Report of the Committee on

Professional Qualifications (PQU-AAC)

Technical Correlating Committee

Douglas P. Forsman, Chair Oklahoma State University, OK [M]

Fred G. Allinson, Nat'l Volunteer Fire Council, WA [L] Stephen P. Austin, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., DE [I]

Rep. TC on Investigator Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

Dan W. Bailey, USDA Forest Service, MT [E] Rep. TC on Wildfire Suppression Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qua/Sys Mgmt)

Boyd F. Cole, SunnyCor Inc., IL [M] Rep. TC on Emergency Vehicle Mechanic Technicians Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

David T. Endicott, Prince William County Fire & Rescue Service, VA [U] Rep. TC on Fire Fighter Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

Gerald C. Evans, Salt Lake City Public Safety, LIT [L] Pep. TC on Telecommunicator Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. To Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

Jon C. Jones, Jon Jones & Assoc., MA [SE] Rep. TC on Industrial Fire Brigades (Vote Ltd. to Pro ~ual Sys Mgmt)

Charles E. Kirtley, City of Guymon Oklahoma Fire Dept., OK [U] Rep. TC on Fire Service Educator Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

Michael J. McGovern, Pierce County Fire District 2, WA ILl Rep. Int'i Assn. of Fire Fighters

William E. Peterson, Piano Fire Dept., TX [M] Rep. TC on Inspector Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

Hugh A. Pike, U.S. Air Force Fire Protection, FL [E] Rep. TC on Rescue Technicians Pro Qua/ (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgrnt)

Bruce R. Piringer, Fire & Rescue Training Inst., MO [SE] Rep. TC on Fire Service Instructor Pro Quai (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgrnt)

Alan G. Walker, Louisiana State University, LA [E] Rep. TC on Officer Pro Qual (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

Johnny G. Wilson, Georgia Firefighter Standards & Training Council, GA [E] Rep. Nat'l Board on Fire Service Professional Qualification

John P. Wolf, University of Kansas, KS [SE] Rep. TC on Accreditation and Certification (Vote Ltd. to Pro Qual Sys Mgmt)

Alternates

Steve Ennis, Nat'l Volunteer Fire Council, VA [L] (Alt. to F. G. Allison)

Michael W. Robinson, Baltimore County Fire Dept., MD [E] (AlL to J. G. Wilson)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for the management of the NFPA Professional Qualifications Project and documents related to professional qualifications for fire service, public safety, and related personnel.

Technical Committee on

Fare Fighter Professional Qualifications (PQU-FFQ)

David T. Endicott, Chair Prince William County Fire & Rescue Service, VA [U]

Steve Willis, Secretar) MFTE/SMTC, ME [SE]

Rep. Int'l Society of Fire Service Instructors

William Anderson, Carlsbad Fire Dept, CA [L] Salvator Camasi, Lil Lectric Inc., WA [E]

Rep. IAFC - Volunteer Chief Officers Section RobertJ. Cantweli, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ [U] Jack Casner, The Great American Insurance Co., CT [I] David R. Fischer, State Fire Marshal Division, NV [SE] Richard A. Fritz, University of Illinois Fire Service Inst., IL [SE]

C. Gordon Henderson, City of Rome Fire Dept., GA [E] Rep. Georgia State Firefighter's Assn., Inc.

Marcia S. Holtz, City of Madison Fire Dept., WI [L] Rep. Women in the Fire Service

F. Patrick Marlatt, University of Maryland, MD [SE] David E. Mohr, New Durham, NH [SE] Henry Morse, Fire Service Testing Co., Inc., NC [RT] Hugh A. Pike, U.S. Air Force Fire Protection, FL [E] Mickey Pophin, Texas Commission on Fire Protection, TX [E] Thomas P. Ruane, Peoria Fire Dept., AZ [U] Michael A. Wieder, Oklahoma State University, OK [M]

Rep. Oklahoma State University Fare Programs Michael L. Young, VFIS, PA If]

Alternates

Scott L. Davidson, Volunteer Firemen's Insurance Services, Inc. (VFIS), PA [I] (Alt. to M. L. Young)

Collin DeWitt, Phoenix Fire Dept., AZ [U] (Alt. to R.J. Cantwell)

Terese M. Floren, Women in the Fire Service, WI [L] (Alt. to M. S. Holtz)

Robert H. Noll, Yukon Fire Dept., OK [M] (Alt. to M. A. Wieder)

TedJ. Pagels, City of De Pere, WI[E] (Alt. to S. Wdlis)

Robert Singletary, City of Warner Robins Fire Dept., GA [E] (Air. to C. G. Henderson)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on professional competence required of fire fighters.

Technical Committee on

Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications (PQU-PFE)

Charles E. Kirtley, Chair City of Guymon Oklahoma Fire Dept., OK [U]

ChristyA. Baird, State Fire Safety Board, MI [E] Gerry N. Bassett, U.S. Fire Adrmnistration, MD [SE] John IL Brantley, Dept. of Fire Service, CT [SE] Monique Cardwell, Piano Fire Dept., TX [U] Margaret D. Carson, Carson Assoc., Inc., VA [C] Cynthia Colton-Reichler, Commission on Fire Prevention &

Control, CT [E] Michael J. Corso, Nat'l Fire Sprinkler Assn., WA [M] Tamara Dempsey-Tanner, Chapel Hill, NC [SE] Marta Dubay, Colorado Springs Fire Dept., CO [SE] Cynthia M. Fuller, North Carolina Office of State Fire Marshal,

NC [El Ernest J. Grant, North Carolina Jaycee Burn Center, NC [L] Penny L. Hulse, Pierce County Fire District #5, WA [U] Joseph L. Murabito, Delaware State Fire Prevention Commission,

DE[SE] Gerri Penney, Palm Beach County Fire Rescue, FL [El

Rep. Florida Fire Marshals Assn. Niki D. Pereirab Anchorage Fire Dept., AK [E]

Rep. Alaska State Fire Marshal's Office Nancy Porter, USDA Forest Service, CA [U] Philip B. Quinton, city of Alpharetta Fire Dept., GA [U]

Rep. Georgia Coalition of Public Safety Educators Dena E. Schumaeher, Champaign Fire Dept., IL [L] Robert L. Thompson, Wichita Fire Dept., KS [U] Sonja M. Watts, Indianapolis Fire Dept., IN [El G. Thomas Weathers, Flagstaff Fire Dept., AZ [U]

Rep. Arizona Fire & Burn Educators Assoc, Inc. Michael W. Weller, Hagerstown Fire Dept., MD [U]

Alternates

Martha L. Hamilton, Colorado Springs Fire Dept., CO [SE] (Alt. to M. Dubay)

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on professional competence required of public fire educators, public information officers, and juvenile firesetter educators.

307

N F P A 1 0 0 3 - - F 9 9 R O C

Technical Committee on

Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications (PQU-RES)

Hugh A. Pike, Chair U.S. Air Force Fire Protection, FL [E]

Robert C. Barr, Secreta U Firescope, Inc., MA [SE]

Michael P. Brink, Madison Heights Fire Dept., MI [U] Rep. Michigan Technical Rescue Operations Team

Michael Carpenter, Garner Environmental Services, TX [SE] Thomas Wysong Connell, H, Special Rescue Services, MA [SE] Carl Goodson, Fire Protection Publications, OK [M]

Rep. Int'l Fire Service Training Assn. Timothy V. Henry, Fresno City Fire Dept., CA ILl David E. A. Johnson, Community College of Allegheny Co., PA[SE] Wesley V. Kitchel, Santa Rosa Fire Dept., CA [L] TimothyJ . Lombardi, Cuyahoga Falls Fire Dept., OH ILl

Rep. NFPA Fire Service Section Michael S. Mayers, Town of Hilton Head Island, SC [U] Gregory A. Milewski, Equiva Services LLC, TX [U] Robert H. Moody, Montgomery County (MD), MD [L] William L. Renaker, Ingleside, IL [U]

Rep. Illinois Fire Service Inst./University of Illinois Robert E. Rhea, Fairfax County Fire &: Rescue, VA [U] Michael IL Roop, Roco Rescue, Inc., LA [M] Brian E. Rousseau, New York State Office of Fire Prevention &

Control, NY [El Robert J. Schappert, III, Maryland Fire and Rescue Inst., MD [SE] Peter M. Schecter, Bucks County Emergency Services Training

Center, PA [SE] Ralph Sproul, Chevron Products Co., CA [U] Patrlcia Wagner, Waldens Ridge Emergency Service, TN [U] Carl F. Weaver, Brevard Community College, FL [SE] Charles A. Wehrll, City of Naperville Fire Dept., IL [El

Rep. Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal Ernest (Richey) Wright, ELSE Training Assoc., Inc., FL [M]

Alternates

Paul Moledor, Cuyahoga Falls Fire Dept., OH ILl (Alt. to T.J . Lombardi)

Terry M. Sutphen, Illinois Fire Service Inst., IL [U] (Alt. to W. L Renaker)

Committee Scope: This committee shall have the primary responsibility for documents on the Professional Qualifications for fire service and related personnel who will perform rescue operations.

