified test me thod so that all evaluations will be conducted in an alike manner . The test methods suggested by the submitter are not appropriate for this document- See Committee Action on 1983-95 (Log#114).

1

(Log #152) 1983- 16 - (1-3 Rope - Life Safety Rope): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "lines" and replace with the word "systems". SUBSTANTIATION: This rope IS the line - it isn ' t used to construct a bigger or different line, it is used to construct a system consisting of lines, etc., the function of which is to support people during rescue operations. COMMrFrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise in Section 1-3 Definitions to read: Life Safety Rope. Rope dedicated solely for the purpose of

support ing people during rescue, fire fighting, other emergency operations, or during training evolutions. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has modified the suggested change for clarity.

(Log #18) 1983- 20 - (2-3.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.2 (as numbered in the ROP) to read:

"Inspection by the certification organization shall include a review of all product labels to ensure that all required worded statements warnings, and other information specified in Sections 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 are correcdy stated and presented on the product labels

as applicabl'e for the specific product." SUBSTANTIATION: Revisions clarify the issues of inspection and more clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

277

N F P A 1983 - - A 9 5 R O C

(Log #17) 1983- 21 - (2-3.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.3 (as numbered in the ROP) to read:

"Inspection by the certification organization shall..." SUBSTANTIATION: Revisions clarify the issues of inspection and more clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #16) 1983- 22 " (2-3.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.4 (as numbered in the ROP) to read:

"Inspection by the certification organization shall..." SUBSTANTIATION: Revisions clarify the issues of inspection and more clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #15) 1983- 23- (2-3.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.5 (as numbered in the ROP.) to read:

"Inspection by the certification organization shall..." SUBSTANTIATION: Revisions clarify the issues of inspection and more clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #13) 1983- 24 -,2-3.6): Reject SUBMITrER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 2-3.6 (as nnmbered in the ROP) to read:

"Inspection by the certification orgaxtization shall..." SUBSTANTIATION:Revisions clarify the issues of inspection and more clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-25 (Log #42).

(Log #42) 1983- 25 - (2-3.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New york City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"After initial certification, compliant life safety rope and compliant system components, shall be annually retested by the ce~Jfication organization within 12 months from previous tests to determine continued product compliance." SUBSTANTIATION: Revision clarifies the issue of inspection and more- clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization.

Delete 2-3.6. Revise second sentence of 2-2.7 to read: "...shall include selected retesting as determined by the certification

organization." COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: As there existed confusion'with the two noted paragraphs, the Committee resolved the issue by deleting 2-$.6.

(Log #41) 1983- 26 - (2-3.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"Testing by the certification organization for..."

SUBSTANTIATION: Revision clarifies the issue of inspection and more clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization. COMMITI"EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #44) 1983- 27- (2-3.8): Accept SUBMIIWER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"The certification organization shall not allow the substitution or repair of any product during testing." SUBSTANTIATION: Revision clarifies the issue of inspection and more clearly identify the responsibility of the certification organization. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accepu

(Log #73) 1983- 28 - (3-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

After year and quarter of manufacture add (not coded). SUBSTANTIATION: Instructions are clearer for the manufacture. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #93) 1983- 29 - (3-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Delete reference to year and quarter and (1- or 2-) person rope from internal marking tape. Tape text should include:

"Meets requirements for Life Safety Rope of NFPA 1983, 1995 edition", Certifying organization,s label, symbol, or identifying mark, Name of Manufacturer.

The section should continue with the following text: "Additional information to be provided inside the rope includes

identification of year and quarter of manufacture and 1- or 2-person rope designation." SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of this information is redundant for companies with an ISO 9000 QA/QC system that has the ability to provide 100 percent tracking of produced goods from production to sale. This type of system, required by many certification organizations, provides the manufacturer with information needed for any recall procedure.

Also, the cost of changing the tape on a quarterly basis will significantly increase the cost of production. The standard should allow for alternate methods of tracking production year and quarter (for example: internal colored markers for production dates and separate marker tapes for 1- or 2-person rope information). This will allow the manufacturer to innovate andprovide even more accurate information to the rescuer through other marking methods. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Basic information important to user must be located and presented in the product in a standard manner using a non-coded means. Nothing prohibits additional information from being provided.

(Log #14) 1983-30- (3-1.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-1.2.1 to read:

3-1.2.1 At least the following warnings shall be printed as the warning portion of the product label(s). All letters shall be at least 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) high. The format, color, and letter style of the warning portion of the product label shall be in accordance with Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and Labels.

/ ~ WARNING

YOU COULD BE SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED IFYOU DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING ROPE.

978

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C

SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS ROPE. YOU MUST T HOR OUGHL Y READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

USE THIS ROPE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

USE THIS ROPE ONLY FOR EMERGENCY LIFE SAFETY OR FOR TRAINING.

YOU SHOULD CONSIDER REUSING THIS ROPE ONLY WALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:

(A) ROPE HAS NOT BEEN VISUALLY DAMAGED. (B) ROPE HAS N O T BEEN EXPOSED T O HEAT, DIRECT

FLAME IMPINGEMENT, OR ABRASION. (C) ROPE HAS N O T BEEN SUBJECTED T O ANY IMPACT

LOAD. (D) ROPE HAS N O T BEEN EXPOSED TO LIQUIDS, SOLIDS,

GASES, MISTS, OR VAPORS OFANY CHEMICAL OR OTHER MATERIAL THAT CAN DETERIORATE ROPE.

(E) ROPE PASSES INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTED BYA QUALIFIED PERSON FOLLOWING THE MANUFACTURER'S INSPECTION PROCEDURES BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER EACH USE.

DO N O T USE THIS ROPE AND REMOVE IT FROM SERVICE IF THE ROPE DOES N O T MEET ALL OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS, IF ROPE DOES NOT PASS INSPECTION, OR IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SAFETY OR SERVICEABILITY OF THE ROPE.

PROTECT ROPE FROM ABRASION. DO N O T EXPOSE ROPE T O FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE.

CARRY ROPE WHERE IT WILL BE PROTECTED. THIS ROPE COULD MELT OR BURN AND FAIL IF EXPOSED T O FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE. WHEN THIS LABEL IS REMOVED FROM THE ROPE, IT MUST

BE RETAINED AND PLACED IN THE PERMANENT ROPE RECORD. COPY THIS LABEL AND KEEP COPY WITH ROPE.

REFER TO THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER EACH USE.

IF YOU DO N O T FOLLOW TttESE INSTRUCTIONS YOU COULD BE SERIOUSLY INJURED OR YOU COULD DIE. SUBSTANTIATION: The r e c o m m e n d e d revisions for the m i n i m u m text of the warning port ion of the p roduc t label provides more clear instructions to the reader of the label and user 6 f t h e product . Awkward text a r r a n g e m e n t has been reworked to give more emphas is as to the dangers and instructions. COMMITrEEACTION: Accep t in Principle.

Revise the warning label port ion of 3-1.2.1 to read:

/ t ~ WARNING

• YOU COULD BE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED IFYOU DO N O T READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING ROPE.

• SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS ROPE.

• YOU MUST THOROUGHLY READ AND UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

• USE AND INSPECT THIS ROPE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS,

• USE THIS ROPE ONLY FOR EMERGENCY LIFE SAFETY OR FOR ROPE RESCUE TRAINING.

• REFER TO ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FURNISHED WITH THIS ROPE BEFORE USE. YOU CAN CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER AT (Manufacturer shall provide contact informat ion here.I FOR IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION.

SAVE THIS LABEL"

Revise 3-6.1 to read: 3-6.1 Life Safety Rope User Information. Add new 3-6.1.1 to read: "Tile manufac tu re r of life safety rope that is certified as being

compliant with this s tandard shall furnish the purchaser with at least use criteria, inspec t ionprocedures , ma in tenance procedures, and re t i rement criteria for the product."

Add new 3-6.1.2 to read: "The manufac tu re r shall provide informat ion for the user to

consider prior to reus ing life safety rope and that the rope be considered for re'use only if at least all of the following condit ions are met:

(a) rope has not been visually damaged. (b) rope has no t been exposed to beat, direct f lame impingement ,

or abrasion. (c) rope has no t been subjected to any impact load. (d) rope has no t been. exposed to liquids, solids, gas.,es mists, or

vapors of any chermcal or o ther material tha t can deteriorate rope.

279

(e) rope passes inspect ion when inspected by a qualified person following the manufac tu re r ' s inspect ion procedures both before an d after each use.

The manufac tu re r shall provide informat ion for the user regarding no t us ing the life safety rope and removing the rope f rom service if the rope does no t mee t all of the above conditions, if rope does not pass inspection, or if there is any doub t about the safety or serviceability of the rope."

Add new 3-6.1.3 to read: '~The manufac tu re r shall provide informat ion for the user abou t at

least the following issues: (a) inspect ing the rope periodically according to the

manufac ture r ' s inspection procedure . (b) removing the rope f rom service and destroying if the rope does

no t pass iuspect ion or if there is any doub t abou t the safety or serviceability of the rope.

(c) protect ing the rope f rom abrasion. (d) not exposing the rope to f lame or h igh tempera ture and

carrying the rope where it will be protected-as the rope could mel t or burn and fail if exposed to f lame or high temperature .

(e) keeping t h e p r o d u c t label and user ins t ruc t ions / informat ion after it is r emoved / sepa ra t ed f rom the rope and retaining it in the p e r m a n e n t rope record; copying the p roduc t label an d user instruct ions/ information, and. keepin, g. the cop.ywith the rop.e

(10 referring to the user ms t ruc t i ons / t n fo rmauon before an d after each use.

(g) caut ioning that if the ins t rnc t ions / iuformat ion are no t followed that the user could be seriously injured or could die."

Add new 3-6.1.4 to read: "The manufac tu re r shall provide informat ion for the user that

addit ional informat ion regarding life safety rope can be fo u n d at least in NFPA 1500, S tandard on Fire Depar tmen t Occupat ional Safety and Health Program, and NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components . " COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee has carefully reviewed the warning informat ion port ion of the product label an d has revised the text to simplify the label and for the warning port ion to carry only the most impor tan t warnings and where the user can seek the proper information. The Commit tee has also revised Section 3-6 to include more specific requi rements on what user informat ion the manufac tu re r will provide with the product.

(Log #155) 1983- 31 - (3-1.2.1): Reject SUBMIT]Eli: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mounta in Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change last words in the third paragraph to "remove and destroy". SUBSTANTIATION: The words "don ' t use" are more appropriate her as in label 3-2. The d o c u m e n t shou ld remain consistent th roughout . COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action on 1983-30 (Log #14).

(Log #1) 1983- 32 - (3-1.2.1, 3-9.2.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Jack Sawicld, GEOMET COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "made of thermoplast ic could melt"... "and could cause failure."

Insert "made of nonf l ame a n d / o r h e a t resistant material could fail without warning." SUBSTANTIATION: Ropes made of nonthermoplas t ic materials can also fail when exposed to f lame or heat, albeit without melting. Language used cou ld l ead firefighters to believe rope such as manila, hemp, etc. is safer than nylon/polyester . COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action on 1983-30 (Log #14).

(Log #69) 1983- 33 - (3-1.2.1(c)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 3-1.2.1 subsection (c) ROPE HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO ANY IMPACT LOAD. SUBSTANTIATION: At any t ime a p e r s o n transfers their weight to a rope, there is an impact load. A 950 Ib person t ransferr ing their weight to a rope will cause an impact load orS00 lb/f. Th e

N F P A 1983 n A 9 5 R O C

maximum working load of a one person rope is 300 lb. A person weighing 250 lb will cause significant impact load to such ropes without any fall conditions. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI"EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-30 (Log #14).

(Log #72) 1983. 34- (3.1.2.2): Accept SUBMI'I~I'ER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept.,. NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: After month and year of manufacture add (not coded).

SUBSTANTIATION: Instructions are clearer for the manufacturer. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

( Log #12) 1983. 35 - (3-1.2.2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983.1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The manufacturer shall state on the product label any additional warnings above these minimum requirements as might be necessary for the manufacturer's particular product given the design and construction of the product, the materials or component parts of the product, conditions of anticipated use that could cause harm to the user, or other considerations. Such additional warnings shall be part of the warning portion of the required product label" Renumber the remaining paragraphs.

SUBSTANTIATION: The recofiuffended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more clearly stated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter's suggested text is not clear and concise and would cause general confusion as to what should be placed on the warning label. Nothing in the standard prevents the manufacturers from adding whatever warnings to the label that they consider necessary.

(Log #61) 1983. 36 - (3.1.5): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMI~.NDATION: Delete 3-1.5 in its entirety. No applicable to this document. SUBSTANTIATION: Such ropes are communication lines and should be addressed in other standards, such as 1500. These ropes are not applicable to this standard. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATI~IENT: The Committee does not agree with th.e submitter as these ropes could be introduced for field use and the text provided by the Committeeprovides performance criteria that provides for the basic intent of the lifesafety rope.

1983- 37 - (3-2): Reject (Log #62) SUBMrFFER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 3-2 in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: To permitpersonal escape ropes to be included in these standards wouldcause confusion in the area of one person load roAoes and would cheapen these standards. COMMITrRR ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMi/2qT: See Committee Action on 1983.14 (Log #59).

(Log #94) 1983- 58 - (3-2.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Glenn Newell, Carroilton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Delete reference to year and quarter and (1- or 2-) person rope

from internal marking tape. Tape text should include:

"Meets requirements for Life Safety Rope of NFPA 1983, 1995 edition", Certifying organization's label, symbol, or identifying mark, Name of Manufacturer.

The section should continue with the following text: "Additional information to be provided inside the rope includes

identification of year and quarter of manufacture and 1- or 2-person rope designation." SUBSTANTIATION: The addition of this information is redundant for companies with an ISO 9000 QA/QC system that has the ability to provide 100 percent tracking of produced goods from production to sale. This type of system, required by many certification organizations, provides the manufacturer with information needed for any recall procedure.

Also, the cost of changing the tape on a quarterly basis will significantly increase the cost of production. The standard should allow for alternate methods of tracking production year and quarter (for example: intemal colored markers for production dates and separate marker tapes for 1- or 2-person rope information). This will allow the manufacturer to innovate andprovide even more accurate information to the rescuer through other marking methods. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983.29 (Log #93).