Staff Liaison: Frank Florence

These lists represent the membership at the time each Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership raa 3 have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the front of this book.

This portion of the Report of the Committee on Professional Qualifications is presented for adoption in 3 parts.

This Report was prepared by the: • Technical Correlating Committee on Professional

Qualifications (PQU-AAC), • Technical Committee on Fire Fighter Professional

Qualifications ( PQU-FFQ), * Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional

Qualifications (PQU-PFE), • Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional

Qualifications (PQU-RES).

Part I of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1003, Standard for Airport F'n-e Fighter Professional Qualifications, 1994 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1999 November Meeting.

Part I of this Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications, which consists of 18 voting

members; of whom 14 voted affirmatively, 1 negatively after the circulation of negative ballots (Pophln), and 3 ballots were not returned (Casner, Fritz, Willis).

Mr. Pophin voted negatively stating: "We will be doing a disservice to the ARFF community if the

driver/operator portion of NFPA 1005 is deleted. As stated in Log #5, "Section $-$ clearly specifies the use of ARFF

vehicles including agents and turrets." Why would we specify the use of an ARFF vehicle without giving the fire fighter training to use the vehicle? This is what Section $-5 would have done. The

~ hrases "could be easily done," "should be met," and "would etter be suited for home station training" were used in explaining

why the new standard should not be accepted. It is not whether these skills could be, would be, or should be taught at their home stations, the true question is, will they be given this training at their home stations in a timely manner?

This is a quote from Log #1, "The proposal is designed to provide an absolute minimum of trmning, under extreme tight time constraints, and does not provide the trainee adequate time to develop the skills beyond the minimum to meet the objectives, I understand that the majority of airport in the United States have minimum staffing and everyone is expected to perform all tasks. The fact of the matter is that, a large number of firefighters trained for this type of environment was employed for other purposes and are assigned firefighting duties." This is yet another reason why we should leave 3-5 in place. If ARFF fire fgh ters area at minimum staffing and required to perform all tasks, the fire fighter should at least have the minimum training to perform these tasks.

In fire fighter training, the trainee is not trained to the advanced or "experienced" level. A trainee, in most cases, is trained to the minimum training standard. Even though these students are trained with equipment that is not necessarily the equipment that they will be working with on their future jobs, the equipment does give them the theory and feel of how the equipment will work.

I f a person is to be trained as an ARFF fire fighter and the job will require driving an ARFF apparatus, this person should have all of the training in recruit school, not just one aspect of the training."

Part I of this Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlatin[[ Committee on Professional Qualifications, which cons,sts of 4 voting members of whom all 4 voted affrmatively.

Part II of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1035, Standard for Professional Qualifications for Pubfic Fire and Life Safety Educator, 1993 edition, as published in the Report on Proposals for the 1999 November Meeting.

Part II of this Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications, which consists of 23 voting members; of whom all 23 voted affirmatively.

Part 1 / o f this Report on Comments has also been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Correlatin~ Committee on Professional Qualifications, which consists of 4 voting members of whom all 4 voted affirmatively.

Part HI of this Report on Comments was prepared by the Technical Committee on Rescue Technicians Professional Qualifications, and documents its action on the comments received on its Report on Proposals on NFPA 1006, Standard for Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications, 2000 edition, as [published in the Report on Proposals for the 1999 November Meeting.

Part IIl of this Report on Comments has been submitted to letter ballot of the Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications, which consists of 24 voting members; of whom al 94 voted affirmatively

Part III of this Report on Comments has also been submitted • to letter ballot of the Technical Correlating Committee on Professional Qualifications, which consists of 4 voting members of whom all 4 voted affirmatively.

308

N F P A 1 0 0 3 - - F 9 9 R O C

PART I

(Log #5) Committee: PQU-FFQ

1003- 1 - (Entire Document): Accept SUBMITTER: Stephen Baxter, South Carolina Fire Academy COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1003-1

I RECOMMElqDATION: Delete Section 3-5 Driving/Operating ARFF Vehicles. SUBSTANTIATION: The Technical Review Committee recommended completely revising NFPA 1003 and raising the prerequisite levels for Airport Firefighter and incorporating the requirements of NFPA 1002, Driver Operator into the revised NFPA 1003.

I wholeheartediy agree with raising the prerequisite levels for certification as an Airport Firefighter.

However, including the driver operator certification requirements in NFPA 1002 in the revised NFPA 1003 would severely impact our IFSAC accredited Basic Aircraft Rescue Firefighting program. I understand the reasoning behind the recommended change and totally .ab, ree that there is a fine line on where aircraft firefighting and vehicle operations split. I also believe that there would be little benefit including this in the NFPA 1003 standard. In our program the students do drive and operate the ARFF vehicles and use turrets to extinguish large fires. But if you look at the certification requirements of the Driver Operator Standard there isn't any firefighting requirement.

3-5.1 Perform the routine tests, inspections and servidng of systems specified Jn the following list in addition to those contained in 2-2.1 of NFPA 1002.

This objective should be met at the firefighters home station with the equipment they have assigned. We here at SCFA have a Titan ARFF vehicle and a P,500 Rapid Intervention vehicle. Yes, we could put together a program and meet these requirements but if the firefighter doesn't use these vehicles at h is /her home station the training for this area is virtually useless.

3-5.2 Perform the practical driving exercises specified in 2-3.1 through 2-3.7 of NFPA 1002.

Again, we could train and certify in these areas but, in most cases, not with the ARFF vehicles the firefighter would be using during day to day operations. Again, this objective could easily be done at the home station.

3-5.3 Operate an ARFF vehicle, given a predetermined route on an airport that includes the maneuvers listed in 2-$.1 of NFPA 1002.

Again, this should be an objective that should be met at the airport where the firefighter would be operating the vehicle.

3-5.4 Operate an ARFF vehicle, given a predetermined route off of an improved surface that incorporates the maneuvers and conditions specified in the following list that the driver/operator is expected to encounter during normal operations etc.

This objective should be met with the vehides the firefighter will use every day.

3-5.5 Maneuver and position an ARFF vehicle, given an incident location and description that involves the largest aircraft that routinely uses the airport so that the vehicle is positioned to operate at each operational position for the aircraft.

The firefighters coming to the SCFA for Airport Firefighter certification range from Index A - Index E airports and the Department of Defense. Again, for this objective the firefighter should he tested and certified utilizing vehicles and aircraft at the home station.

3-5.6 Produce a fire stream while the vehicle is in both forward and reverse power modulation, given a discharge rate and intended target etc.

This objective should be met with vehicles the firefighter is going to operate at their home stations.

3-5.7 Produce a fire stream, given a rate of discharge and water supplied from the sources specified in the following list, so that the pump is engaged, the turrets are deployed, the agent is delivered to the intended target at the proper rate and the ARFF vehicle is continuously monitored for potential problems.

A gai.'n, this objective would be better suited for home' station training.

In summary, there isn't one firefighting requirement induded in the seven specific objectives.

From the comments in Part I of NFPA 1005 FO9 Report on Proposals the reason for including these objectives in the revision is because of the fine line between driving/operating and firefighting. Section 3-$ Fire Suppression clearly specifies the use of ARFF vehicles including agents handlines and turrets.

The South Carolina Fire Academy was the first civilian training center to have an Aircraft Rescue Firefighting program that met NFPA 1003 standards accredited by IFSAC. We remain to be only one of two civilian institutions that are accredited indicating the difficulty in having the equipment, props and capabilities to meet the objectives in the existing NFPA 1005. If the NFPA 1002 driver/operator requirements are included in the revision it changes our course significandy. We'll have to add at least 40 hours onto the existing course and increase the cost. The sole benefit of the seven objectives would be to certify a firefighter on the Titan or RS00 vehicles, which they may never see let alone drive

during their eer NFPA 1002 objectives for ARF~ vehicles should remain

where it is and be a totally separate certification. NFPA 1003 should focus on knowledge and firefighting and not get vehicle specific. That should be left to the local departments who can then get a testing center to come in and certify their firefighters on the equip.ment they would drive and operate during emergency condiuons. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #3) Committee: PQU-FFQ

1003- 2 - (1-$.1): Accept in Part SUBMITrER: Bill Wekenborg, Dallas Ft. Worth Int'l Airport COMMENT ON PROPOSALNO: 1003-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"For certification as an airport firefighter, the candidate shall meet the requirements for Firefighter II defined in NFPA 1001, Standard for Firefighter Professional Qualifications; first responder operational level defined in Chapter $ of NFPA 472, Standard for Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents" r~ . . . . . 1 __-i o Ar ~m~A lnno c,^-d~-a c^. m._^

. . . . * - - A - - + I t ^ K : . 1 ^ r ~ . ~ " . . . . / I ' ~ - - A - - . ^ - D . - c ^ - - : ~ - - ^ 1 ~ . . ^ l t g ' g ~ - - ~ . . . .

SUBSTANTIATION: 1. All airport firefighters are not driver operators. Many of the airport firefighters who have attained the basic requirements for ARFF Certification have absolutely no or minimum experience.

2. ARFF Vehicle Driver/Operator requires training far beyond which can be delivered in a Basic ARFF Training Course, the practical training requires continual training with a Field Training Officer. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Part.

The Committee voted to chanl~e the text of 1-$.1 to read: 1-$.1 For Certification as an mrport firefighter, the candidate

shall meet the requirements for Firefighter II defined in NFPA 1001, Standard for Firefighter Professional Qualifications; fu~st responder operational level defined in Chapter $ of NFPA 472, Standard for Professional Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents and the requirements for airport firefighter defined in this standard. C O M M ~ STATEMENT: The Committee voted to remove the portions of the section that deal with NFPA 1002, Standard on Fire Apparatus Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications, that relate to Driver/Operator but leave in the portion dealing with meeting requirements for airport firefighter.

(Log #CC1) Committee: PQU-FFQ

1003- $ - (1-4 Hot Zone): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1003-1 RECOMMENDATION: Move the last sentence to a new appendix A-l-4. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

309

N F P A 1 0 0 3 / 1 0 3 5 ~ F99 R O C

(Log #2) Committee: PQU-FFQ

1003- 4- (3-1.1): Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Wekenborg, Dallas Ft. Worth Int'l Airport COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1003-1 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"For qualifcadons as an airport firefighter, the candidate shall meet each of the job performance requirements defined in this chapter. These requirements are divided into ~t~,ethree major duties; response, fire suppression and rescue, z~q~ d~;~ng . . . . . : ~ The primary function of the airport firefighter shall be to execute fire suppression and rescue activities." SUBSTANTIATION: Eliminating the word (four) and driving operating will be consistent with recommendations submitted for 1-3.1 and 3-5. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #4) Committee: PQU-FFQ

1003- 5 - (3-5.1 through A-3-5.7): Accept SUBMITTER: Bill Wekenborg, Dallas Ft. Worth Int'l Airport COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1003-1 RECOMMENDATION: Delete sections A-3-5.1 through A-3-5.7 of the Appendix A. SUBSTANTIATION: Reference to the Appendix in this chapter with 3-5 being deleted from Chapter 3. The Appendix A in these areas are no t needed. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

provide the trainee adequate time to develop the skills beyond the minimum to meet the objectives. I understand that the majority of airports in the United States have minimum staffing and everyone is expected to perform all tasks. The fact of the matter is that, a large number of the firefighters trained for this type of environment was employed for other purposes and are assigned firefighting duties.

* Delete 3-5 Driving Operating ARFF Vehicles. A comprehensive Driver-Operator Program is absolutely necessary, but should not be a requirement of the basic ARFF certification course. NFPA 1002 is not current with information obtained within the last two years in regard to handling characteristics, dynamics, and body roll, understeer and oversteer. Many of the personnel attending the Basic ARFF Certification Course have little or NO experience in the emergency services, much less driving emergency vehicles especially large ARFF vehicles.

The proposal to include 3-5 Driving Operating ARFF Vehicles as part o f the Basic Certification Program raises serious Safety and Liability issues in regard to training personnel who are not adequately prep.ared nor given time to be acclimated to this type of emergency services.

• Review and update NFPA 1002, Standard for Fire Department Vehicle Driver/Operator Professional Qualifications, Chapter 7, Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Apparatus to include the deficient items noted in the body of this text.

• After a thorough review of NFPA 1002, Chapter 7 is conducted and the document is revised, the ARFF Vehicle Driver Operator Course would be optional and separate of the Basic ARFF Certification Course. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #1) Committee: PQU-FFQ

1003- 6- (3-5.2): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Bill Wekenborg, Dallas Ft. Worth Int'l Airport COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1003-1

[ RECOMMENDATION: Delete this entire Section ~ 5, . . . . . . . r~.~.~'~_~,

Sl~B'ST~kf~:rIl~kl"I()bI:'~'I~am committed to a formal ARFF Vehicle Driver Operator Certification Program, however, the proposed method is not adequate nor is it appropriate. The majority of firefighters attending the Basic ARFF Certification Programs have litde or no experience as firefighters, much less that of an Emergency Vehicle Driver/Operator. T he idea of including ARFF vehicle driver operator into the basic ARFF course raises serious concerns in regard to the quality of instruction and adequate training and skills practice time, which will be permitted under the supervision of a certified driver/operator instructor.

This concern is magnified due to the number of ARFF Vehicle rollovers, which have occurred since 1990. Twenty-six incidents have been documented, many occurred at a slow or moderate speed. The design, dynamics, and reaction of the vehicles are dguificandy different than structural vehides. Handling characteristics of ARFF Vehicles differ between manufacturers, various models and suspension systems. NFPA 1002, Professional DQualifications Standards for Fire Department Vehicle

r iver /Operator Professional Qualifications, Chapter VII does not address many of the issues incurred on the ARFF vehicles such as body roll, suspension systems, center of gravity, extendible turrets, dynamics and vehicle stabilit]t.

My interpretation of 3-5 Driving Operating ARFF Vehicles is that the trainee will be proficient in all aspects of driving and operating an ARFF Vehicle and functioning on the Air Operations Area. A proficient ARFF vehicle driver/operator is one that does more than steer the vehicle in a direction, apply the accelerator, engage the pumps, and disperse agent without causing or being involved in an accident or cause a runway incursion. In addition to the obvious, a proficient driver-operator must develop a tactical mindset, consider alternatives and be mechanically inclined to overcome the problems encountered during periods of extreme pressure.

The development of a proficient ARFF vehicle driver/operator includes complete faxniliarization of the vehicle(s) he or she is expected to operate, adequate time to drive and operate under the supervision of a qualified instructor. The trainee must undergo a process of certification to include, knowledge, demonstrate under pressure the driving and operating skills, problem mitigation, and tactical considerations.

The proposal is designed to provide an absolute minimum of training, under extreme tight time constraints, and does not

(Log #CC2) Committee: PQU-FFQ

1003- 7- (4-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Fire Fighter Professional

alifications MMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1003-1

RECOMMENDATION: Revise the publication to IATA to read: Dangerous Goods Manual/Regulations, 1996.

SUBSTANTIATION: This Material is from the North American Emergency Response Guide which is joindy published by Canada, the United States and Mexico. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

PART H

(Log #CC8) Committee: PQUoPFE

1035- 1 - (1-1, 1-2, A-l-2): Accept SUBMITI'ER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the text to read:

1-1 Scope. This standard identifies the levels of professional performance required for public fire and life safety educators, nublic information officer, and iuvenile firesetter intervention kxma=.