(Log #11) 1983- 39 - (3-2.2.1): Accept in Principle SLrBMITI'ER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-2.2.1 to read:

3-2.2.1 At least the following warnings shall be printed as the warning portion of the product label(s). All letters shall be at least 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) high. The format, color, and letter style of the warning portion of the product label shall be in accordance with Chapters 6, 7, and 8 of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and Labels.

A WARNING

YOU COULD BE SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED IF YOU DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING ROPE.

SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS ROPE. YOU MUST THOROUGHLY READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

USE THIS ROPE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

USE THIS ROPE ONLYFOR EMERGENCY SELF RESCUE ESCAPE. THIS IS A SINGLE PURPOSE, ONE PERSON, ONE TIME USE ROPE. ROPE MUST BE PREVIOUSLY UNUSED. DESTROY ROPE AFI~R USE.

USE THIS ROPE ONLY WITH LIFE SAFETY HARNESS, ESCAPE BELT, OR LADDER/ESCAPE BELT.

INSPECT ROPE PERIODICALLY ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURER'S INSPECTION PROCEDURE.

REMOVE THIS ROPE FROM SERVICE AND DESTROY IF THE ROPE DOES NOT PASS INSPECTION, OR IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SAFETY OR SERVICEABILITY OF THE ROPE.

PROTECT ROPE FROM ABRASION. DO NOT EXPOSE ROPE TO FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE.

CARRY ROPE WHERE IT WILL BE PROTECTED. THIS ROPE COULD BURN OR MELT AND FAIL IF EXPOSED TO FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE. REFER TO THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER USE. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS YOU

COULD BE SERIOUSLY INJURED ORYOU COULD DIE.

SAVE THIS LABEL

SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions for the minimum text of the warning portion of the product label provides more clear instructions to the reader of the label and user of t he product. Awkward text arrangement has been reworked to give more emphasis as to the dangers and instructions. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the warning label portion of 5-2.2.1 to read:

A WARNING

* YOU COUI~ BE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURF~ IFYOU DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL I~EFORE USING ROPE.

280

N F P A 1983 - - A 9 5 R O C

• SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS ROPE. • YOU MUST THOROUGHLY READ AND UNDERSTAND ALL

MANUFACq'URER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE. • USE AND INSPECT THIS ROPE ONLY IN ACCORDANCE

WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. • USE THIS ROPE ONLY FOR EMERGENCY SELF RESCUE/

ESCAPE. THIS IS A SINGLE PURPOSE, ONE PERSON, ONE TIME USE ROPE.

• ROPE MUST BE PREVIOUSLY UNUSED. DESTROY AFTER USEI

• REFER TO ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FURNISHED WITH THIS ROPE BEFORE USE. YOU CAN CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER AT (Manufacturer ~hali provide contact information here.I FOR IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION.

SAVE THIS LABEL"

Add new 3-6.2 to read: "Personal Escape Rope User Information." Add new 3-6.2.1 to read: "The ~anufacturer of personal escape rope that is certified as

being compliant with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with at least use criteria, inspection procedures, maintenance procedures, and retirement criteria for the product." Add new 3-6.2.2 to read: "The manufacturer shall provide information for the user about at

least the following issues: • (a) using the rope only with a life safety harness, escape belt, or ladder/escape belt.

(b) inspecting the rope periodically according to the manufacturer's inspection procedure.

(c) removing the-rope fi'o-m service and destroying if the rope does not pass inspe~:tion or-if there is any doubt about th~ safety o f serviceability of the rope.

(d) protecting the rope from abrasion. (e) not exposing the rope to flame or high temperature and

carrying the-rope~chere it-will be protectedas the-rope could melt or burn and fail if exposed to flame or high temperature.

(f) keeping the product label and user instructions/information after it is removed/separated from the rope for future reference.

(~) referring to the user instruclions/information before and after eacn use.

(h) cautioning that if the instructions/information are not followed that the user could be seriously injured or could die."

Add new 3-6.2.3 to read: "The manufacturer shall provide information for the user that

additional information regarding personal escape rope can be found at least in NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety and Health Program, and NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components." Add new 3-6.2.4 to read: "The manufacturer of personal escape rope that is certified as

being compliant with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with a sample of suggested records to be maintained by the purchaser or user of personal escape rope, and what items the records need to contain." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee has carefullyreviewed the warning information portion of the product label and has revised the text to simplify the label and for the warning portion to carry only the most important warnings and where the user can seek the proper information.-The Committee has also revised Section 3-6 to include more specific requirements on what user information the manufacturer will-provide ~ith the product.

(Log#156) 1983- 40- (3-2.2.1): Accept in Principle S U B ~ Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add appendix description of "destroy", or simply referer/ce the description from A-3-1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Since the term destroy is used in both these sections the description of destroyshould be re-referenced so that anyone who might be reading only this section will have the benefit of understanding. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add newA-3-2.2.1 to read: "The term "destroy" for the personal escape rope component

means that it should be removed from serwce and destroyed by cutting into less than one foot pieces, burning, or otherwise ruining the rope to prevent reuse." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Text added to the appendix as requested,

(Log #9) 1983- 41 - (3-2.2.2): Accept in Part SUBMITFER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork t~ity Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-2.2.2 (as numbered in the ROP) renumbered as 3-2.2.3 to read:

3-2.2.2* The following statement and information shall also be legibly printed on the product label (s). All letters shall be at least 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) high.

"THIS ROPE MEETS THE PERSONAL ESCAPE ROPE REQUIREMENTS OF NFPA 1983, STANDARD ON FIRE SERVICE LIFE SAFETY ROPE AND SYSTEM COMPONENTS, 1995 EDITION."

MAXIMUM WORKING LOAD _ _ lbf MINIMUM BREAKING STRENGTH: lbf CIRCUMFERENCE IN. DIAMETER: IN.

Certification organization's label, symbol, or identifying mark Type of fiber(s) Name of manufacturer Manufacturer's product identification Manufacturer's lot number Month and Year of manufacture Country of manufacture

SUBSTANTIATION: The maximum working load and circumference of the rope are important items for the user to know and need to be carried on the product label. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Part. Revise label text in 3-2.2.2 to read:

"THIS ROPE MEETS THE PERSONAL ESCAPE ROPE REQUIREMENTS OF NFPA 1983, STANDARD ON FIRE SERVICE LIFE SAFETY ROPE AND SYSTEM COMPONENTS, 1995 EDITION.

MAXIMUM WORKING LOAD - - lbf MINIMUM BREAKING STRENGTH: ~ lbf DIAMETER: IN."

Remainder of required information on the product label is unchanged. COMMIT~E STATEMENT: The Committee removed "circumference" as it is not used in rope work.

(Log #80) 1983- 42 - (3-2.2.2): Accept SUBMITrl~a Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMEN~ ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: After month and year of manufacture add (not coded).

SUI~TANTIATION: Enables the end user, purchaser and certification organization to easily interpret. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #10) 1983- 43 - (3-2.2.2 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The manufacturer shall state on the product label any additional warnings above these minimum requirements as might be necessary for the manufacturer's particular product given the design and construction of the product, the materials or component parts of the product, or conditions of anticipated use that could cause harm to the user, or other considerations. Such additional warnings shall be part of the warning portion. . of the required product label" Renumber the remalmng paragraphs.

S ~ A N T I A T I O N : The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more clearly stated. COMMITFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-35 (Log #12).

281

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C

(Log #45) 1983- 44- (3-2.2.4 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The m a x i m u m working load of the personal escape rope requi red to be stated on the p roduc t label shall be verified by the certification organization in accordance with Section 5-2." SUBSTANTIATION: The r e c o m m e n d e d revisions more clearly defines issues of p roduc t labels and provides certification organizations with m ore specific criteria for their inspect ions to de te rmine label compliance. The m i n i m u m requ i rements for providing warnings and the warning port ions of p roduc t labels are more clearly stated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See also Commi t tee Action on 1983-41 (Log #9), 1983-88 (Log #26), a n d 1983-90 (Log #27).

(Log #6) 1983- 45 - (3-2.2.6 (New)): Reject SLrBMITFER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 3-2.2.6 (to follow the r e n u m b e r e d 3-2.2.5) to read:

3-2.2.6 The c i rcumference o f the personal escape rope requi red to be stated on the p roduc t label shall be as de t e rmi ned by the certification organizat ion in accordance with 5-2.3.

R e n u m b e r 3-2.2.4 (as n u m b e r e d in the ROP) as 3-2.2.7. SUBSTANTIATION: T he r e c o m m e n d e d revisions more clearly defines issues o f p roduc t labels a n d provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspect ions to de te rmine label compliance. T he m i n i m u m requ i rements for providing warnings a nd the warning por t ions o f p roduc t labels are more clearly stated. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITYEE STATEMENT: See Commi t tee Action on 1983-41 (Log #9).

(Log #95) 1983- 46 - (3-3.1): Accept in Principle SUBMIT'rER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard needs to allow for al ternate materials for harness labeling. Section should be changed to read:

"Each life safety harness shall have a pe rmanen t ly affixed label or labels sewn with synthetic thread, or a riveted metal plate product label or labels." SUBSTANTIATION: The s tandard limits materials for harness labels to synthetic fabrics. T he s tandard needs to allow o ther label materials such as polymer shee t ing that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more p e r m a n e n t than fabrics. Section 6-4.5 ensures durability of label. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 3-3.1 to read: "Each life safety harness shall have a pe rmanen t ly affixed produc t

label or labels." Add new 5-3.13 to read: "Product labels used on life safety harnesses system componen t s

shall be tested as specified in 6-5.5.5, Heat Resistance Test. Product labels shall n o t melt, ignite, or separate and shall be legilSle to the una ided eye with 20/20 vision, or vision corrected to 20/20, at a nomina l distance of 12 in. (30.5 cm)."

Add new 6-5.6 to read: 6-5.6 Product Label Heat Resistance Test. 6-5.6.1 The p roduc t label spec imen to be tested shall be

condi t ioned in accordance with Section 4, "Atmospheric Condit ions for Testing," of Federal Tes t Method Standard 191A, Textile T e s t Methods, at a relative humidi ty of 65 percent , 5:5 percent . Specimens shall be tested no t more than 5 min. after removal f rom condit ioning.

6-5.6.2 Spec imens shall be s u s p e n d e d in the oven utilizing metal clips.

6-5.6.3 The forced circulating air oven shall achieve and mainta in an air t empera tu re of400°F, +10/-0°F (205°C, +3/-0°C) for a period of no t less than 5 min. Oven recovery t ime after the door is closed shall no t exceed 1 rain.

6-5.6.4 The produc t label spec imen shall be suspended by metal hooks at the top and centered in the oven so tha t the entire spec imen is no t less than 2 in. (50.8 m m ) f rom any oven surface or o ther spec imen and airflow is parallel to the plane o f the material.

6-5.6.5 Specimens, m o u n t e d as specified in 6-5.6.4 of this Section, shall be placed in the circulating air oven for 5 min., +0.15/-0 min. Specimen exposure t ime shall begin when the oven has recovered to an air t empera tu re of 400°F, +10/-0°F (205°C, +3/-0°C).

6-5.6.6 Results shall be repor ted as pass or fail." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Commit tee agrees with the submit ter and modif ied the sugges ted text to keep the same style as the rest of the section. Also, the Commit tee agrees tha t the p roduc t label shou ld no t be l imited to one type or any selection of types of materials and modif ied the suggested text to expand the possibilities for materials for p roduc t labels. The Commi t tee added a new per formance r equ i r emen t for heat resistance of p roduc t label materials to assure that they are no t a safety concern an d added a test m e t h o d to evaluate the performance.

282

(Log #8) 1983-47- (3-3.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBM1TrER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-3.1.1 (as n u m b e r e d in the ROP) to read:

3-3.1.1 At least the following warnings shall be pr in ted as tiae warning por t ion of the p roduc t label(s). All letters shall be at least 1 /16 in. (1.6 ram) high. The format, color, a n d letter style of the warning por t ion of the p roduc t label shall be in accordance with Chapter ~, 7, and 8 of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs an d labels .

/ ~ WARNING

YOU COULD BE SERIOUSLY INJURED O R ~ IFYOU DO N O T READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING HARNESS.

SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS HARNESS. YOU MUST THOROUGHLY READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE. USE THIS HARNESS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH

MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

DO NOT REMOVE THIS LABEL

DO NOT EXPOSE HARNESS TO FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE. CARRY HARNESS WHERE IT WILL BE PROTECTED. THIS HARNESS COULD BURN OR MELT AND FAIL IF EXPOSED TO FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE.

INSPECT HARNESS PERIODICALLY AND BEFORE AND AFTER EACH USE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSPECTION PROCEDURE.

REMOVE THIS HARNESS FROM SERVICE AND DO N O T USE IF HARNESS DOES N O T PASS INSPECTION, OR IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SAFETY OR SERVICEABILITY OF THE HARNESS.

REPAIR THIS HARNESS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

REFER TO THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER EACH USE.

IF YOU DO N O T FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS YOU BE SERIOUSLY IN|URED OR YOU COULD DIE. SUBSTANTIATION: The r e c o m m e n d e d revisions for the minimum text of the warning por t ion of the p roduc t label provides more clear instruct ions to the reader of the label and user of the product . Awkward text a r r a n g e m e n t has been reworked to give more emphas is as to the dangers and instructions. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise the warning label por t ion of 3-3.1.1 to read:

/ ~ WARNING

• YOU COULD BE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED IFYOU DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING HARNESS.

• SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS HARNESS.

• YOU MUST T H O R O U G H L Y READ AND UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S "INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

• USE AND INSPECT THIS HARNESS ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

• REFER TO ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FURNISHED WITH THIS HARNESS BEFORE USE. YOU CAN CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER AT (Manufacturer shall nrovide contact informat ion here . ) . FOR IMPORTANT ,SAFETY INFORMATION.

DO N O T REMOVE THIS LABEL"

N F P A 1983 - - A 9 5 R O C

Add new 3-6.3 to read: 3-6.3 Life Safety Harness User Information. Add new 3-6.3.1 to read: "The manufacturer of life safety harness that is certified as being

compliant with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with at least use criteria, inspect ionprocedures , maintenance procedures, and ret i rement criteria for the product."