1-2" Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to specify the job performance requirements for serving as a public fire and life safety educator, as a public information office, an aiuvenile firesetter intervention snedalist. It is not the intent of this standard to restrict any jurisdiction form exceeding minimum requirements of fire and burn prevention, or including other life safety, orevention, nubile information, or iuvenile firesetter intervention issues.

Revise A-I.1 to read: =::t~e intent...." "On~ intent... ".

SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee is creadng a Committee Comment to chan.~e the Scope and the Purpose of this document to comply with a directive from the Standards Council decision dated August 15,1997. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

310

N F P A 1 0 3 5 m F 9 9 R O C

(Log #CC10) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 2 - (1-3.10): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise 1-3.10 to read: "The Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist II shall meet all of

the requirements defined in Chapters 3, 7, and 8 prior to being certified as a juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist II ~. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee is adding to the wording of 1-3.10 to include shall meet the requirements of Chapters 3, 7, and 8. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #1) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 3 - (1-4 Fireplay (New)): Reject SUBMrlq'ER: Susan Phillips, Plainfield Fire Dept., IN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Add a new definition for Fireplay to read:

Fireplay. Playing with ignition devices to include circumstances or incidents that do not actually result in st~rfing a fire. SUBSTANTIATION: There is a definite need for this definition because many Intervention Specialists receive their referrals fi'om parents who notice their children playing with ignition devices but not resulting in any other materials being set afire. To omit this definition would lessen the occasions that ~parents would willingly bring their child to an intervention specialist for assessment. The definition of fireplay also provides for increased marketing of the program by including both fireplay and firesetting as reasons for intervention assessment. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Fireplay is no longer considered an appropriate term. "Play" denotes acceptable behavior or ~childs work." Examples of appropriate terms may include:

Experimentation a n d / o r unacceptable use of fire tools,misuse of fire, Juvenile Firesetting intentional/unintentional . This response will be added for A-7-2 with the Firesetting placed in bold, prior to this response.

The Committee feels that the term "Fireplay is not appropriate and therefore does not want to add a definition for the term.

(Log #8) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 4 - (1-4 Firesetting): Reject SUBM1TTER: Susan Phillips, Plainfield Fire Dept., IN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: In the definition of Firesetting delete ", whether or not an actual fire occurred" and replace with ", resulting in an actual fire." SUBSTANTIATION: The definition of firesetting should be only those events that result in a fire. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The emphasis of Juvenile Firesetter intervention is on education and changing inappropriate behavior regardless of behavioral consequences.

(Log #7) Committee: P QU-PFE

1035- 5 - (1-4 Intake Forms): Accept in Principle in Part S U B M I T I T ~ Susan Phillips, Plainfield Fire Dept., IN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Delete "Intake forms" and replace with "Evaluation forms." SUBSTANTIATION: The term 'intake' would appear to be more ~phPropriate to forms used by an institution admitting a patient.

e forms used by the Intervention Specialist are used to gather information to make an evaluation of a course of action. COMMIITEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part.

The Committee agrees with the submitter to delete the definition of ~intake Forms". This definition had been included in an earlier draft of the document, but the term is not used in the current document. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee recognizes the use of many tools by interventionists so it has decided to not include a specific definition for those instruments.

(Log #16) Committee: PQU-PFE

1055- 6 - (1-4 Intake Forms): Accept in Principle in Part SUBMITrER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"!n ' :k= Fc.-m.~;. ~ g L i I ~ L . F . ~ I I ~ A consistent body of information collected about an individual as requisite to intervention." SUBSTANTIATION: The word for the definition does not agree with the definition. Intake is though to be when checking into a facility. Juveniles are not kept in a facility by Public Fire and Life Safety Educators. They are assessed or evaluated for the appropriate intervention. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle in Part. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This submission is the same as that in Comment 1035-5 (Log #7), see the Committee Statement on Comment 1035-5 (Log #7).

(Log #6) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 7- (1-4 Intervention): Reject SUBMITrER: Susan Phillips, Plainfield Fire Dept., IN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: Add fireplay to the first line in the definition of Intervention to read:

"Intervention. A formal response to fireplay and firesetting behavior that may...". SUBSTANTIATION: Fireplay and firesetting are separate and distinct acts that both may be addressed in an intervention process. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The current thinking is that the term "Fireplay ~ is not appropriate and should not be used in this document.

See Committee Statement in Comment 1035-3 (Log #1).

(Log #10) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 8 - (1-4 Intervention (New)): Reject SUBMITrERa Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Intervention. A formal response to firesetting ~fir_c.p2~ behavior that may include education, evaluation, and referral for assessment for counseling, counseling, medical services, social services, and Jsuvenile justice sanctions.

UBSTANTIATION: The included text will coincide with established format should fireplay definition be added. Intervention is also conducted for fireplay activities as weft as juveniles who set fires. Any behavior involving fire should be handled with an intervention to prevent loss of life and property and recidivism. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels the term Fireplay is not an appropriate term and will no t be used in this document.

See Committee Statement in Comment 1035-3 (Log #1).

(Log #19) Committee: PQU-PFE

1085- 9 - (1-4Juvenile Firesetter (New)): Reject SUBMrITER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

Juvenile Firesetter. A person, through the age of 21, or as defined by the authority havingjufisdiction, who is involved in e act of firesetting or fireplay. SUBSTANTIATION: The included text will coincide with established format should fireplay definition be added. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITFEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement in Comment 1035-3 (Log #1).

311

N F P A 1 0 3 5 - - F 9 9 R O C

(Log #5) Committee: PQU-PFE

10~,5- 10 - (1-4 Referral): Reject SUBMITTER: Susan Phillips, Plainfield Fire Dept., IN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: Change the definition of Referral to read:

Referral. Based upon an intervention process, a juvenile and family gain access to a program or community resources. SUBSTANTIATION: This definition will specifically address referrals that are made based upon an established process to determine need. The definition in the proposal could mean a referral that was made to an agency unfamiliar with the issues of fireplay or firesetting. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: It is not the intent of the Committee to limit the term to referral "from" a Juvenile Firesetter program to resources, but to include referral "to" a Juvenile Firesetter Program.

The Committee feels the definition of the term "Referral" relates to inside the Juvenile Firesetter Program and not to resources outside of the program.

(Log #CC1) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 11 - (3-1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Add addition text to General Requisite Skills to read:

"Ability to transfer content knowledge verbally and in writing". SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the p.amphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee renew and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC4) Committee: PQU-PFE

1055- 12 - (3-4.1(b)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: Delete the word "Synthesize" and replace with "Assemble" to clarify the skill. The Text for 3-4.1 (b) will read:

Requisite Skills: Assemble information in specific format, written communication. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee voted to change the word "Synthesize" as found in 4-4.2(b) to Assemble. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC5) Committee: PQU-PFE

1055- 13 - (5-4.4(a)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: Add "audience analysis". Section 3-4.4(a) will read:

Requisite Knowledge: Lesson plan format, needs assessment and instructional methods/techniques, and audience analysis. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee is adding a Comment on Section 3.4.4(a) to add audience analysis. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CG11) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 14- (4-1): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: Add: In addition to meeting the .requirements of Chapter $. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee believes that for a candidate for Public Fire and Life Safety Educator III to be successful that

shall have met the requirements for a Public Fire and Life Safety Educator II. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

1035-15 was not used

(Log #2) Committee: PQU-PFE

1055- 16 - (6-1.1): Reject SUBMITrER: Keith Arnold, VA Dept of Fire Programs/Fire & Life Safety Coalition COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-15 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"In addition, the person shall meet the requirements for Public Educator I or "Investigator" prior to being certified as Juvenile Firesetter Assessor I. SUBSTANTIATION: A large number of our organizations across the United States utilize their Investigations staff to conduct the initial consultations with Juvenile Firesetters. By setting the requirement for the investigators to complete Public Fire and Life Safety Educator I prior to being certified as a Juvenile Firesetter Assessor I, we will preclude ourselves from uulizing a valuable resource that is available to us. After discussing the proposed requirement with Educators and Investigators across the Commonwealth the general consensus was that it was not anticipated that the Investigators would participates in the training if they were required to complete Public Fire and Life Safety Educator I first. The participation would be higher in the Investigations ranks if they could be certified upon completion as long as their Investigator Qualifications could serve as their prerequisite training. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The role of Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist is more educational in nature and requires training as a Public Fire and Life Safety Education I. This committee recommends that the Technical Committee for NFPA 103~ Fire Investigator Professional Qualifications add a requisite for Fire Life Safety Educator I for any investigator conducting Juvenile Firesetter Interventions.