Add new 3-6.3.2 to read: "The manufacturer shall provide information for the user about at

least the following issues: (a) inspecting the harness periodically according to the

manufacturer 's inspection procedure. (b) removing the harness from service and destroying if the

harness does no t pass inspection or if there is any doubt about the safety or serviceability of the harness.

(c) not exposing the harness to flame or high temperature and carrying the harness where it will be pro tec tedas the harness could melt or burn and fail if exposed to flame or high temperature.

(d) repairing the harness only in accordance with manufacturer 's instructions

(e) keeping the user instruct ions/ information after it is separated from the'hariaess and retaining it in a pe rmanen t record; co~ying the user instructions/informataon and-keeping the copy witfi the harness. e (t)acta referringuse, to the user instruct ions/ information before and after

(g) cautioning that ff the instruct ions/ information are no t followed that the user could be seriously injured or could die."

Add new 3-6.3.3 to read: "The manufacturer shall provide information for the user that

additional information regarding life safety harness can be found at least in NFPA 1500, Standar- d onq~ire Depar tment Occupational Safety and Health Program, and NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components ."

Add new 3-6.3.4 to read: "The manufacturer of life safety harness that is certified as being

compliant with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with a sample of suggested records to be maintained'by the purchaser or user of life s~ety harness, and what items the records need to contain." COMMITrFA~ STATEMENT: The Committee has carefullyreviewed the warning information port ion of the product label and has revised the text to simplL~ the label and for the warning port ion to carry only the most important warnings and where the user can seek the proper information. The Committee has also revised Section 3-6 to include more specific requirements on what user information the manufacturer will-provide with the product-

(Log #157) 1983- 48 - (3-3.1.1): Reject SUBMITrlgR: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "color". SUBSTANTIATION: This paragraph pertains to both fabric labels and riveted metal plate labels. While it may be feasible to add color to a fabric label, doing so in reasonably permanen t fashion for a riveted label is less viable, f f t he standard wishes to allow metal plate labels the requirement for these should be the same as for fabric labels and nei ther should require color to be a part of the label. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Actions on 1983-47 (Log #8) and 1983-46 (Log #95).

(Log #81) 1983- 50 - (3-3.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: After month and year of manufacture add (not coded).

SUBSTANTIATION: Enables the end user, purchaser and certification organization to easily interpret. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept-

(Log #96) 1983- 51 - (3-3.1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard should not allow for detachable multiple part class III harnesses. Delete part (c) from the section. SUBb~I'ANTIATION: Multiple piece Class III harnesses should not be allowed because pieces can be separated and labeling may " mislead user because pieces have not been tested and certified as labels ex., Class III label on Seat with class II on chest. Also, current 2 piece class III harness design have adverse

physiological effects on the wearer if a fall occurs. Current 2 piece design places a main support strap parallel to the spin, connect ing to the seat port ion in the lumbar region of the body. A dynamic force applied to the "D" ring between the shoulder blades will be transmitted along the spine strap to the waist belt. At this point, the seat harness behaves more like a waist belt than a harness. Decades of fall protect ion research shows that dynamic forces should be applied to the waist belt at a point near the top outside of the pelvis. Forces applied at these points will be evenly distributed to the legs, waist and sub-pelvis areas of the harness. COMMITI~E ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Labeling problem has been addressed. The support strap location is not exclusive to a 1-piece or 2-piece harness and therefore the standard does no t comment on possible adverse physiological effects of any harness.

(Log #46) 1983- 52 - (3-3.1.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The manufacturer shall state on the product label any additional warnings above these min imum requirements as might be necessary for the manufacturer 's particular product given the design and construction of the product, the materials or componen t parts o f the product, or conditions of anticipated use that could cause harm to the user, or other considerations. Such additional warn in~ shall be part of the warning portion of the required product label.

Renumber the remaining paragraphs. SUBSTANTIATION: The r ecommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to de termine label compliance. The min imum requirements for providin~ warnings and the warning portions o f product labels are more clearly stated. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-35 ( Log #12).

(Log #7) 1983- 49 - (3-3.1.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 3-3.1.1 to read:

3-3.1.1 More than one label piece s-hallbe permit ted in order to carry all warnings, statements, and information required of the product label, however, all label pieces comprising the entire product label shall be located adjacent to each other.

Renumber the remaining paragraphs. SUBSTANTIATION: The r ecommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to de'~ermine label complianke. The minirhum requirehaents for providing warnings and the warning portions o f product labels are more clearlystated. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept-

(Log #97) 1983-53- (3-4.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard needs to allow for alternate materials for harness labeling. Section should be changed to read:

"Each life safety harness shall have a permanently affixed label or labels sewn with synthetic thread, or a riveted metal plate product label or labels." SUBSTANTIATION: The standard limits materials for harness labels to synthetic fabrics. The standard needs to allow other label materials such as polymer sheeting that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more pe rmanen t than fabrics. Section 6-4.5 ensures durability of label. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMIq[TEE STATI~IENT: See Committee Action on 1983-46 (Log #95).

283

N F P A 1983 - - A 9 5 R O C

(Log #48) 1983- 54 - (5-4.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise 3-4.1.1 (as numbered in the ROP) to read:

3-4.1.1 At least the following warnings shall be printed as the warning portion of the product label(s). All letters shall be at least 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) high. The format, color, and letter style of the warning portion of the product label shall be in accordance with Chapter 6, 7, and 8 of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and Labels.

/ / ~ WARNING

YOU COULD BE SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED IF YOU DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING BELT. SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO

USE THIS BELT. THOROUGHLYREAD AND FULLY UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

USE THIS BELT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

DO NOT USE THIS BELT AS A LIFE SAFETY HARNESS. THIS BELT IS N O T A LIFE SAFETY HARNESS--IT IS DESIGNED FOR USE AS A PERSONAL PROTECTIVE DEVICE.

DO NOT EXPOSE BELT TO FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE. CARRY BELT WHERE IT WILL BE PROTECTED. THIS BELT COULD BURN OR MELT AND FAIL IF EXPOSED TO FLAME OR HIGH TEMPERATURE.

INSPECT BELT PERIODICALLY AND BEFORE AND AFTER EACH USE ACCA3RDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSPECTION PROCEDURE.

REMOVE THIS BELT FROM SERVICE AND DO NOT USE IF BELT DOES NOT PASS INSPECTION, OR IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE SAFETY OR SERVICEABILITY OF THE BELT. REPAIR THIS BELT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH

MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. REFER TO THESE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER EACH

USE. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS YOU BE

SERIOUSLY INJURED OR YOU COULD DIE.

DO NOT REMOVE THIS LABEL

SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions for the minimum text of the warning portion of the product label provides more clear instructions to the reader of the label and user of the product. Awkward text arrangement has been reworked to give more emphasis as to the dangers and instructions.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise the warning label portion of 3-4.1.1 to read:

/ / / ~ WARNING

• YOU COULD BE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED IFYOU DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING THIS BELT.

• SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS BELT.

• YOU MUST THOROUGHLY READ AND UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

• USE AND INSPECT THIS BELT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

• DO NOT USE THIS BELT AS A LIFE SAFETY HARNESS - IT IS DESIGNED ONLY FOR USE AS A PERSONAL PROTECTIVE DEVICE.

• REFER TO ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FURNISHED WITH THIS BELT BEFORE USE. YOU CAN CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER AT (Manufacturer shall orovide contact information hereA FOR IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION.

DO NOT REMOVE THIS LABELI"

Add new 3-6.4 to read: 3-6.4 Belt User Information. Add new 3-6.4.1 to read: "The manufacturer of belts that are certified as being compliant

with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with at least use criteria, inspection procedures, maintenance procedures, and retirement criteria for the product." Add new 3-6.4.2 to read:

"The manufacturer shall provide information for the user about at least the foUowing issues:

(a) inspecting the belt periodically according to the manufacturer's inspection procedure.

(b) removing the belt from service and destroying if the belt does not pass inspection or if there is any doubt about the safety or serviceability of the belt.

(c) not exposing the belt to flame or high temperature and carrying the belt where it will be protected as the belt could melt or bum and fail if exposed to flame or high temperature..

(d) repairing the belt only in.accordance with manufacturer's instructions

(e) keeping the user instructions/information after it is separated from the belt and retaining it in a permanent record; copying the user instructions/information and keeping the copy with the belt.

(0 referring to the user instructions/information before and after each use.

(g) cautioning that if the instructions/information are not followed that the user could be seriously injured or could die."

Add new 3-6.4.3 to read: "The manufacturer shall provide information for the user that

additional information regarding belts can be found at least in NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Deparmaent Occupational Safety and Health Program, and NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components." Add new 36.4.4 to read: "The manufacturer of belts that are certified as being compliant

with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with a sample of suggested records to be maintained by the purchaser or user of belts, and what items the records need to contain." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee has carefully reviewed the warning information portion of the product label and has revised the text to simplify the label and for the warning portion to carry only the most important warnings and where the user can seek the proper information. The Committee has also revised Section 3-6 to include more specific requirements on what user information the manufacturer will provide with the product.

(Log #54) 1983- 55 - (3-4.1.1): Reject S L I B ~ Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

:5-4.1.1 Product label warning, third paragraph, revised to read: "THIS BELT IS DESIGNED FOR USE AS A LOWERING DEVICE

OR AS A SELF RESCUE DEVICE AND DOES NOT MEET NFPA REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE SAFETY HARNESS." SUBSTANTIATION: The above proposal is submitted to include the use of life belts for the purpose of lowering a rescuer to effect a service pickup. These belts have been used during my thirty years of experience and usage without incident- Additionally, documentation cannot be presented to support any statement of incident. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-6 (Log #57).

(Log #47) 1983- 56- (3-4.1.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"More than one label piece shall be permitted in order to carry all warnings, statements, and information required of the product label; however, all label pieces comprising the entire product label shall be located ad'acent9 to each other." Renumber the remaining paragraphs.

SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more dearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to de~ermine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more clearly stated. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept.

284

N F P A 1983 m A 9 5 R O C

(Log #82) 1983- 57- (3-4.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Remove the word (uncoded) from after manufacturer's lot or serial number and add (not coded) after Month and year of manufacture. SUBSTANTIATION: The term (not coded) was placed after the wrong phrase. COMMI3[TEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #49) 1983- 58 - (3-4.1.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santoca, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The manufacturer shall state on the product label any additional warnings above these minimum requirements as might be necessary for the manufactureFs particular product given the design and construction of the product, the materials or component parts of the product, conditions of anticipated use that could cause harm to the user, or other considerations. Such additional warnings shall be part of the warning portion of the required product label.

Renumber the remaining paragraphs. SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more clearly stated. COMMITIT.E ACTION: Reject. COMMITI~E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983.35 (Log #12).

(Log #158) 1983- 59 - (3.5.1): Accept SUBMITFER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983.1 RECOMMENDATION: After the words "Minimum Rated Breaking Strength" add:

(This figure shall be prefaced by the letters MBS). SUBSTANTIATION: Industrial Equipment is usually marked with a strength rating which refers to Safe Working Load. Due to the different needs of rescuers it is more practical to provide brealting strength figures so that appropriate safety factors may be adheredto as needs change. To avoid confusion it is prudent to require some sort of delineation for the users benefit. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept. Also revise Section 1-3 Definitions for "Minimum Breaking

Strength." to read: "Minimum Breaking Strength (MBS)..."

(Log #50) 1983. 60 - (3.5.1.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983.1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"Load-bearing software auxiliary equipment shall have either a synthetic fabric product label or labels printed with the required product label information, or a metal product label or labels permanently stamped or engraved with the required product label reformation. Synthetic fabric product label(s) shall be sewn, stapled, riveted, or otherwise permanently afftxed to the auxiliary equip ment; and metal product ..label(s) shall, be riveted, or otherwise permanently affixed to the auxflmary eqmpment. SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for

• providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more clearly stated. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTF.E STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-46 (Log #95).

(Log #98) 1983. 61 - (3-5.1.1): Accept in Prindl31e SUBMITTRR: Glenn Newell, Carroliton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983.1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard needs to allow for alternate materials for auxiliary equipment labeling. Section should be changed to read:

"Load-bearing software auxiliary equipment shall have a label or labels sewn, stapled, riveted, or otherwise permanently alTlxed; or a metal product label or labels permanently stamped or engraved with the required information." SUBSTANTIATION: The standard limits materials for harness labels to synthetic fabrics. The standard needs to allow other label materials such as polymer sheeting that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more permanent than fabrics. Section 6-4.5 ensures durability of label. COMMFITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1985-46 (Log #95).

(Log #51 ) 1983. 62- (3-5.1.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983.1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"More than one label piece shall be permitted in order to carry all warnings, statements, and information required of the product label; however, all label pieces comprising the entire product label shall be located adjacent to each other.

Renumber the remaining paragraphs. SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more clearly stated. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #52) 1983. 63 - (3.5.1.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"Load-bearing hardware auxiliary equipment shall be stamped, engraved, or otherwise permanently marked with the required product label information." "Renumber 3-5.2 (as ~umbered in the ROP) to become the last

~ aragraph in the section. UBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more clearly

defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more ciearly stated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #99) 1983- 64 - (3-5.2): Reject SUBMITrERa Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section. SUBSTANTIATION: Fire/rescue personnel are not the only users of these products and manufacturers cannot produce items that only bear the NFPA labels. There is a possible marking conflict with other standard organizations for same/similar products. These products are also covered in ANSI Z359.1 as well as being referenced lnproposed ASTM Rescue Equipment Committee (F32). C O ~ ACTION: Reject. COMMITrRE STATEMENT: Users need a way to easily identify types of anxiliary equipment to determine intended use. The requirements of this standard to not exclude other marks from being placed on the equipment and therefore should not interfere with marking as required by other documents.

285

NFPA 1983 i _ A95 ROC

(Log #53) 1983- 65 - (3-5.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY " COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The manufacturer shall state on the product label any warnings that might be necessary for the manufacturer's particular product given the design and construction of the product, the materials or component parts of the product, conditions of anticipated use that could cause harm to the user, or other considerations. Such warnings shall become the warning portion of the required product label." SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more dearly stated. COMMYITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new 3-5.1 to read: "Auxiliary equipment shall have a product label affixed to each

piece." Add new 3-5.1.1 to read: "At least the following warnings shall be printed as the warning

portion of the product label(s). All letters shall be at least 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) high. The format, color, and letter style of the warning

g ortion of the product label shall be in accordance with Chapter 6, , mad 8 of ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and Labels.