The Committee rejected the Recommendation because not all organizations use their Investigators in Juvenile Firesetter Interventions programs.

(Log #9) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 17- (6-1.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: I0$5-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"General Requisite Knowledge: Interviewing techniques symptoms or signs of abuse or neglect, data collection systems, child development, juvenile justice laws, arson laws. program

~ olicies and procedures." UBSTANTIATION: The Juvenile Firesetter Intervention

Specialist I needs to be familiar with the arson laws in the area they serve to ensure proper investigation techniques are followed for the judicial system. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

7-1.2 will now read as follows: "Juvenile Justice Laws including arson."

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee will include in %1.2 in Juvenile Justice Laws, but would be spelled out to include arson laws.

(Log #4) Committee: PQU-PFE

1055- 18- (6-2.$): Reject SUBMITTER= Susan Phillips, Plainfield Fire Dept., IN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Requisite Knowledge and Requisite Skills of section 6-2.$ with the text found in section 7-2.3 for Requisite Knowledge and Requisite Skills.

312

N F P A 1 0 3 5 ~ F 9 9 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: It appears that the Knowledge and Skills in these sections were reversed. The Intervention Specialist II is designed to be a supervisory position. The Knowledge and Skills in SecUon 7-2.~ appear to be more appropriate for those required of the specialist making the determination for course of action, not someone overseeing the recommendations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: There is no 7-2.3. The Committee rejected the submitters request because there is no 7-2.3 in the current draft of the document.

See Committee Statement in Comment 1035-26 (Log #3).

(Log#18) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 19 - (6-2.3(a) and (b)): Reject SUBM1TTER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

(a) Requisite Knowledge: Intcr '-cw . . . . . . . . , v. v~ . . . . . fc.rms, ~ e = 2f '~ te . '~ :e : ' .~ Fire behavior, child deyelopr~ent. intervention ontions, profile of the firesetter and familv, laws nertainin~ to tThe Juvenile Justice system intervention technioue,,

(b) Requisite Skills: P.~atc t~. o'~hc=. AlaglX~g..gRgLgtP~/ information, selection. SUBSTANTIATION: Switch 6-2.3 with 7-2.3. The text in 7-2.3 best describes the knowledge a Juvenile Firesetter Intervention

ecialist II should acquire before taking the position. MMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The skills and knowledge required for Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist I are carried forward to Level II.

See Committee Statement in Comment 1035-28 (Log #17).

(Log #11) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 20 - (6-4.2(b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

(b) Requisite Skills: Manage personal work time communication and written skills. SUBSTANTIATION: The Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist I will handle the initial contact with a juvenile involved in firesetting or firepiay. They need to manage their time to schedule assessment appointments. They need communication and written skills to do a variety of tasks such as referral correspondence, scheduling assessment appointments, generate reports, and communicating with the parents as well as juveniles. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I COMMITI'EE STATEMENT: Time Management is already ] covered in $-1.1. As noted in 7-1.1 is is required that a Fire Life [ Safety Educator I is obtained prior to becoming a Juvenile

Firesetter Intervention Specialist. The Submitter was using an old ] draft of the document was not referenced in 6-1.2.

(Log #15) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 21 - (6-4.3(b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

(b) Requisite Skills: Coad'.:'ct ~ i.~t¢.-'A¢::'. Interviewing and ranvort building techniaues. SUBSTANTIATION: The interviewer needs to be familiar with the different interviewing techniques. The interviewer needs to be able to overcome obstacles preventing the juvenile to talk by knowing way to develop rapport. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee voted to reject this comment because they feel the area is already covered.

The Committee feels that the subject of Interviewing and rapport building techniques is already cover in the Job Performance Requirement in 7-5.3.

(Log #CC2) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 22 - (7-1.1): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: 7-1.1 should mention establishing interagency network, since it's topic of A-7-1.

The Appendix material in A-7-1.1 referes to material found in 7- 4.4 and should be renumbered to reflect this change. Material would be renumbered to A-7-4.4. and strike the words Intecagency Network (in bold)

The Committee found that the material in A-7-1.1 refers to material in 7-4.4 and will remumber the Appendix item. SUBSTANTIATION: This proposal was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC3) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 23- (7-1.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 103.5-40

I RECOMMENDATION: Add: "Coordinate Community Services". Section 7-1.3 will read:

General Requisite Skills: Communicate verbally, communicate in writing, coordinate Community Services". SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee is creating a Committee Comment to add to 7-1.3 coordinate Community Services. COMMITrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #20) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 24 - (7-2 Fireplay, Firesetting): Reject SUBMrrrER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-19 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

FireDlav. Includes but not limited to malicious false alarms and possession of or exoerimentafion with unanthoriz ,d i~nitjon togls 9r devices. Firesetting. Any unsanctioned, noninstructional use of fire involvement, including both intentional and unintentional, or :~c.t ~'= :.ct-=:.! ,qrc ~cz=r=c=zc where an actual fire occorred regardless of size of fire. SI]BSTANTIATION: A distinction does exist with the two item. Firesetting, by the word alone, is construed to involve fire. Juveniles involved with malicious false alarms and other ignition tools or devices will sometimes not use fire. Educators assist these individuals. The educator's experience indicates that firesetting and fireplay are different. Play is defined as to amuseyourself. The word is defined as to cause to do. Firesetting is associated with causing a fwe, but no t with playing with two chemicals that would cause burns. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee Statement in Comment 1035-3 (Log #1).

(Log #14) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 25 - (7-2.2): Accept in Principle SUBMITrER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1035-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"Supervise the juvenile firesetter intervention specialist I assigned to conduct an assessment process, given program guidelines and evaluation procedures so that a consistent body of information is collected, program guidelines are followed, the juvenile firesetter intervention specialist's I performance is evaluated, and the juvenile firesetter intervention specialist I is given direction and feedback on a continuing basis."

313

N F P A 1 0 3 5 - - F 9 9 R O C

SUBSTANTIATION: The Roman numeral "I" is added to keep the text consistent with text describin~ the certification level. It is added to clarify and eliminate confusmn about the level discussed in the secdon. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

I The Committee agrees that Roman Numeral I is a needed clarification and will be added to %7.2 to read:

"Supervise the assigned Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist I..., Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist I..., Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist I." COMMITTEE STATEMENT: See Committee agrees that the addition will clarify who is being supervised.

(Log #3) Committee: PQU-PFE

1055- 26 - (7-2.$): Reject SUBMITTER: Susan Phillips, Plainfield Fire Dept., IN COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise the Requisite Knowledge and Requisite Skills of section 7-2.3 with the text found in section 6-2.3 for Requisite Knowledge and Requisite Skills SUBSTANTIATION: It appears that the Knowledge and Skills in these sections were reversed. The Intervention Specialist II is designed to be a supervisory position. The Knowledge and Skills in Section 7-2.5 appear to be more appropriate for those required of the specialist making the determination for course of action, not someone overseeing the recommendations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee rejected the Comment because the material in 6-2.3 does not correspond to the recommendation and the document does not contain a %2.3.

The Committee feels that the submitter was using an older draft of the document and was unable to determine what the submitter wanted changed.

(Log #13) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 27- (7-2.3): Reject SUBMITTEI~ Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 10$5.40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"47-ree-ess Oversees the intervention process for a firesetter's family, given a case file, interview forms, a list of treatment providers, and a list of established educational curricula, so that the firesetting

~ roblem is addressed." UBSTANTIATION: Provides a better description of what the

Jcuvenile Firesetter Specialist II is doing in their job. OMMITI'EE ACTION: Reject.

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: This issue is addressed in 7-$.2 which is a Level II function. The Committee voted to reject this Comment because it is covered in %2.$ with the term "supervise".

SUBSTANTIATION: Switch 7-2.3 with 6-2.3. The text in 6-2.3 best describes the knowledge a Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist II should acquire before taking the position. COMMrlTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The skills and knowledge required for Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Specialist I are carried forward to Level II.