~ WARNING

• YOU COULD BE KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED IFYOU DO NOT READ AND UNDERSTAND THIS LABEL BEFORE USING THIS PIECE OF AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT.

• SPECIAL TRAINING AND KNOWLEDGE ARE REQUIRED TO USE THIS EQUIPMENT.

• YOU MUST THOROUGHLY ~ AND UNDERSTAND ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE.

• USE AND INSPECT THIS EQUIPMENT ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.

• REFER TO ADDITIONAL MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FURNISHED WITH THIS EQUIPMENT BEFORE USE. YOU CAN CONTACT THE MANUFACTURER AT (Manufacturer shall nrovide contact information hereA FOR IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION.

SAVE THIS LABEL"

Revise mad renumber 3-5.1 (ROP) to read: "3-5.1.2 The following statement and information shall also be

legibly printed..." Renumber new 3-5.1.1 (ROC LogS1), 3-5.2.2 (ROC Log 20), and

3-5.2.3 (ROC Log 21) as 3-5.1.3, 3-5.1.4, and 3-5.1.5 respectively. Renumber 3-5.1.1, 3-5.1.2, mad 3-5.1.3 (all ROP) as 3-5.1.6, 3-5.1.7,

and 3-5.1.8 respectively. Add new 3-6.5to read: 3-6.5 Auxiliary Equipment User Information. Add new 3-6.5.1 to read: "The manufacturer of auxiliary equipment that is certified as being

compliant with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with at least use criteria, inspection procedures, maintenance procedures, and retirement criteria for the product." Add new 3-6.5.9 to read:

"The manufacturer shall provide information for the user about at least the following issues:

(a) inspecting the auxiliary equipment periodically according to the manufacturer's inspection procedure.

(b) removing the auxiliary equipment from service if the equipment does not pass inspection or if there is any doubt about the safety or serviceability of the equipment.

(c) maintaining the auxiliary equipment in accordance with manufacturer's instructions when metal components are subjected to corrosion or deterioration.

(d) returning auxiliary equipment to manufacturer or to a qualified inspection person/center if equipment is dropped or impact loaded.

(re) not exposing the software auxiliary equipment to flame or high temperature and carrying the e~uipment w-here it will be protectecI as it could melt or burn and fail if exposed to flame or high temperature.

(f) repairinl{ the auxiliary equipment only in accordance with manufacturer s instructions.

(g) keeping the user instructions/information after it is separated from the aux]iiary equipment mad retaining it in a permanen- t record; copying the user instructions/info(mation and keeping the copy with the equipment.

(h) referring to the user instructions/information before mad after each use.

(i) cautioning that if the instructions/information are not followed that the user could be seriously injured or could die." Add new 3-6.5.3 to read: "The manufacturer shall provide information for the user that

additional information regarding auxiliary equipment can be found at least in NFPA 1500, Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety mad Health Program, and NFPA 1983, Standard on Fire Service Life Safety Rope and System Components." Add new 3-6.5.4 to read: "The manufacturer of anxiliary equipment that is certified as being

compliant with this standard shall furnish the purchaser with a sample of suggested records to be maintainedby the purchaser or user of the auxiliary equipment, and what items the records need to contain." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee has carefully reviewed " the warning information portion of the product label and has revised the text to simplify the label and for the warning portion to carry only the most important warnings and where the user can seek the proper information. The Committee has also revised Section $-6 to include more specific requirements on what user information the manufacturer will provide with the product.

(Log #20) 1983- 66 - (3-5.2.2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The warning portion of the product label for any auxiliary equipment shallbe permitted to be a separate label from the remainder of theproduct label information." SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requirements for providing warnings mad the warning portions of product labels are more clearly stated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #21) 1983- 67- (3-5.2.3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"Where the warning portion of the product label is a separate label, that warning portion label shall be permitted to be hand tag affixed to each piece of auxiliary equipment, or shall be permitted to be printed on a sheet that is inserted mad sealed in the packaging that immediately contains the piece of auxiliary equipment." SUBSTANTIATION: The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific criteria for their inspections to determine label compliance/The minimum requireinents for providing warnings and the warning portions of product labels are more dearly stated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #22) 1983- 68 - (3-5.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Ale~nder W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

~Where multiple l?ieces of the same items of auxiliary equipment are packaged in a single package by the manufacturer, each package shall have the product label; including the warning portion, it' ma X printed on the top mad at least on other side of the package in ~ldition to the required product label for each piede of a~uxiliary equipment as required by this section." SUBSTANTIATI-ON: The recommended revisions more clearly defines issues of product labels and provides certification organizations with more specific crit~:ria for their inspections to determine label compliance. The minimum requireinents for providing warnin~ and the warning portions o f product labels are more clekrly stated. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT.. See Committee Action on 1983-67 (Log #21).

286

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C

(Log #23) 1983- 69 - (345.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The manufac tu re r of life safety rope of system componen t s tha t are certified as being compl iant with this s tandard sh~ll furnish the purchaser with a model for records to be main ta ined by the purchaser or user of life safety rope and other system components , and what i tems the records need to contain." SUBSTANTIATION: T he added text provides better direction to the manufac ture rs as to what informat ion is impor tan t to the end user and needs to be delivered with the product , as well as notifying the purchaser of the impor tance of providing such informat ion to the actual user. COMMI'VI'EE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Add new 3-6.1.5 to read: "The manufac tu re r of life safety rope that is certified as being

compl iant with this s tandard shall furnish the purchaser with a sample of suggested records to be main ta ined by the purchaser or user of life safety rope, a n d what i tems the records need to contain." COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The Commit tee did no t feel tha t the te rm "model" was clear and modif ied the suggest t e rm to explain the in tent more clearly.

(Log #24) 1983- 70 - (3-6.3 (New)): Reject SUBMITTERa Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new paragraph 3-6.3 to read:

3-6.3* The manufac tu re r of life safety rope or personal escape rope that is certified as being compl iant with this s tandard shall notify the purchaser in writing tha t at least the informat ion on the product label(s) and the informat ion required by 3-6.1 is in tended to reach the person or persons, the end users, who will use the rope. Such notification shall include, as a m i n i m u m , that where the purchaser or o ther user agency removes p roduc t label(s) and other informat ion f rom the life safety rope or personal escape rope to be placed in a rope record or otherwise not leave the product-label(s) a t tached to the ropes, the p roduc t label(s) and the informat ion required in 3-6.1 shall be reproduced and provided to the end users receiving the rope. Such notification shall also include, as a m in imum, that where the purchaser or o ther user agency has long lengths of life safety rope or personal escape rope, that will be cut by the purchaser or o ther user agency and made into individual life safety ropes or personal escape ropes, the product label(s) and informat ion required in 3-6.1 sha l lbe reproduced and provided to the end users receiving the rope. SUBSTANTIATION: The added text provides better direction to the manufac ture rs as to what informat ion is impor tan t to the end user and needs to be delivered with the product , as well as notifying the purchaser of the impor tance of providing such informat ion to the actual user. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The suggested text is very end user or iented and is no t appropr ia te for this document . The suggestions will be referred to the appropria te committee.

(Log #100) 1983- 71 - (4-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change entire section on harness classifications to those inc luded in NFPA 1983, 1990 edition. 1990 edition sections 4-1.1 t h rough 4-1.3 to replace sections 4-3.1.1 t h rough 4-3.2. SUBSTANTIATION: Utilizing the proposed classifications move the NFPA fur ther f rom established NFPA/ANSI /OSHA harness classifications. Making the change will add confusion to the rescuer that mus t comply with OSHA s tandards (conf ined space responses at industrial plants). COMMrI'TEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: T he commit tee does not agree that his will add confusion. NFPA 1983 would mee t or exceed ANSI 10.14.

287

(Log #101) 1983- 72 - (4-3.1.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Remove reference to one-person load harnesses.

"Harness that fastens a round waist and a round thighs or u n d e r buttocks and des igned to be used for emergency escape shall be designated as Class I life safety harness." SUBSTANTIATION: Object to any reference to a harness for one- person load. This te rminology implies that there should be harnesses des igned to hold two-persons. The practice of a t taching a victim directly to the rescuers is inherent ly unsafe and endangers no t only the victim bu t also the rescuer. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Submit ter addresses condit ions of use no t addressed in this s tandard.

" (Log#102) 1983- 73 - (4-3.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Neweli, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Remove reference to two-person load harnesses.

"Harness that fastens a round waist and a round thighs or u n d e r buttocks and des igned for rescue shall be designated as Class II life safety harness.. ." SUBSTANTIATION: Object to any reference to a harness for two- person load. This terminology implies that it is to hold two-persons. The practice of a t taching a victim directly to the rescuers is inherent ly unsafe and endangers no t only the victim but also the r e s c u e r .

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Commit tee Action on 1983-72 (Log#101) .

(Log #103) 1983- 74 - (4-3.1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Remove references to two-person loads and two part Class III harnesses. Section to read:

"Harness that fastens a round waist, a r o u n d thighs, or u n d e r buttocks, and over shoulders , and is des igned for rescue where inverting migh t occur, shall be designated as Class II life safety harness. Class III life safety harness shall be of a one-piece design." SUBSTANTIATION: I object to any reference to a harness for two- person load. This terminology implies that it is to hold two-persons. The practice of a t taching a victim directly to the rescuers is inherent ly unsafe and endangers no t only the victim but also the rescuer.

Multiple piece Class III harnesses should no t be allowed because

~ ieces can be separated and labeling may confuse or mislead user ecause pieces have not been tested and certified as labeled. For

example: the lower half of a 2-piece Class III harness is a Class II seat harness t hough it may include a Class III label.

Also, cur ren t 2 piece Class llI harness design have adverse physiological effects on the wearer. Cur ren t des ign place a main suppor t s trap.along the spin a t taching to the seat por t ion in the lumbar region of the body. A dynamic force applied to the "D" ring between the shou lder blades will be t ransmit ted a long the spine strap to the waist belt. The seat harness t hen behaves m o re like a waist belt than a harness. Decades of fall protect ion research shows that dynamic forces should be applied to the waist belt at a point near the top outside of the pelvis. Forces applied at these points will be evenly distr ibuted to the legs, waist and sub-pelvis areas of the harness. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT.- See Commit tee Action on 1983-51 (Log #96), 1983-73 (Log#102) , a n d 1983-72 (Log #101).

(Log #55) 1983- 75 - (4-4.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

4-4.1.2 A belt tha t fastens only a r o u n d the waist and is i n t ended for use by the wearer as a lowering device to lower a rescuer to effect a rescue of a person or as a serf rescue device shall be .designated as an escape belt.

N F P A 1983 - - A95 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: The above proposal is submitted to include the use of life belts for the purpose of lowering a rescuer to effect a pickup rescue of a person. These belts have been used for such purpose for generations and without incident. Documentat ion cannot be presented to support any statement of incident. COMMITrEE ACTION: R~ect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1985-6 (Log #57).

(Log #56) 1985- 76 - (4-4.1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

4-4.1.3 A belt that fastens only around the waist and is in tended for use as a positioning device for a person on ladder and also in tended for use by the wearer as a lowering device to lower a rescuer to effect a rescue of a person and as a self rescue device shall be designated as a ladder /escape belt. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal is submitted to include the use of life belts for the purpose of lowering a rescuer to effect a rescue dPickup. Such operations have been conducted without incident for

ecades. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1985-6 (Log #57).

( Log #104) 1985- 77 - (4-4.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Coxrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to read:

"The ladder belt tether or device that connects the wearer to a ladder'shall be permanent ly affixed to the ladder belt or at tached with automatic locking connectors that meet current ANSI Z359.1 standards for connect ing hardware (carabiner, snap links) and shall not be greater than 18 in. (45.72 cm) in length." SUBSTANTIATION: The standard should include provisions for situations where an industrial-type lanyard with a locking snap is attached to the belt. This will allow multiple use of belt and single use of lanyards with fall protect ion shock absorbers. COMMrITEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: Paragraph 4-4.6 requires the device to be permanently affixed and does no t address methods of a t tachment using other connectors that could be utilized in the field.

(Log #29) 1985- 78 - (4-5.2.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The designation of "personal use" shall apply to auxiliary equipment in tended for the sole use of the rescuer for personal escape or self. rescue, or for the. sole use of the rescuer in gaining access to wctims. The designation of "personal use" shall no t be applied to auxiliary equipment in tended for use where the system could be subjected to the load of two or n~ore persons." SUBSTANTIATION: More detail needs to be given about "general" and "personal" designations so that the manufacturer can properly mark the auxiliary equipment item and the certification organization can properly evaluate the product. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log#31) 1983- 79 - (4-5.2.2 (New)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The designation of "general use" shall apply to auxiliary equipment in tended for use where the system will be subjected to the load of two or more persons." SUBSTANTIATION: More detail needs to be given about "general" and "personal" designations so that the manufacturer can properly mark the auxiliary equipment item and the certification organization can properly evaluate the product. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 4-5.2.~ to read:

"The designation of "general use" shall apply to auxiliary equipment in tended for use where the system could be subjected to a two person load."

Add to Section 1-3 Definitions a new definition to read: "General Use. A designation of auxiliary equipment system

components in tended for use where the system could be subjected to a two person load." COMMrI'TEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter and has modified the suggested text for clarity. In addition, the Committee has added a new definition of the term "general use" to the definitions section to assist in proper understanding.

(Log #79) 1985- 80 - (4-5.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

4-5.3 Second sentence to read: "Castings shall meet Class I, Grade A requirements of MIL-STD

2175A, Castings, Classification and Inspection of. SUBSTANTIATION: Puqpose of the standard is to prescribe nondestructive testing and inspection of castings, all requirements are quality related. COMMIT]tEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #105) 1985- 81 - (4-5.3): Reject SUBMITrER= Glenn Newell, Carroliton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change inspection requirements for cast parts.

"...Castings shall meet quality assurance requirements of Class I, MIL-STD-2175A, Casin~, Classification and Inspection of Radiographic Grade B.' S ~ A N T I A T I O N : Cast parts should be inspected to MIL-STD- 2175 Grade B. Grade A inspection exceeds the standards for test levels in aircraft and space shuttle parts. This is an extreme over-kill in the inspection of these products. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The requirements of this standard are for direct life support hardware. Grade B is a lower level of radiography a n d n o t considered adequate by the Committee. See also Committee Action on 1983-80 (Log #79).