(LOg #12) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 29- (7-2.4): Reject SUBMITFER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 10~-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"-Pr-e~e~ Oversees a referral for juvenile firesetter, given program uidelines, forms, and a list of agencies dealing with juvenile resetter issues, so that governing laws, policies, and procedures

are met, confidentiality of the child and family is maintained, intervention is selected, and documentation is completed and maintained according to program guidelines." SUBSTANTIATION: The Juvenile Firesetter Specialist II is considered to be a supervisor overJuvenile Firesetter Specialist I. The word "oversees" provides a better description for the tasks performed by the Juvenile Irlresetter Specialist II. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The issue of supervision is covered in %$.2. The Committee voted to reject the subject of supervision is covered in 7-3.2.

C (Log #CC7)

ommittee: PQU-PFE 1055- 30 - (A-7-2): Accept SUBMITI?ER: Technical Committee on Public Fire Educator Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 103.5-40 RECOMMENDATION: Appendix item A-7-2 second appendix item has an error in numbering (program guidelines) should be renumbered to A-7-$.5 and delete the bolded words Program Guidelines to read:

"Program success can be measured in many wgys, reduction of overall fires set by children, recidivism, rate (repeat Firesetting by children having successfully completed the program), etc. The evaluation plan should be determined during the program planning stage. The evaluation results should be shared with participating agencies and the community. Proper maintenance of records and case files are required to achieve this ~. SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee is creating a Committee Comment to Correct an error in A-7.2 second paragraph. COMMI'VrEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #17) Committee: PQU-PFE

1035- 28 - (7-2.3(a) and (b)): Reject SUBMITTER: Thomas C. Hinkle, IN State Fire Marshal's Office, Investigation Div. COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1055-40 RECOMMENDATION: Revise text:

"2:LT . . ' : : 'L .~ 'L . 'T . . : :L ' . .Tv : : "7 . . ' .L : : _ ? ' ~ " : : " . : : T A . . 7 " . : . ' L ' 2 : : ' L - " ' ' ' °

Interview processes. Droeram forms, tmoes of intervention. (b) Requisite Skills: ?~=I)"2c ^~'* _2.- . . . . . . . • . . . . . . ~ ~ V l Y ' I . . . . . i ' n q a t l G u , . . . . . .

",~te.'-:e.x"-'e.'~. ~x~|ate to others.

314

N F P A 1006 - - F 9 9 R O C

P A R T H I

(Log # c ~ ) - Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- 1 - (1.4 Confined Space A c c t . Confed Space Approach):

~ ' ~ Technical Committee on Rescue Technician ProfemO/~ .~ualificafiom COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-~ RECOMMENBATIONi The Committee wishes to delete the definition for Confined Space Access and add a definition for Coxlfined Space Approach to read: i

Confined Space Approach. The means of approach to the entry o p ~ m g o l ~ c o n o en" of confined s p a c e _ _ . suesT Tios, c o m m i e fees this is of use within this document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Lo~ # I ) Committee: P ~U=PFE

1006- 2 - (1-4 Confined Space Rescue Team): Accept S ~ Richard S. Kraus, American Petroleum Inst. cOMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006~38

I RECOMMENDATION: Delete the reference to "six" individuals as indicated. -

1.4 Confined Space Rescue Team: A combination of individuals (.-'.-nL~..-_-.~.. c f ::%~ trained and available to respond to confined space emergencies and perform rescues. SUBSTANTIATION: I am quite sure what the intentions of the committee are in using the term (minimum of six) parenthetically.

• As written, it appear that NFPA 1006 will require a minimum of 6 people on a rescue team. Many rescues can be successfully made with fewer than six persons on the ~team", especially where mechanical rescue equipment is available and used.

• This is not a good idea, as under the new confined space standard as OSHA may immediately require a minimum of six

~ ons to be present before re~me operations can commence. would create a tremendous burden to industry, especially

small businesses which do not-have in-house rescue operations and depend on outside firms or public safety agencies and fire departments.

• This will deter/delay rescue operations by both volunteer and paid fire departments who have only $ or 4 persons assigned to a truck and would have to wait until a second unit arrives before commencing operations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The Committee agrees with the deletion of the parenthetical material ar, d direct the submitter to see A-1.4 Rescue Team. Confined Space Rescue team (or Team) tO read: A combination of individuals trained and available to respond to confined space emergencies and perform rescues.

' (Log #~) Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- 3 - (4-1.1(a)): Reject SUBMITTER: Peter W. Szerlag, Arlington, MA COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-14 RECOMMENDATION: Change "dynamic load" to "shock load". SUBSTANTIATION: Shock load is probably a better description of the load. Also - add the definition of shock load to the list of definitions - may I suggest this definition - Shock Load - a qnicHy applied load to a rope or structural dement which causes a m u c h larger stress or impact than a slowly applied load. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. ' " COMMITYEE STATEMENT: The Committee feels that the term "Dynamic" is sufficient to express the intent of~he paragraph.

(tog #cc4) Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- 4 - (5-1.4): Accept SUBMITFER: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-$8 RECOMMENDATION: Delete 5-1.4 and replace with new 5-1.4 to read:

~Defme search parameters for a water rescue incident given topographical maps of a search area, descriptions of all missing persons and incident history, hydrologic data inducting speed and direction of current or tides, so that areas with high probability of

I detection are differentiated from other areas, wime~es are interviewed, critical interview information is recorded, inplement passive and active search ~ personnel resources.are considered mad search p a r m n ~ are CommunicatecL

(a) Requisite Knowledge.. Topography ' . ~ component , hydrologic tlctora, methbds m d e ~ f i ~ , h i ~ proba~fity ot detection areas, critical interview questions and pntcti~es, methods to idmt t~ track traim, wais midea t~_ spotter m and p u r l ~ for spO/tter., ~ available.and effem on IWameter. deflation, the ~ o f . sea~. t t l a t ~ defmiz~ the l m e t e r , cmmmmicat ionmethom, and reporting reqmrememL

(b) ReqOdte SIdlW: ~ ~ p l ~ - ~ determine . hydrology, Conduct iutervtem, read and m a A t n ~ trap,, a m correla~ permn~el mailal~lity, search strategy, and condiemm to the parmaeter dcdlnition." SUBSTANTIATION: At the last Committee meeting the Committee members voted to change the existing Job Performance Requirements 5.5 in respoase to aPubl ic Propos~ submitted by Mark Ciippinger, Ozark Rescue $upplies/AR State Parks and documented in Log #15 of the F99 ROP. COMMITIT~ ACTION: Accept.

( #cc7)

1006- 5 - (HgureA-l-4(a) through (e)): Accept SUBMITYJ~- Technical ~ t t e e on Kescue Technician

Profo O coMMENT W'O L RECOMMENDATION:, M a k e ~ following addition to A-l-4(a). Insert infonnm/on on Five General Typee Of Collapse [see Figure A-S-2.2(f) (a), A-S-2.2(f) (b), A-S-~.2(f) (c), and A-S-2.2(f) ( d ) ] from NFPA 1670 , 1 9 9 9 edition. . .

lrqgute A-l-4(a) Lmm-to floor collalme. (Courtesy of U ~ . Delmrmeut of Civil Defense)

Figure A-l.4(b) V~uq~e floor col lapse . (Courtesy of U.S. Department of Civil Defense)

315

N F P A 1 0 0 6 - - F 9 9 R O C

Figure A-l-4(c) Pancake floor collapse. (Courtesy of U.S. Department of Civil Defense) lrgure A-l-4(e) A-frame floor collapse.

SUBSTANTIATION: After the NFPA 1006 Committee meeting held in Chicago, editorial liberties were taken during preparation of the document for public comment. The committee had voted for the material referenced above under "action" to be included in the final draft. This was not done. The committee feels that said illustrations are critical to understanding the collapse discipline as referenced throughout the document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC8) Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- 6 - (Figure A-1-4(b)): Accept SUBMITITaR: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-38

I RECOMMENDATION: Make the following changes and additions to A-1-4(b). Change ~Heavy Construction Type" to "Structural Types". Also, insert illustrations B-1 through B-14 from NFPA 1670, 1999 edition.