(Log #159) 1985- 82 - (4-5.5): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Strike the abbreviation Ib and replace with lbf. Strike 1134 k g a n d replace with 11.19 kN. SUBSTANTIATION: Throughout this document and throughout accepted industry test practices "force" is the preferred expression rather than weight. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

( Log #160) 1985- 83 - (5-1.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the entire paragraph as it references minimum elongation. SUI]kb'TANTIATION: Test Method 191Aas referenced by this paragraph does not specify test methodology for "minimum elongation". Due to wide variations in rope diameters the test methodology prescribed in 191A is inappropriate for use in drawing correlations between elongation figures. Until more appropriate test methodology can be found or written, references to such minimum elongation is inappropriate as well as unsubstanliated. COMMITtEE,ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 5-1.3 to read." "The minimum elongation of all new life safety rope shall no t be

less than 15 pe rcen t at 75 percent of breaking strength when tested as specified in 6-1.1, Breaking and Elongation Testing." COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Although the precision of FTMS 191A (referenced in 6-1.1) does no t allow accurate measurement at lower requirements, it can be measured at h igher levels. The Committee

288

N F P A 1 9 8 3 - - A 9 5 R O C

has modified the performance requirement in 5-1.3 to allow proper evaluation of the performance by the available test method.

(Log #161) 1983- 84- (5-1.4, 5-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMI'I'rER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-I RECOMMENDATION: Delete "10 percent at 300 lbf (1.34 kN), 15 percent at 600 lbf (2.67 kN), and 45 percent at 75 percent of breaking strength" replace with "3 percent at 300 lbf (1.34 kN) and 5 percent at 600 lbf (2.67 kN)". SUBSTANTIATION: The figures as originally written into the document are more indicative of recreational sport climbing rope than of rescue rope. Some elongation is desirable in a rescue rope in order to help absorb energy in the event of a 0.25 factor fall, as discussed elsewhere in the document. However, too much elongation makes a rope difficult to handle and potentially dangerous under the loads encountered and methods of rope use in rescue situations. As previously defined, if two firefighters are 100 ft down the side of a building and suddenly load the rope they may travel up to 15 ft as the rope stretches. COMMrrrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 5-1.4* to read: "The maximum elongation of all new life safety rope shall not be

more than 45percent at 75 percent of breaking strength when tested as specified in 6-1.1, Breaking and Elongation Testing." Revise 5-2.2".to read: "The maximum elongation of all new personal escape rope shall

not be more than 45 percent at 75 percent of breakifig strength when tested as specified in 6-2.1, Breaking and Elongation Testing." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-83 (Log #160).

(Log #106) 1985- 85 - (5-1.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence to read:

"The subsequent result shall be rounded to the nearest 1/16 in. (0.4 mm)." SUBSTANTIATION: 1/32 of an inch is imperceivable to most rescue personnel. Measurements in 16ths of an inch are more apt to be measured properly by rescue personnel when they inspect their ropes. Also, variances in measurements based upon ambient conditions (humidity or temperature) at time of production can interfere with the proper reporting of rope diameter. Simply, a rope produced or measured on a day with high humidity will be larger in diameter than those measured or produced on a day with low humidity. By requiring reporting m 1/32 in., manufacturer's or test labs in low humidity areas will be unjustly favored by being able to

• report small diameters than manufacturer's or test labs in humid area. 1/16th of an inch is a suitable tolerance to make measurement similar in all ambient conditions. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMIITEE STATEMENT: The requirement is not for rescue personnel but for the certification organization to measure for determining, product, compliance. The requirement is not intended for field mspecuon by users.

(Log #107) 1983- 86 - (5-1.10): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to add the following to end of last sentence: ", or utilizing Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning

Calorimetry (TGA/DSC)." SUBSTANTIATION: Federal Standard 191A (1978) is antiquated. Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC) is state of the art technology that is more accurate and produces repeatable results. Certified test labs utilize TGA/DSC to replace the melt point method of 191A because of its accuracy and repeatability. The standard should allow the use of current testing ~echnology to determine performance requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 5-1.10" to read: "Fiber utilized for all life safety rope shall not have a meltingpoint

of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested in accordance with ASTM E 794, Standard Test Method for Melting and Crystallization Temperatures by Thermal Analysis."

I

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but will replace the FTMS Method 15~4 with the more sophisticated test method specified in the ASTM E 794 document.

(Log #88) 1985- 87 - (5-2): Reject S U B ~ Ricfi Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-2 in its entirety. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 5-2 will cheapen standards because of the reduction in the safety factor from 15:1 down to 10:1. This reduction will also cause confusion with safety factors for one person life safety rope, regardless of statement in definitions, "...not classifiedas life safety rope." COMMITTEE ACTION~. Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-14 (Log #59) and 1985-37 (Log #62).

(Log #26) 1983- 88 - (5-2.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITI~I~ Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"Rope designated as personal escape rope shall be designed to have a "maximum working load" of at least 3001bf (1.34 k N ) . " •

Renumber the remaining paragraphs. SUBSTANTIATION: It is necessarY/to have the working load and circumference criteria stated in the text to support the ~nformation

ovided on the product label. MMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

( Log #163) 1983- 89 - (5-2.1, 5-2.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Correct "braking" to "breaking". SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

( Log #'27) 198.$- 90 - (5-2.1.1 (New)): Accept S U B ~ Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"The "maximum working load" for personal escape rope shall be expressed in pounds and shall be calculated by dividing the new rope minimum breaking strength as specified in 6-2.1 by a factor of not less than 10." S ~ A N T I A T I O N : It is necessary to have the working load and circumference criteria stated in the text to support the information

ovided on the product label. MMITrE~ ACTION: Accept.

(Log #108) 1983- 91 - (5-2.3): Reject S L r B ~ Glenn Newell, Carroliton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise last sentence to read:

"The subsequent result shall be rounded to the nearest 1/16 in. (0.4 nun)." SUIK~TANTIATION: 1/32 of an inch is imperceivable to most rescue personnel. Measurements in 16ths of an inch are more apt to be measured properly by rescue personnel when they inspect their ropes. Also, variances in measurements based upon ambient conditions (humidity or temperature) at time of production can interfere with the proper reporting of rope diameter. Simply, a rope produced or measured on a day with high humidity will be larger in diameter than those measured or produced on a day with low humidity. By requiring reporting in 1/32 in., manufacturer's or test labs in low humidity areas will be unjusdy favored by being able to report small diameters than manufacturer's or test labs in humid area. 1/16th of an inch is a suitable tolerance to make measurement similar in all ambient conditions. CoMMrr rEE ACTION: Reject. GOMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-85 (Log #106).

289

N F P A 1983 m A 9 5 R O C

(Log #33) 1983- 92 - (5-2.3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text: • "Personal escape rope shall have circumference of not less than 0.90 in. (2.29 cm) and not more than 1.50 in. (3.8 cm) when tested in accordance with Method 6003, Circumference of Cordage, of Federal Test Method Standard 191A, Textile Test Methods." Renumber the remaining paragraphs.

SUBSTANTIATION: It is necessary to have the working load and circumference criteria stated in the text to support the information provided on the product label. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log#109) 1983- 93 - (5-2.5): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revisetext to add the following to end of last sentence:

", or utilizing Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC)." SUBSTANTIATION: Federal Standard 191A (1978) is antiquated. Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC) is state of the art technology that is more accurate and produces repeatable results. Certified test labs utilize TGA/DSC to replace the melt point method of 191A because of its accuracy and repeatability. The standard should allow the use of current testing technology to determine performance requirements. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise 5-2.5* to read: "Fiber utilized for all personal escape rope shall not have a melting

PAsoint of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested in accordance with TM E 794, Standard Test Method for Melting and Crystallization

Temperatures by Thermal Analysis." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but will replace the FTMS Method 1534 with the more sophisticated test method specified in the ASTM E 794 document.

(Log #110) 1983- 94- (5-3 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, G A COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Need to include performance requirement for Minimum Harness Webbing Thickness/Width per 1990 edition. Add section 4-3.1 through 4-3.2 from the 1990 edition of NFPA 1983. SUBSTANTIATION: By excluding this section from the proposed edition, the standard will increase the possibilities of injury to the wearer. Elimination of the standard for webbing width, harnesses could conceivably be made from a webbingwhose width combined with a dynamic load will increase the likelihood of injury. (Narrower webbing increases the load per square inch of contact.) The original version of NFPA standard 1983 included a section on harness webbing width, thickness and strength to insure safety and comfort to the wearer. See NFPA Standard 1983, 1990 edition Sections 4-3.1 through 4-3.2. This is further supported by ANSI Z359.1, section 3-2.2.2 which

states minimum width of webbing shall be 1 5/8 in. and a strength of not less than 5,000 ib and ANSI A10.14, section 4.1.3.1 states that minimum width shall be 1 3/4 in. with a tolerance of 1/8 in. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The submitter's suggested change is a design specification that excludes the configuration using multiple strips o f webbing that could actually make the harness more - comfortable for the user.

(Log #114) 1983- 95 - (5-3.2 through 5-3.7): Reject SUBMITTER: GlennNewell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to testing methods included in this documerit. SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of test methods within a performance standard makes the standard more difficult to understand and improve. Additionally, all other referenced test standards are currently issued methods independent of any performance standards and are external to this document. Any inclusion of testing exceeds purpose of the document stated in section 1-2.1 of this document.

By deleting references to testing, NFPA 1983 will retain its purpose of being a performance standard. Subsequently, legitimate test standards should remain outside this document to retain its validity and ethical propriety. Applicable test standards for this document is currently available within ANSI A10.14, Z359.1, and OSHA 1910. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The test methods referenced in this standard are appropriate for the intended application. ANSI A10.14 contains requirements for fall protection and fall protection is not in scope of this standard. ANSI Z359.1 contains requirements for personal fall arrest systems and, likewise, is not applicable for this standard. OSHA 1910 regulations has few requirements that are appropriate for the intended applications of this standard.

(Log #115) 1983- 96 - (5-3.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section 5-3.7. SUBSTANTIATION: ANSI, OSHA and Manufacturers of Class III harnesses with shoulder rings specify that only the Large "bull ring" between the shoulder blades are for use in dynamic situations. Shoulder "D-rings" are designed for ~ - notfaU protection- and may be incompatible with fall protection equipment. Smaller "D-rings" may have insufficient size to provide a "snap to ring" ratio that will prevent "rollout" from occurring. Shoulder rings are designed for lifting and lowering in a situation where there is a constant force applied. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Any attachment points that could be used for lifting and positioning have the potential for resisting a drop condition and are therefore included in the drop test.

(Log #M,) 1983- 97 - (5-3.8): Reject SUBMITrER: Alexander W. Santoca, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"All fiber and thread used in the construction of all lifesafety harness shall not ignite~nd shall not have a melting point of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested in accordance with Method 1534, Melting Point of Synthetic Fibers, of Federal Test Method Standard 191A, Textile Test Methods." SUBSTANTIATION: The performance criteria for ignition must be added to the requirements as items that would ignite below 400°F or show no signs of melting before igniting'could pass the currently stated requirement, but would not be suitable material. The synthetic fabric product label also needs to be tested for ignition and melting and can not have a lower performance than the product that it is attached to. COMMYI[TEE ACTION: Reject. Revise 5-3.8 to read: "All fiber and thread used in the construction of all life safety

harness shall not have a melting point of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested in accordance with ASTM E 794, Standard Test Method for Melting and Crystallization Temperatures by Thermal Analysis." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Ignitibn is not an appropriate measurement pass/fail criteria for a melting performance and will not be added to the performance requirement. However, the Committee will change the referenced test method from FTMS 191A Method 1554 to the more appropriate ASTM test method. See also Comment 1985-86 (Log #107).

(Log #111) 1983- 98 - (5-3.8): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to add the following to end of last sentence:

", or utilizing Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC)." SUBSTANTIATION: Federal Standard 191A (1978) is antiquated. Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC) is state of the art technology that is more accurate and produces repeatable results. Certified test labs. utilize TGA/DSC to replace the melt point method of 191A because of its accuracy and repeatability. The standard should allow the use of current testing technology to determine performance requirements.

290

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C

COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-86 (Log #107).

(Log #112) 1983- 99 - (5-3.11): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Standard needs to allow for alternate materials for harness labeling. "The product label(s) specified..."

SUBSTANTIATION: Standard limits materials for harness labels to synthetic fabrics. The standard needs to allow other label materials such as polymer sheeting that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more pe rmanen t than fabrics. COMMrITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-46 (Log #95).

(Log #113) 1983- 100 - (5-3,12): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard needs to allow for alternate

• materials for labeling. Section should be changed to read: "The product label (s) specified..."

SUBSTANTIATION: Standard limits materials for harness labels to synthetic fabrics. The standard needs to allow other label materials such as polymer sheeting that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more pe rmanen t than fabrics. COMMFITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1985-46 (Log #95).

(Log #164) 1983- 101 - (5-3.12, 5-4.11): Reject SUBM1TI'ER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: After "synthetic fabric" add "or riveted

~ late". UBSTANTIATION: Either label should be equally legible.

COMMITFEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-46 (Log #95).

(Log #35) 1983- 102 - (5-3.13 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"Synthetic product label(s) slSecified in Section 3-3 shall not ignite and shall not have a melting point of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested as specified in 5-3.8." SUBSTANTIATION: The performance criteria for ignition must be added to the requirements as items that would ignite below 400°F or show no signs of melting before igniting could pass the currently stated requirement, but would not be suitable material. The synthetic fabric product label also needs to be tested for ignition and melting and can not have a lower performance than the product that it is at tached to. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-97 (Log #34).

(Log #116) 1983- 103 - (5-4.2, 5-4.6): Reject SUBMITTER; Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to testing methods included in this document . SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of test methods within a performance standard makes the standard more difficult to unders tand and improve. Additionally, all o ther referenced test standards are currently issued methods independen t of any performance standards and are external to this document . Any inclusion of testing exceeds purpose of the document stated in section I-2.1 of this document .

By deleting references to testing, NFPA 1983 will retain its purpose of being a performance standard. Subsequently, legitimate test standards should remain outside this document to retain its validity and ethical propriety. Applicable test standards for this document is currently available within ANSI A10.14, Z359.1, and OSHA 1910. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMrrTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-95 (Log #114).

(Log #36) 1983- 104- (5-4.7): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"All fiber and thread used in the construction of all belts shall not ignite and shall not have a melting point of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested in accordance with Method 1534, Melting Point of Synthetic Fibers, of Federal Test Method Standard 191A, Textile Test Methods." SUBSTANTIATION: The performance criteria for ignition must be added to the requirements as items that would ignite below 400°F or show no signs of melting before igniting could pass the currently stated requirement, but would not be suitable material. The synthetic fabric product label also needs to be tested for ignition and melting and can not have a lower performance than the product that it is at tached to. b COMMITTFAg ACTION: Reject.

Revise 5-4.7 to read: "All fiber and thread used in the construction of all belts shall not

have a melting point of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested in accordance with ASTM E 794, Standard Test Method for Melting and Crystallization Temperatures by Thermal Analysis." COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Ignition is not an appropriate measurement pass/fail criteria for a melting performance and will not be added to the performance requirement. However, the Committee will change the referenced test me thod from FI'MS 191A Method 1534 to the more appropriate ASTM test method. See also Comment 1983-86 (Log #107).

(Log #118) 1983- 105 - (5-4.7): Accept in Principle SUBMI'I~rER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to add the following to end of last sentence:

", or utilizing Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC)." SUBSTANTIATION: Federal Standard 191A (1978) is antiquated. Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC) is state of the art technology that is more accurate and produces repeatable results. Certified test labs utilize TGA/DSC to replace the melt point method of 191A because of its accuracy and repeatability. The standard should allow the use of current testing technology to determine performance requirements. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMYITEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-86 (Log #107).

(Log #37) 1983- 106 - (5-4.12 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"Synthetic product label(s) specified in Section 3-4 shall not ignite and shall not have a meltin,,g point of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested as specified in 5-4.7. SUBSTANTIATION: The performance criteria for ignition must be added to the requirements as items that would ignite below 400°F or show no signs of mehing before igniting could pass the currently stated requirement, but would not be suitable material. The synthetic fabric product label also needs to be tested for ignition and melting and can not have a lower performance than the product that it is at tached to. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-97 (Log #34).

291

N F P A 1 9 8 3 - - A 9 5 R O C

(Log #117) 1983- 107 - (5-5.1 through 5-5.6): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to testing methods included in this document. SUBSTANTIATION: The inclusion of test methods within a performance standard makes the standard more difficult to understand and improve. Additionally, all other referenced test standards are currently issued methods independent of any performance standards and are external to this document. Any inclusion of testing exceeds purpose of the document stated in section 1-2.1 of this document.

By deleting references to testing, NFPA 1983 will retain its purpose of being a performance standard. Subsequently, legitimate test standards should remain outside this document to retain its validity and ethical propriety. Applicable test standards for this document is currently available within ANSI A10.14, Z359.1, and OSHA 1910. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-95 ( Log #114).

(Log #120) 1983-108 - (5-5.1.1 through 5-5.L3): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL N~: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: The strength standards for carabiner need to be revised.

5-5.1.1 "Personal use" Gate Closed: 6,000 Ibf 5-5.1.2 "Personal use" Gate Open: 1650 lbf 5-5.1.3 "Personal use" Gate Side Load: 350 Ibf

SUBSTANTIATION: The numbers for carabiners strength performance are arbitrary and cannot be supported by testing, need, or fact. The numbers supplied for Personal vs General, proof load vs breaking strength do not correlate with each other or any know safe working load ratios. (e.g., 15:1 ratio as supported by this standard or the generally accepted hardware ratio of 10:1). Based upon the generally acceptedl0: l Safe Working load Ratio for hardware and the standard "person" weight of 300 lb, a "Personal Use" carabiner would need to have a minimum safe working load of 1 - persons (300 Ibf).

The gate side load test is the generally accepted "minor axis" test in the fall protection industry. This ANSI Z359.1 standard tests to determine if the gate has sufficient strength to withstand the force of a "side-load" when the carabiner is pull across the rigging point. COMMITI'F_~ ACTION: Accept in Par t .

1. Accept 5-5.1.1. 2. Accept 5-5.1.2 (No change) 3. Reject 5-5.1.3.

COMMYFI'EE STATEMENT: The Committee disagrees with the submitters proposed change to 5-5.1.3 because i fa carabiner turns sideways during use, the 350 Ibf test provides an unacceptable margin of safety.

( Log #~4) 1983- 109 - (5-5.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTEPa Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Change "5500 Ibf' to ~8000 lbf." SUBSTANTIATION: 5500 Ibfwas printed in error. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-111 (Log #123).

(Log #165) 1983- 110- (5-5.2.1): Accept in Principle S UBMITrER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change "5500 Ibf (24.47 kN)" to "8000 ibf (35.59 kN)". SUBSTANTIATION: This "general use" paragraph currently reads the same as the corresponding "personal use" paragraph. Due to higher load limits specified for general use operations, carabiners used in this application should be of greater strength. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMI3q'EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-111 (Log #123).

292

(Log #123) 1983- 111 - (5-5.2.1 through 5-5.2.3): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER= Glenn Neweli, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: The strength standards for carabiner need to be revised:

5-5.2,1 "General use" Gate Closed: 9,000 Ibf 5-5.2.2 "General use" Gate Open: 2400 Ibf 5-5.2.3 "General use" Gate Side Load: 350 lbf

SUBSTANTIATION: The numbers for earabiners strength performance are arbitrary and cannot be supported by testing, need, or fact. The numbers supplies for Personal vs General, proof load vs breaking strength do not correlate with each other or any know safe working load ratios. (e.g., 15:1 ratio as supported by this standard or the generally accepted hardware ratio of 10:1). Based upon the generally acceptedl0: l Safe Working load Ratio for hardware and the standard "person" weight of 300 lb, a "General Use" carabiner would need to have a minimum safe working load of 2 - persons.

The gate side load test is the generally accepted "minor axis" test in the fall protection industry. This ANSI Z359.1 standard tests to determine if the gate has sufficient strength to withstand the force of a "side-load" when the carabiner is pulled across the rigging point. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

1. Accept 5-5.2.1. 2. Accept 5-5.2.2 (No change) 3. Reject 5-5.2.3.

COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: The Committee disagrees with the submitters proposed change to 5-5.2.3 because if a carabiner turns sideways during use, the 350 Ibf test provides an unacceptable margin of safety. See Committee Action on 1983-108 (Log #120).

(Log #124) 1983-112- (5-5.3, 5-5.6): Reject SUBMITI'ER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to clarify reference to personal/

~ eneral ascender/rope grab designation. UBSTANTIATION: The test method refers to personal/general

use ascenders and personal/general use rope grabs. Sections 5-5.3 and 5-5.6 do not designate any strength difference between personal and general ascenders and personal and general rope grabs. Any reference to nonexistent performance standard rating should be deleted. - COMMITTEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee disagrees with the submitters proposed change to 5-5.2.3 because if a carabiner turns sideways during use, the 350 Ibf test provides an unacceptable margin of safety. See Committee Adion on 1983-108 (Eog #120).

(Log #125) 1983- 113- (5-5.4.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Garrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to read:

"...minimum test load of at least 6,000 l bf without failure." SUBSTANTIATION: The strength for a general use (2 person) descent control device needs to exceed that for a personal use." By using a hardware safe working load ratio of 10:1 and the NFPA standard "person ~ weight of 300 lb, the strength minimum calculates to 6,000 Ibf. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 5-5A.2 to read: "Personal use" descent control devices shall withstand a minimum

test load of at least 3000 lbf without failure. COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Committee agrees with submitter hut the calculation used by the submitter was for general use and not for

erSonal use. The committee corrected the calculation to use 300 lb ad (correct for one person load) and with a 10:1 safety factor

provides a test load of 3000 Ibf.

(Log #4) 1983- 114- (5-5.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Michael R. Roop, The Roco Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change "2400 lbf (10.67 kN)" to "1200 Ibf (5.$3 ~ ) " . SUBSTANTIATION: I believe a force of this magnitude to be inappropriate with auxiliary equipment relying on grip strength as their mode of operation. When the ability of a person to maintain the device in a stopped position during normal operation relies on

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C

their ability to grip and hold components in place underload, the device would likel- X allow slippage-before damage. I believe that it is beyond the capabdity of humans to hold a load-as substantial as the current test load without exceeding the grip strength of the operator, allowing the load to slip and tiierefore, eqiminatlng permanent damage to the device or damage to the rope. The 5000# failure force in the following paragraph should remain inplace since it would protect against devices used improperly or tied off. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(LOg #166) 1983- 115 - (5-5.5.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change "2400 Ibf (10.67 kN)" to "1200 lbf (5.33 kN)". SUBSTANTIATION: Auxiliary equipment is required to be tested in the manner of function. This paragraph refers specifically to deformation of descent control devices which differ from other auxiliary equipment in that the force applied in normal use is limited byfiuman grip strength. The apialication of such forces are unrealistic due to tlaese grip strength limitations. However, the 5000# failure figure in tile following paragraph should remain the same, to protect a tied off or misused devfce. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #83) 1983- 116 - (5-5.5.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Change "5000 Ibf" to "8000 Ibf." SUBSTANTIATION: 5000 Ibfwas printed in error. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle.

Change lbf figure in 5-5.5.'~ from 5000 Ibfto read "6000 lbf', COM]VHTrEE STATEMENT: The 5,000 lbffigure was in error but 6,000 lbf is the correct value as the safety ratio of 10:1 (300 x 2 x 10) is adequate.

(Log #5) 1983- 117- (5-5.7.1, 5-5.7.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Michael R. Roop, The Roco Corporation COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-t RECOMMENDATION: Delete "permanent distortion" and replace with "permanent damage to the device or other associated equipment." SUBSTANTIATION: To remain consistent with wording in 5-5.5.1. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #167) 1983- 118- (5-5.7.1, 5-5.7.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "permanent distortion" replace with "permanent damage to the device or other associated equipment." SUBSTANTIATION: Remain consistent with wording in 5-5.5.1. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #85) 1983- 119 - (5-5.7.2): Accept SUBMITTER= Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Change "4800 lbf ' to "5000 Ibf." SUBSTANTIATION: 4800 Ibf was printed in error. COMMITIT, E ACTION: Accept.

(Log #38) 1983- 120 - (5-5.9): Reject SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"All fiber and thread used in the construction of all auxiliary equipment software shall not ignite and shall not have a melting

oint of less than 400°F (204°G) when tested in accordance with ethod 1534, Melting Point of Synthetic Fibers, of Federal Test

Method Standard 191A, Textile Test Methods."

293

SUBSTANTIATION: The performance criteria for ignition must be added to the requirements as items that would ignite below 400°F or show no signs of melting before igniting could pass the currently stated requirement, but would not be suitable material. The synthetic fabric product label also needs to be tested for ignition and melting and can not have a lower performance than the product that it is attached to. COMMIT]FEE ACTION: Reject. COMMFFrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-97 (Log #34).

(Log #119) 1985- 121 - (5-5.9): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Glenn Newell, Carroilton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to add the following to end of last sentence:

", or utilizing Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC)." SUBSTANTIATION: Federal Standard 191A (1978) is antiquated. Thermogravimetric Analysis/Differential Scanning Calorimetry (TGA/DSC) is state of the art technology that is more accurate and produces repeatable results. Certified test labs utilize TGA/DSC to replace the melt point method of 191A because of its accuracy and repeatability. The standard should allow the use of current testing technology to determine performance requirements. COMMITTEE . ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 5-5.9* to read: "All fiber and thread utilized in construction of all auxiliary

equipment software shall not have a melting point of less than 400°F (204°C) when tested in accordance with ASTM E 794, Standard Test Method for Melting and Crystallization Temperatures by Thermal Analysis." COMMI'ITEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the submitter but will replace the FrMS Method 1534 with the more sophisticated test method specified in the ASTM E 794 document.

(Log #121) 1983- 122 - (5-5.12): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard needs to allow for alternate materials for labeling. Section should be changed to read:

"The product label (s) specified..." SUBSTANTIATION: Standard limits materials for labels ~[o synthetic fabrics. The standard needs to allow other label materials such as polymer sheeting that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more permanent than fabrics. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

Revise 5-5.12 to delete the word "synthetic." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-46 (Log #95).

(Log #122) 1983- 123- (5-5.13): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard needs to allow for alternate materials for labeling. Section should be changed to read:

"The product label (s) specified..." SUBSTANTIATION: Standard limits materials for labels to synthetic fabrics. The standard needs to allow other label materials such as polymer sheeting that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more permanent than fabrics. COMMITI"EEACTION: Acceptin Principle.

Revise 5-5.13 to delete the word "synthetic." COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-46 (Log #95).

(Log #39) 1983- 124-~5-5.14 (New)): Reject SUBMITrER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"Synthetic product label(s) specified in Section 3-5 shall not ignite and shall not have a melting point of less than 400°F (904°C) when tested as specified in 5-5.9.

N F P A 1983 m A 9 5 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: The performance criteria for ignition must be added to the requirements as items that would ignite below 400°F or show no signs of melting before igniting could pass the currently stated requirement, but would not be suitable material. The synthetic fabric product label also needs to be tested for ignition and melting and can not have a lower performance than the product that it is attached to. COMM1TFEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-97 (Log #34).

(Log #147) 1983- 125 - (Chapter 6): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newdi, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete use of copyrighted materials without permission. The entire text of Chapter 6 should be deleted. SUBSTANTIATION: All of the document ' s sections on product testing is copied directly f rom copyrighted ASTM F32 committee documents. Use of this material without permission or acknowledgement is illegal. As such, the parts should be deleted f rom consideration. Additionally, any references to non issued standards shuuld be considered invalid. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The author of the basic material submitted original material to both the ASTM and the NFPA committees. Although parts of the text might appear to be similar, there are significant revasions made to NFPA test me thod and additional material added by the Committee. Previous text f rom the 1990 edition of NFPA 1983 is also included.