Figure A-1-4(d) Cantilever floor collapse. (Courtesy of U.S. Department of Civil Defense)

Table A-l-4(b)

Reference lrwe-Resistlve I Noncombustlble I Ordinary I Heavy. Wood t Timbe#

NFPA 220z" 443 T~pel Type II Type[ III T~PHH1V Type V 332 222 / 111 [ 000 21 200 11 000

V 313 4 5A I fB

UBC ~ T ~ e I T ~ e II Type Ill T~'pe IV T~:m V NP P ] NP

I ]~pe P ePw ] NP P ! V Type 1II T]lpe VI SBC ~ Ty]3e I T lI ~yp Typ 433 332 P [ NP P [ NP 2HH P I NP

1The table headings for fire-resistive, noncombustible, ordinary, heavy timber, and wood construction do not represent any special construction code classification but are meant to provide an easily recognizable general construction type reference. SSee NFPA 220, Standard on T)pes of Building Construction, for common definitions of construction Types I through V. STile three-digit arabic numbers that appear beneath each construction type heading designate the fire resistance rating reqliirements for certain structural elements specified in NFPA 220, Standard on Types of Building Construction. They are provided in this table as a reference and to indicate their relationship to each type o f construction. 4Construction types are referenced to the BOCA National Building Code for correlation with fire-resistive rating requirements for each construction type. SConstruction types are referenced to UBC, Uniform Building Code. The designations P and NP stand for "protected" 6and "not protected," respectively, as used within the UBC. Construction types axe referenced to SBC, Standard Building Code. The designations P (protected) and NT (not

protected) are used in order to provide correlation with UniJbrm Building Code information.

316

N F P A 1 0 0 6 - - F 9 9 R O C

Truss at roof with single or double angle members. Check for buckled or

- , , I ~ / ' V ~ , ~ I I broken connections.

[ ~ "~'[ie-rod at lower chord. bracing truss Check for broken braces or connections,

Check for separation or buckled end connection.

,~_ Steel moment-resisting frame made from thin plates. Check for buckled connections or broken bolts.

Roof sheathing is normally corrugated metal deck supported b lightweight bent steel pudins, Check for b~ kled puriins in end bays,

~ r ~ t a l -----~11111111111111 Cladding is permitted to be ~

stud framing. ' ~

~ k e b ! b r ! k ~ t . ! i , k e ~ connections.

~ c ~ column. kfor

slip at column base.

Figure A-1-4(b).l Light metal buildings ($3).

Steel collar connects each slab to column by welding, Check for slip.

h Joint between core / \ wall and slabs is made / \ with welded inserts. ~ \

Reinforced concrete ee or reinforced shearwalls at stair/ \ concrete columns. elevator core. ~ Check for out of Check for cracking plumb at each story. and spalling in lower stories. Check shearwall

core for diagonal tension cracks.

Check for punching --shear at each column

(cracking is mostly at top).

Cladding is permitted to be metal, ~lass, plaster, WOOd, or exterior wall panels (usually lightweight).

Check cladding joints for damage.

Figure A-l-4(b).2 Post-tensioned lift slab building.

Roof/floor span systems: 1. Wood joist and rafter 2. Diagonal sheathing 3. Straight sheathing

Wall systems: 4. Stud wall

(platform or balloon framed) 5. Horizontal siding

Foundation/connections: 6. Unbraced cripple wall 7. Concrete foundation 8. Brick foundation

Bracing and details: 9. Unreinforced brick chimney

10. Diagonal blocking 11, Let-in brace (only in later vintages)

Figure A-l-4(b).$ Wood stud frame construction.

Figure A-1-4(b).4 Steel moment-resisting frame.

317

N F P A 1 0 0 6 - - F 9 9 R O C

Corrugated metal skin ~ _ ~ lightweight p u r l i ~ ~

Diaphragm --.-....-1 / /__..t~\ .'~-~ ,, t i e - r o d b m c i ~ / ~ ~ . ~ i '

v tie-rod bradng Transverse steel moment-resistent frames

Figure A-1-4(b).5 Light metal construction.

Roof/floor span systems: Wall systems: 1. Steel framing with concrete cover 3. Non-load-bearing concrete wall 2. Wood floor joist and diaphragm 4. Non-load-bearing unreinforced

(diagonal and straight) masonry cover wall

Details: Openings and wall penetrations: 5. Unreinforced and unbraced _ 7. Window-panetratad front facade

parapet and cornice - 8. Large openings of street- 6. Solid party walls level shops

Figure A-l-4(b).6 Steel frame with shearwall.

Roof/floor span systems: Wall systems: 1. Steel framing with concrete cover 3. Non-load-bearing concrete wail 2. Wood floor joist and diaphragm 4. Non-load-bearing unreinforced

(diagonal and straight) masonry cover wall

Details: Openings and wall penetrations: 5. Unreinforced and unbraced 7. Window-penetrated front facade

parapet and cornice 8. Large openings of street- 6. Solid party walls level shops

Figure A-1-4(b).7 Steel frame with unreinforced masonry (URM) in-fill.

Structural system:. Details: 9. Distributed concrete frame 10. Typical tall flint floor (soft story)

Figure A-1-4(b).8 Concrete moment-reslstlng frame.

318

N F P A 1006 w F 9 9 R O C

Roof/floor span systems: Wall system: 1. Heavy timber rafter roof 4. Intedor and exterior concrete 2. Concrete joist and slab beating walls 3. Concrete flat slab ~. Large window penetrations of

school and hospital buildings

3

Figure A-1-4(b),9 Concrete shearwall,

Roof/floor span systems: Roof/floor diaphragms: 1, Glue laminated beam 4. Plywood sheathing

and joist 2, Wood truss 3. Light steel-web ioist

Details: Wall systems: 5. Anchor-bolted wooden ledger 6. Cast-in-place columns

for roof/floor support square, T-shape, and H-shape 7. Welded steel plate-type

panel connection

Figure A-1-4(b),10 Tilt-up construction typical of the'western United States. Tile-u[~ coasti-uction in the eastern United States can

incorporate a steel frame.

Roof/floor span systems: Wall systems: 1. Structural concrete T sections 4. Load-beadng frame 2. Structural double T sec t ions components (cross) 3. Hollow-core concrete slab 5. Multistory load-bearing panels

1

Curtain wall system: Structural system: 6; Precast concrete panels 8, Precast column and beams 7. Metal, glass, or stone panels

Figure A-1-4(b).ll Precast concrete frame,

Roof/floor span systems: 1, Wood post and beam (heavy timber) 2. Wood post, beam, and ~oist

(mill construc~n) 3. Wood truss-pitch and curve

Roof/floor diaphragms: 4. Diagonal sheathing 5. Straight sheathing

Details: Wall systems: 6. Typi~l unbraced p~apet 8. Beadng wall - - four or more

&no cornice wythes of bdck 7. Flat arch window openings 9. TypiCal long solid party wall

Figure A-1-4(b)o12 Unrelaforeed masonry bearil=g wall.

319

N F P A 1 0 0 6 - - F 9 9 R O C

Roof/floor span systems: Roof/floor diaphragms: 1. Wood post and beam (heavy timber) 3. Diagonal sheathing 2. Wood post, beam, and joist 4. Straight sheathing

(mill construction)

3 4

1

0

SUBSTANTIATION: After the NFPA 1006 Committee meeting held in Chicago, editorial liberties were taken during preparation of the document for public comment. The committee had voted for the material referenced above under "action" to be included in the final draft. This was not done. The committee feels that said illustrations are critical to understanding the collapse discipline as referenced throughout the document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC2) Committee: P QU-PFE

1006- 7 - (A-4-1.1(a)): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-38 " RECOMMENDATION: The Committee is adding Appendix A-4-1.1(a) to read:

"For the purposes of this document, "static loads" relates to forces applied within a system when the load is not moving. "Dynamic loads" is intended to address those forces created kby moving loads as well as those caused by the sudden cessation of that movement (shock loads)." SUBSTANTIATION: The Committee feels this appendix item is useful in clarifying the meaning of the terms "static loads" and "dynamic Loads" as used within this document COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Details: 5. Typical unbraced parapet

and cornice 6. Flat arch window openings 7. Small window penetrations

(if building is originally a warehouse)

Wall systems: 8. Bearing wall - - four to eight wythes o f brick

Hgure A-1-4(b).13 Unreinforeed masonry bearing wag.