191~. The lack of a conditioning statement results in a violation of 191A practice and repor t ing which is an improper deviation from the test method. Any lack of condit ioning of samples may skew results based upon ambient conditions (humidity, temperature) in test area. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

1. Reject 6-1.1.2. 2. Accept deleting 6.1.1.3.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee disagrees with the submitter regarding delet ing 6-1.1.2 and will retain 6-1.1.2 as it modifies Method 6016 Of FTMS 191A by specifying the drum size that is necessary for conduct ing the tesL

(Log #67) 1983. 129 - (6-1.1.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 6.1.1.4 in its entirety and insert new section to read:

6-1.1.4 New rope minimum breaking strength shall be de termined by testing five samples of rope to the po in t of breakage. All samples shall meet minimum required breaking strengths as per sections 5- 1.1 and 5-1.2. SUBSTANTIATION: To use a formula in determining breaking strengths of ropes is confusing and provides erroneous and misleadingresults. Substandard equipment can be tested and approvedby the presented formulas. Very few people can figure it out. Whatever happened to K. L S. S.? COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrRE STATI~ENT: See Committee Action on 1983.12 (Log #70).

(Log #126) 1983- 126 - (6-1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Garrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add dynamic testing of lifelines:

"Lifelines shall be tested in accordance with UIAA methods for drop testing dynamic rope. One person rope8 shall survive a minimum of 2 falls, 2 person ropes shall survive a minimum of 8 falls." SLrI~;TANTIATION: Why have a dynamic test for harnesses and no t for rope? Since rope is the most integral part of a rescue system and wouldbe subjected to the same sort of potential damage as ba.rness. It should be considered to be the primary energy absorbing componen t of a dynamically loaded system. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Life Safety Rope is no t in tended for dynamic falls. See paragraph 1-1.3 in the Scope statement of NFPA 1983. The test for the harness is a drop test and no t a complete performance for a "dyriamic" harness that must measure absorbed energy. The d rop test conducted on the harness in this standard is to de termine whether or not the harness will release the body under these conditions.

(Log #64) 1983- 127- (6-1.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise to read:

6-1.1.2 In conduct ing this test for non-spliced specimens, the d rum Tr~ee grips shall have a diameter o f 4 in. + 0.1 in. (10.2 cm + 2.5 mm).

rope shall be wrapped at least three complete revolutions a round each d rum and shall be secured with a cleat at each end of the rope. SUBSTANTIATION: The use of clamps is addressed only in the non-splice safe test methods. The inclnsion of non-splice specimens removes the thought that all rope samples are tested with clamps. COMMrlTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #87) 1983- 130 - (6-1.1.4): Reject SUBMITrER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new sentence number three to read:

"All samples submitted for tests shall meet min imum required s t rengthshs per Sections 5-1.1, 5-1.2, and 5-2.1 and any sainples tested to less than required minimum slxengths shall mean a failure of the lot." SUBSTANTIATION: The formula presented in Section 6.1.1.4 will permit less than minimum required strengths of rope to be certified. But, if all samples must meet required strengths, then we can be assured that an entire lot of manufactured ropes will be safe for use. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-129 (Log #67) and 1983-12 (Log #70).

(Log #128) 1983- 131 - (6-1.1.4, 6-2.1.4): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: References to statistical report ing should be removed.

"New rope min imum breaking strength shall be de te rmined by the lowest observation of the five samples from the same product ion lot." SUBSTANTIATION: Any reference in this section to statistical report ing of results should be removed because its inclusion is not consistent with the rest of the report ing found within this document . No other item classification has this requirement. Because of inconsistent report ing methods, users will not know what is the strength of a piece of equipment. Is it the min imum strength or is it the three standard deviation (3 sigma) strength. Additionally, the 3 sigma strength does not repor t the min imum observed breaking strength. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reiect. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-129 (Log #67), 1983-12 (Log #70) and 1983-130 (Log #87).

(Log #127) 1983- 128 - (6-1.1.2, 6.1.1.3): Accept in Part SUBMITrER: .Glenn Neweil, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Sections. Text not needed since section 6-1.1.1 defines test standard. SUBSTANTIATION: These items are already included in test referenced in 6.2.1.1 (Fed 191A). Additionally the proposed chan~es to the standard makes no reference to the humidity condit ioning of textile samples required in Federal Test Method

( Log #129) 1983- 132 - (6-2.1): Accept in Part SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. Section 6-1.1.1 defines test standard. SUBSTANTIATION: These items are already i n d u d e d in test referenced in 6-2.11. (Fed 191A). Additionally the proposed changes to the standard makes no reference to the humidity

294

N F P A 1 9 8 3 - - A 9 5 R O C

conditioning of textile samples required in Federal Test Method 191A. The lack of a conditioning statement results in a violation of 191A practice and reporting which is an improper deviation from the test method. Any lack of conditioning of samples may skew results based upon ambient conditions (humidity, temperature) in test area. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

[ Accept deleting 6-2.1.3 (Renumber paragraph order.) Reject deleting 6-2.1.1, 6-2.1.2, 6-2.1.4, and 6-2.1.5.

COMI~ff'['rEE STATEMENT: The Committee disagrees with the submitter and will not delete 6-2.1.1, 6-2.1.2, 6-2.1.4, and 6-2.1.5 as these are necessary conditions and procedures for the test method.

(Log #130) 1983. 133 - (6-3.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Remove text of testing methodology and replace with references to existing tests.

"Samples of each model of each life safety harness class shall be selected randomly and tested to the appropriate tests in accordance with ANSI Z359.1. Three samples shall be subjected to static testing and three shall be subjected to drop testing. A total of at least six samples of each model of life safety harness of each harness class shall be required for the test series." SUBSTANTIATION: Object to test method being included in a performance standard. Suggest the referencing of existing Industrial Harness Dynamic Testing methodology produced by test method organizations such as ANSIZ359.1 ANSI 10.14 or OSI-I~ COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-2 (Log #91), 1983-95 (Log #114), and 1983-125 (Log #147).

(Log #131) 1983- 134- (6-3.1.1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to section 6-3.1.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: Refers to section 6-3.1.2.1 - There is no such section included in the standard. Any reference to Section 6-3.1.2.1 should be deleted because not available for public comment and not included in published document. COMMITI~E ACTION: Accept.

Shapes are approx/male Maledals: gections 1., 2-. and 3-hard wood secbons 4-, 5-, and 6-lead secla~ns 7-, and 8-sleel

Note: All dimensions given are in rnillimelem.

VerI,caf cenlet hoe

(Log #132) 1983- 135 - (6-3.1.1.2): Reject SUBMITrER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Reference to drop testing shoulder rings should be deleted. SUBSTANTIATION: Shoulder rings are designed for lifting/ lowering use only (How are you going to take an upside down fall on rings designated for lifting/lowering purposes?) Dynamic loads are to be taken on the manufacturer specification. This is usually the "OSHA D-ring" that is situated between the shoulder blades only. Attaching a main b~flay line to the shoulder rings would violate OSHA work rules and manufacturers' guidelines that apply when fire/rescue personnel respond to an industrial site.

This is supported by ANSI Z359.1, section 4.3.3.2. This section states: "Attach on end of the test lanyard to the fall arrest attaclmaent element (of the harness) and the other end to the anchorage on the test structure. Additionally, the application of a drop test to the shoulder rings is

contradicted by section 5-3.6.1. NOTE: Supporting material available for review at NFPA

Headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-75 (Log #55).

0 15030 ° 450 ~ ^ o

I / / / - . Y - ;;.

, '~ ',, ~ ~ ' 1 2 0 "

Front ~ 180 16¢° 150

(Log #133) 1983- 136 - (6-3.1.2): Reject SUBMIq[TER: GlermNewell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Replace diagram of European recreation body form with a North American fall protection test fixture.

295

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: Incorrect MIL.STD as printed in ROP. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

/

(Log #168) 1983- 139- (663.2.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Loui H. Ciem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: "Setup" should be two words "set up". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #65) 1983- 140 - (663.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 663.2.3 in its entirety and insert new section to read:

6-3.2.3* For the Static Test - Upright; the test torso shall be in an upright position. A force shall be applied to the buttocks ring, increasing to the point of breakage. The minimum acceptable breaking strength shall be 6,000 lb. SUBSTANTIATION: The breaking strengths of harnesses as per NFPA 1983-1990 Edition is 6,000 lb for excellent reasons. Harnesses are to support two person loads. Life expectancy of harnesses is unlimited. Flat webbing loses up to 50 percent of it's strength with two years of tests as conducted by DuPont. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMITrEE STATEMENT: The submitter's comparison is made incorrectly. Previously, only webbing was tested to 6,000 lb: Now the entire harness is tested in a more severe test and 3,600 Ib is an adequate test force. See Committee Action on 1983-51 (Log #96) and 1983-74 (Log

#103).

NOIO: Intorrnation on the source of supply of the Iomo may be obtained lIfOm the Canadian Sin, ~- "~s Association (see reference 8.9), and the sectmttiat ol tr~s stan(:lsrd

SUBSTANTIATION: There is no need to reference a mountain climbing torso fixture based on smaller body proportions. The use of the test fixture/torso referenced in ANSI Z359.1 is more

licable and will more closely match the body size of U.S. ghters/Rescue personnel in height, diameter, and weight. By

testing on a smaller fixture, this requirement is less than the testing required in the 1990 edition of NFPA 1983. COMMITrRE ACTION: Reject. COMMITI'RE STATEMENT: The ANSI test torso does not provide the test points needed for the test specified in this standard.

6

(Log #134) 1983- 137- (663.1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carroliton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. Section 6-1.1.1 defines test standard. SUBSTANTIATION: These items are already included in test referenced in 6-2.1.1 (Fed 191A). Additionally, the proposed changes to the standard makes no reference to the humidity conditioning of textile samples required in Federal Test Method 191A. The lack of a condiuoning statement results in a violation of 191A practice and reporting which is an improper deviation from the test method. Any lack of conditioning of samples may skew results based upon ambient conditions (humidity, temperature) in test area. COMMITYEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #77) 1983- 138 - (6-3.1.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMRNDATION: Revise text:

Reference to MIL-STD for webbing should be "MIL-W-4088 IC"

(Log #89) 1983- 141 - (663.2.3): Reject SUBMrrrER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Section 663.2.3, fourth sentence, change "3600 lbf (16.01 kN)" to "5000 lbf (92.2 kN)'. SUBSTANTIATION: Breaking strengths of 3600 Ibf are not consistent with safety limits intended over long term usage of harnesses and where two person loads will be supported by harnesses. To lower strengths will cheapen these standards. Also, as per E.I. DuPont, nylon webbing loses up to 50 percent of it's strength over a two year per iodof exposure to sunlight. Ropes are thicker in diameter and therefore most of the strength in fibers are buried and protected from light.

. COMMrITEEACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-140 (Log #65).

(Log #90) 1983- 142 - (663.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray,.Staterr Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: Section 663.2.3, second sentence, change "3600 lbf (16.01 kN)" to

"5000 lbf (22.2 kN)'. SUBSTANTIATION: Breaking strength of 3600 ibfare not consistent with safety limits intended over long term usage of harnesses and where two person loads will be supported by harnesses. To lower strengths will cheapen these standards. COMMITIT~ ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-140 (Log #65).

(Log #135) 1983- 143 - (663.2.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise second sentence of text to read:

~A force shall be applied to the buttocks ring, increasing to 6,000 Ibf over a period of ~0 vain..."

Last senti~nce to read: "The force shall be reapplied immediately and shall be increased to

6,000 lbfas before and held..."

296

N F P A 1 9 8 3 - - A 9 5 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: The test as specified is a decrease in testing force of 2,400 Ibf from the previous (1990) edition of NFPA 1983. Lowering existing standards to allow manufacturer's of substandard products to qualify is a bastardization of the standard that will decrease the safety of the product and put firefighters and rescuers at greater risk of injury or death. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. GOMMITI"EE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-140 (Log #65).

(Log #169) 1983- 144- (6-3.3.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change "positioned" to "oriented". Strike the word "then". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMYITEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #136) 1983- 145 - (6-:5.5): Reject SUBMITrER: GlennNewell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire section 6-3.5. SUBSTANTIATION: Section 6-3.5 Dynamic Drop Test should be deleted because entire section on dynamic testing, as written, falls outside the scope of the proposed revision of NFPA 1983 per section 1-1.3. Testing calls for a fall factor of 1.25. Scope specifically limits fall factor to not exceed 0.25. ffdynamic testing is to be considered as a performance requirement then the testing should be based on multiple fall factor 0.25 drops. The scope is also addressed in the second paragraph of Appendix A-l-1.3. COMMITFEE ACTION~ Reject. COMMITTRE STATEMENT: This test is not a fall arresting test but a drop test. This type o f indden t frequently occurs during actual u s e .

(Log #137) 1983- 146 - (6-3.5.1): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn N-ewell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise standard to comply with manufacturer's recommended usage of product.

"The Dynamic Drop Test shall be set up as specified in 6-3.1 and according to manufacturers' guidelines. At least..." SUBSTANTIATION: Testing should occur only on connection points designated by manufacturer for dynamic loading. Testing otherwise exceeds design requirements. This is supported byANSI Z$59.1 section 4.3.3.2. This section states: "Attach one end of the test lanyard to the fall arrest attachment element (of the harness) and the other end to the anchora!ge on the test structure."

Parenthetical insertion is author s addition for clarity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Th~ manufacturer does not give guidelines for the test set-up. See paragraph 6-3.1.1.1 for specific connection point testing. ANSI Z 359 is not the appropriate standard for this application.

(Log #138) 1983- 147 - (6-3.5.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete reference to head-down drop test. SUBSTANTIATION: Head down drop testing of Class I andl I should not be included because head-down testing is not included in the static test requirements (see Table 6-3.1.1) of these items. COMMNWEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This test provides head-down security so a person does not fall out of a harness if the person topples.

center l ine

Shapes are at~o~imate Male~b: t ~ t i o n s 1 .. 2.. and 3-hard v,c=od s~-t~ons 4-. S-. and S - l u d sections 7-. and 8-s te~

Nole. All dk~en.sions given are m mil l imetel~.

Ft

1 5 = 3 0 , 4 5 ° =

/ / 2 j °

~ 105"

~ , 1 2 0 o

;* 750 ° 135"

(Log #139) 1983- 148 - (Figure 6-4.1.2): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983.I RECOMMENDATION: Replace diagram of European recreation body form with a North American fall protection test fixture.