Roof/floor span systems: 1. Wood post and beam (heavy timber) 2. Wood post, beam, and joist (mill construction)

[I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Details: Wall systems:

Roof/floor diaphragms: 3. Diagonal sheathing 4. Straight sheathing

~ 10 -~

9. Bearing wall - - four to eight wythes of brick

10. Typical long solid party wall 11. Light/ventilation wells in

residential building 12. Nonstructural wood stud

partition walls

5. Typical unbraced parapet and cornice

6. Flat arch window openings 7. Typical penetrated facade of

residential buildings 8. Large openings of ground

floor shops

Figure A-1-4(b).14 Unreinforced masonry bearing wall.

(Log #CC5) Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- 8- (A-5-1.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-38 RECOMMENDATION: Add the following explanatory material to the appendix.

A-5-1.4 Active Search Measures. Of primary and immediate importance is locating the point last seen (PLS) of the missing subject. Sometimes the reporting person (RP) will have no direct knowledge of what happened. For example, the RP may be a family member reporting a group of canoeists overdue at a takeout. Other times the RP will have witnessed a river accident like a raft

overturning or a fisherman being swept away, and will be able to give a description of the victims, and a fairly exact PLS. RP's should be interrogated for all information they might have about the victim, to include physical description, clothing, destination, experience, t ime the incident occurred and any other details that might help the search (e.g. the type of shoes to aid the trackers). Passive Search Measures. The searches at this point are detailed, formal searches, not hasty ones. It is better to have small, trained groups of searchers thoroughly search an area repeatedly than to do it with large groups of untrained searchers, since these frequently trample more evidence than they find. As the search progresses, the IC should frequently debrief team leaders and revise the search plan as necessary. SUBSTANTIATION: At the last Committee Meeting the Committee voted to change the existing Job Performance Requirements 5-5 in response to a Public Proposal submitted by Mark Clippinger, Ozark Rescue Suppliers/AR State Parks and documented in Log #15 of the F99 ROP. The explanatory information was included in the appendix to clarify certain points brought out in the Job Performance Requirements. This was omitted in the review of F99 ROP. COMMrrTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC6) Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- 9- (A-5-9): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-38 RECOMMENDATION: Delete Appendix #_-5-9 and replace it with the text from A-5-10 to read:

"It is the intent of the committee that the water craft operator be required to perform a range of skills that demonstrate the operator's ability to control the craft in challenging or adverse conditions; to recover from a loss of power or primary means of propulsion, to right an overturned craft, to cast and recover

320

N F P A 1006 - - F99 R O C

I rescuers and victims, to dock with fixed points and other water craft, and to tow a disabled water craft to safety. The specific evolutions required to demonstrate this level of proficiency should be defined by the authority having jurisdiction." SUBSTANTIATION: The text for explanatory information for this Job Performance Requirements was revised at the last Committee meedng, but the original text was never deleted. This revision clarifies the goal for this Job Performance Requirements. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

SLIBSTANTIATION: After the NFPA 1006 Committee meeting held in Chicago, editorial liberties were taken during preparation of the document for public comment. The committee had voted for the material referenced above under "action" to be included in the final draft. This was not done. The committee feels that said illustrations are critical to understanding the collapse discipline as referenced throughout the document. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC9) Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- I0 - (A-8-1.15): Accept SUBMITFER: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-38 RECOMMENDATION: Change Section A-8-16 to A-8-1.15 and make the following addition to A-Sd.15 Five Basic Configurations of Cribbing: Insert graphics from NFA Rescue Systems 1 Program. (Omitted action approved by the committee in Chicago).

N N N m I I I

I I I U UUU

2 x 2 3 x 3 Crosstie Crosstie

t111]f Crosstie Triangle Platform Cmsstie

(Log #CC1) Committee: P QU-PFE

1006- 11 - (A-9-2(c)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-38 RECOMMENDATION: The Committee is adding the following material to A-9-2(c) to read:

(c) Shear wall collapse (shear-in), where one (or both) side(s) of the trench shears away from the wall of the trench. Possible indicators for an impending shear wall collapse are slough-ins on lower trench walls and /o r stress cracks visible from the trench lip back to as as [a distance equal to] the depth of the trench. SUBSTANTIATION: This comment was generated as a result of an editorial review of this document. The recommendation contains recommended editorial changes, that resulted from editing at the pamphlet stage of the last code cycle, that require Committee review and action. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CC10) Committee: PQU-PFE

1006- 12 - (B-l): Accept SLIBMITTER: Technical Committee on Rescue Technician Professional Qualifications COMMENT ON PROPOSAL NO: 1006-38 RECOMMENDATION: Revise Table B-1 in the ROP as shown on the following pages: SUBSTANTIATION: The committee revised this Table B-1 to represent the various basic tool configurations for rescue operations. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

Modified Cmsstie

N F P A 1 0 0 6 - - F 9 9 R O C

Table B-I

Kit Contents , Air-monitorin~ equipment ,~ 1) Assorted 4 x 4c r ibb ing Assorted 2 x 2 cribbing{ Assorted wedses Audio visual signaling device Binoculars Boards, short and Ion S spine Boo~,ie board Cammin~ devices ,Carabineers, locking Chain saw, electric or gas Chain sling, 9 ft "Chain sling, 5 ft Char[ed 1 1 /2 in. hose fine Clamp~ "Ellis" Class 2 and 3 harnesses (2) Class B foam application supplies Come-a-long Communication devices, fixed and

portable Community resource lists DECON equipment (3) Descending/ascending devices (friction or mechanical) Detector, electrical energy Dewatering pumps Edse protection, hard and soft Extension cords Fins, swim Flat heat ax

Hammer, demolition, 45 Ib, bull and chisel

Hammer, demolition, 60 Ib, bull and chisel

Hammer, 1.5 in. rotary, with carbide tipped hits 3 /8 in. to 2 in., andbu l l point bit

Hand tools kit (5) Heavy excavating equipment

resources Helmets (6) Hose line, "

regulator nnd rc!ief;v2;'c device Hydraulic cutters Hydraulic rams Hydraulic shores Hydraulic spreaders

Jacks, screw, scissor, a n d / o r hydrolic

Jhn~don box

Knife - - rescue Lighting, flood Lighting, hand a n d / o r helmet (Factor), Mutual approved) Line gun Lumber and t imber (assorted) Lock-out ta~;-out kit

Basle Kit

Conf'med Auto Rope Space Water Truck

Rescue Rescue Rescue Bus X

X & ;g

X X X X ~ X X X X

X X X x

X X X X X x

' /

I ' i

X X

x X X X X X

X X X

Trench Rescue

X X X X X

X

Structural Col lapse

X X X X X X X

X x X X X

X

X X X

X X X

X X X

l " l i ' I : l I ' : l

X

X

1

X

x

x

_ _ . m ! m / B :

X

X X X X

X X X X

X x X X

X Y

X x"

X

I /

I m ~ q

x

x

X

x

x x x x ~g

X Y Y x x

X x

x

X

X

X Y X X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X

X X X X X

X

X X

X X

322

N F P A 1 0 0 6 - - F 9 9 R O C

~ [ I - - ~ ' ~ i I l l I ~" 1 i I 1 ~ 3 1 1 1 I I I [ ~ I | * - - ' r r

l/iRi nillliliill

I

~ i I a l I I i ~ , ] i [ I I 1 ~ I [ t ] { ~ ' ' I

r

dO" ,,,,,~,,~,~ o

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i r i

L~ ~ t L t . . . . , .~..~,~- - , . i i , , , - ~ i , ,

i//lii/ Sheeting Shovel SKED or equivalent a n d / o r rigid

litter rint~ loaded center punch ctical worksheets

Tarps Trow b a~s Torch, kit, oxyacetylene Torpedo buoy, ring buoy, or

equivalent Traffic conu-ol devices Trauma. "--t (1~) Trench box, shield Tripod Wlctim protective coverings Water craft ~ manual or

motorized Webbing Winches Ventilation

X X

X X

X X

X

x X X x

X

7=

x X

21;

- - - , ,

" - - [ I [ (

X X

X X

X X

X X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

x

x X ~L

x

2L

X x

X X

~ 3