297

N F P A 1 9 8 3 m A 9 5 R O C

(Log #170) 1983- 151 - (6-4.4.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change " h a r n e s s " to "harnesses" . , SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log#141) 1983- 152 - (6-4.5.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Standard needs to allow for alternate materials for labeling. Section should be changed to read:

"The product label (s) specified..." SUBSTANTIATION: Standard limits materials for harness labels to synthetic fabrics. The standard needs to allow other label materials such as polymer sheeting that is printed, embossed or engraved. This type of material is more permanent than fabrics. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-46 (Log #95).

/ i ' ~ _ _ _ _ _ Verlical C, en~edine o~ Torso 1

Note: Inlormation on the source o( supp4y o( the torso may be obtained from the Canadian $1a.~r "~s Assoclalion (see refeml~e 8.9), and the seclretdat o! this standa~I.

SUBSTANTIATION: There is no need to reference a mountain climbing torso fixture based on smaller body proportions. The use of the test fixture/torso referenced in ANSI 27359-.1 is more

~p ficable and will more closely match the body size of U.S. efighters/Rescuepersonnel in height, diameter, and weight. By

testing on a smaller fixture, this requtrement is less than the testing required in the 1990 edition of NFPA 1983. COMMITrEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-136 (Log #133).

(Log #140) 1983- 149 - (6-4.1.3): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA

• COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete text. Section 6-1.1.1 defines test standard. SUBSTANTIATION: These items are already included in test referenced in 6-2.1.1 (Fed 191A). Additionally, the proposed changes to the standard makes no reference to the humidity conditioning of textile samples required in Federal Test Method 191A. The lack of a conditioning statement results in a violation of 191A practice and reporting whi~h..is an. im pro per deviation from the test method. Any lack of condiuomng of samples may skew results based upon ambient conditions (humidity, temperature) in test area. COMMITFEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #78) 1983- 150 - (6-4.1.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Reference to MIL-STD for webbing should be "MIL-W-4088 K." SUBSTANTIATION: Incorrect MIL-STD as printed in ROP.

• COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #142) 1983- 153 - (6-5.1.4): Reject S U B M I ~ Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise this section to utilize side gate load testing as specified in ANSI Z359.1 section 3.2.1.4: Section to read:

"Both "personal use" and "general use" designated carabiners and snap links shall be tested according to ANSI Z359.1, section 3.2.1.4. Carabiners shall survive a force of 350 lbf." SUBSTANTIATION: This test should be. changed to an existing applicable test. Testing as proposed destroys load bearing material of up to 20 percent of a 3/8 in. (10 mm) carabiner and will distort the true minor axis strength and does not mimic actual use of the product. The ANSI Z359.1 side load requirement tests the ability of the carabiner to withstand the forces incurred when the gate is PclUlled across a riggingring (cross-loaded). This type of testing more

osely mimics actual field use than minor axis testing. Minor axis loading is extremely rare and very difficult to perform as exhibited by the fact that the proposed testing requires physical alteration of the product to allow testing.

NOTE: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters. COMMrl['rEE ACTION: Reject• COMMITrEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1983-108 (Log #120) and 1983-111 (Log #123).

(Log #86) 1983- 154- (Figure 6-5.1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT O N PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: The 0.5 nun notch is to show that it is cut into the carabiner gate.

All toloranees _+ 0.013 mm (O.O05 in.)

F'tgure 6-5.t.4 Minor axis test set-up.

298

N F P A 1983 - - A 9 5 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: Error made in transcription. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Recommended text is incorrect and addresses fall severity. A-l-l.3 addresses fall factors. Submitter has incorrecdy redefined fall factors.

See Committee Action on 1983-4 (Log #66).

(Log #143) 1983- 155 - (7-1.1 (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrolhon, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add other applicable references. ANSI Z359.1, Safety Requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems,

Subsystems and Components . ANSI 10.14 Requirements for Safety Belts, Harnesses, Lanyards

and Lifelines for Construction and Demolition Use. SUBSTANTIATION: The committee has neglected to refer to ANSI Z359.1 or ANSI A10.14 in its determining of test methodology of harnesses, Lanyards and Fall Protection. These test s tandardshave

~ OSMMilicability to the use of rescue harnesses and should he utilized. T r E E ACTION: Reject.

COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: These documents are not referenced in the text o f NFPA 1983 and, therefore, are not included in the referenced publications chapter. See also Committee Action on 1983-95 (Log #114). "

(Log #60) 1983- 156 - (A-l-l.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: A d d .3, Second paragraph, Delete word "climbing." SUBSTANTIATION: To reference climbing rope is self serving of a Pdiardcular product. Also, such ropes are manufactured to 7/16 in.

ameters only and do not apply to two person land requirements. COMMITI~EE ACTION: Reject. COMMYITEE STATEMENT: The term "dynamic climbing ropes" as used in this explanatory material is a correct and generic term and is

~ od example of proper type of rope to be used in this situation. A 1983 does not apply to "dynamic climbing ropes."

(Log #63) 1983- 157- (A-1-1.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Rich Murray, Staten Island, NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text: A-l-3 Impact force is not the only consideration of measurement of

the severity of a fall. The time lapse from the momen t a falling mass begins to become arrested until the mass comes to a complete stop is of most importance. A guide to safe limits of fall and resultant impact forces is the Fall

Factor. Fall factors are calculated by dividing the fall distance of the mass at tached to a rope by the length of the rope measured from the mass to the point of anchorage. The resultant measurements of force apply only to ropes of dynamic constructions. Greater measurements of impact force will be found in ropes ofs tadc construction. A fall o f l ft (30.5 cm) on a length of dynamic rope measuring 1 /2

ft (15.25 cm) is a fall factor of 2.0. The approximate impact force absorbed by a 180 lb person would be 2288 lb and 2423 l b / f absorbed by a 200 lb person.

A fall of 1 ft (30.5 cm) on a length of dynamic rope measur ing l ft (30.5 cm) is a 1.0 fall factor. The approximate force absorbedby a 180 Ib person would be 1676 lb and 1800 l b / f a b s o r b e d by a 200 lb person. A fall of 1 ft (30.5 cm) on a length of dynamic rope measuring 4 ft

(1.22 m) is a .25 fall factor. The approximate force absorbed by a 180 Ib person would be 900 lb a n d l 0 0 0 l b / f absorbed bya 200 lb person. When falls greater than .25 are anticipated, such as are possible in

lead climbing, dynamic ropes shou ldbe considered. Such operations are outside the scope of this document . SUBSTANTIATION: Explanation of Fall Factor is misleading and insufficient. Of most importance in fall arrest is the impulse or time lapse during stoppage of a fall. Because so many unknowing individuals use static rope constructions placing rope rescue, a proper and faci description of fall factor and impact forces is , ate

T r E E ACTION: Reject.

(Log #40) 1983-158 - (A-331.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add after end of the first paragraph:

A-3-1.2 When life safety rope is purchased, the authority having jurisdiction should assure that the product label (s) with the information as specified in 3-1.2.1 and 3-1.2.2 is at tached and remains with the rope until placed in service. When the product label is removed from the rope, the label should be retained in the authority's permanent rope records.

It is very important that the information on the product label(s) and the information required to be supplied by the manufacturer in 3-6.1 gets into the hands of the persons who will actually be using the rope. It does no good at all to have the supply personnel or equipment officer remove the product label and other per t inent information and just keep in the rope record file. The persons who will potentially be using the rope need to be provided with all the information that might be available. Copies of the product label(s) and other per t inent information should be maintained with the rope wherever the rope is in-service awaiting use so that the

otential users can consult the information. ere life safety or personal escape rope is purchased in long

lengths, and then cut by the end user agency to make several life safety ropes or personal escape ropes, the product label(s) should be photo-copied or otherwise reproduced and be attached to each life safety rope when it is sent into service. The end user person or persons (in a fire depar tment it probably would be a fire company) should keep the copy of the product label(s) and any other per t inent information for their information and reference and have the product label and other information readily available so that is can b e reviewed by all potential users whenever necessary. SUBSTANTIATION: The added text provides better direction to the manufacturers as to what information is important to the end user and needs to be delivered with the product-, as well as notifying the purchaser of the importance of proxa'ding such information to the actual user. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

( Log #154) 1983- 159 - (A-3-1.2): Reject SUBMtTTER: Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Rearrange paragraphs as they specifically apply to the main document . Of the 6 paragraphs contained here, paragraphs 1 and 5 apply to 3-1.2 while paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 6 apply to 3-1.2.1. SUBSTANTIATION: See comments. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject. COMMI'VrEE STATEMENT: P ~ p h 3-1.2 is the main paragraph that carries the (*) reference to the appendix material. Al l the otfier noted 4-digit paragraphs are subparagraphs, part of 3-1.2.

(Log #76) 1983- 160 - (A-3-2.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New,York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"Information could be added to the tape that applies to a particular rope that could be useful to the purchaser." SUBSTANTIATION: The instructions to the manufacturer are clear and not redundant . COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #'25) 19833 161 - (A-336.3 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new A-3-6.3 to read:

A-3-6.3 When life safety rope is purchased, the authority having jurisdiction should assure that the product label(s) with the information as specified in 3-1.2.1 and 3-1.2.2 is attached and remains with the rope until placed in service. When the product label is removed froha the rope, the label should be retained in the authority's permanent rope records.

299

N F P A 1983 m A 9 5 R O C

It is very imp°rtant that the information on the product label (s) and the information required to be supplied by the manufacturer in 5-6.1 gets into the handg of the persons who will actually be using the rope. It does no good at all to liave the supply personnel or equipment officer remove the product labeland other pertinent information and just keep it in the rope record file. The persons who will potentially be us'mgthe rope need to be provided with all the information that mightbe available. Copies of the product label(s) and other pertinent information should be mmntalned with the rope wherever the rope is in-service awaiting use so that the potential users can consult the information. -Where life safety or personal escape rope is purchased in long lengths, and then cut by the end user agency to make several life safety ropes or personalescape ropes, tile product label(s) should be photo-copied or otherwise reproduced and be attached to each life safety rope when it is sent into service. The end userperson or persons On a fire department it probably would be a fire company) should keep the copy of the product label(s) and any other pertinent information for their information and reference and have the product label and other information readily available so that is can be reviewed by all potential users whenever necessary. SUBSTANTIATION: The added text provides better direction to the manufacturers as to what informauon is important to the end user and needs to be delivered with the product, as well as notifying the purchaser of the importance of prowding such information to the actual user. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. Renumber as A-3-6.1.

(Log #28) 1985- 162 - (A-4-2.1.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITrRR; Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add a newA-4-2.1.1 to read: A-4-2.1.1 See A-4-1.2.1.

SUBSTANTIATION: It is necessary to have the working load and circumference criteria stated in the text to support the information

ovided on the product label. MMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

( Log #144) 1985- 163 - (A-4-3.3): Reject SUBMITTER: Glenn Newell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise section to be more coherent. SUBSTANTIATION: The two paragraphs in this section seem deal with different ideas and shouldbe separated for clarity. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATI~MENT: The submitter made no recommendation for rewriting this material and the Committee thinks it is satisfactory as written.

(Log #30) 1985- 164- (A-4-5.2.1 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, New York City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Add new text:

"It is recommended that rescue personnel use "general use" instead of "personal use" auxiliary equipment in those one person load situations where the Victim is the load, and in any situations where unusual or extreme forces could be placed on the s~/stem. ~ SUBSTANTIATION: More detail needs to be given about "general" and "personal" designations so that the manufa?cturer can properly mark the auxiliary equipment item and the certification organization can properly evaluate the product. COMMITIT.E ACTION: Accept.

(Log #32) 1983-165 - (A-4-5.2.2 (New)): Accept SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork Gity Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-I

I RECOMMENDATION: Add a newA-4-5.2.2 to read: A:4-5.2.2 See A-4-5.2.1.

" SUBSTANTIATION: More detail needs to be given about "general" and "personal" designations so that the manufacturer can properly mark the auxiliary equipment item and the certification

• organization can properly evaluate the product. COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #75) 1985- 166 - (A-5-1.7): Accept in Principle

• SUBMITTER: Alexander W. Santora, NewYork City Fire Dept., NY COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Second sentence after chart - should read:

"Evaluation should be done before purchase to ensure the rope size works with the selected auxiliary equipment, while wearing

~ loves that are worn." UBSTANTIATION: Wording was incorrect.

COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. Revise A-5-1.7 to read: "Evaluation should be done before purchase to ensure the rope

size works while wearing gloves with the selected ascender and descender auxiliary equipment." COMMITIT, E STATEMENT: Committee agrees and made editorial corrections to suggested text.

(Log #145) 1985- 167 - (A-5-1.7): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Glenn Neweli, Carroliton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text to be more applicable to rescue. SUBSTANTIATION: Section makes reference to glove/clothing. The standard needs to refer to life protection equipment - suggest pulleys. COMMITrEEACTION: Accept in Principle. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: See Committee Action on 1985-166 (Log #75).

( LOg #162) 1985- 168 - (A-5-1.7): Accept SUBMITI~R= Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1 RECOMMENDATION: Information in table is correct but the tabs are messed up so that the appropriate figures do not align with one another.

Diameter Diameter in Diameter in Equivalent in Fraction Decimal Decimal Circumference

(Inch) (Inch) (Millimeter) (Inch)

5/16 0.3125 7.937 mm 0.9817 3/8 0.3759 9.525 mm 1.1781

7/16 0.4375 11.11 mm 1.3744 1/2 0.5000 12.7 mm 1.5708 5/8 0.6250 15.87 mm 1.9635

SUBSTANTIATION: None. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #146) 1985- 169 - (A-5-1.10 Rappelling): Accept SUBMITTER: Glenn Ne~vell, Carrollton, GA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1985-1

[ RECOMMENDATION: Correct spelling of.word "Rappelling." SUBSTANTIATION: Standard should 6e properly edited for spelling errors. Word is incorrectly spelled-as repelling". COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #171) 1985- 170 -~A-5-2.5, A-5-1.10, A-5-3.8, A-5-4.7): Accept S U B ~ Loui H. Clem, Pigeon Mountain Industries COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1983-1 RECOMMENDATION: Change "repelling" to "rappelling". SUBSTANTIATION: Editorial COMMITI'EE ACTION: Accept.

300