1403 Second Draft Ballot Results SR 10, Section No , See SR 10 Eligible to Vote: 31 Not Returned : 3 Gagliano, Herndon, Jr.

Transcription

1 1403 Second Draft Ballot Results SR 10, Section No , See SR 10 Gagliano, Herndon, Jr., O'Donnell Affirmative with Comment 0 Negative 1 Taken out according to language in the comments. SR 15, New Section after , See SR 15 Acceptable as written. SR 2, Section No , See SR 2 Part of work with the NFPA 1041 committee.

2 SR 3, Section No , See SR 3 Affirmative 24 Part of work with the NFPA 1041 committee. Negative 3 David M. Wall While not in opposition to having increased appropriate requirements for the instructor in charge, using the 1041 Instructor II as the qualification is a misunderstanding of the Instructor II level. Nothing in the 1041 or typical training program for an instructor II prepares them for the role of a live fire lead instructor. Nor does the writing of lesson plans prepare them for the live fire lead role. This role is better suited to having its own instructor certification, with instructor I one as a pre requisite. This action would seem to be one of convenience, not one thought out to improve local risk management or a states ability to certify at a specific task level. Cortez Lawrence There is no correlation to managing/leading a live fire exercise and Instructor II. I explained this to the committee as I am also a member of the NFPA 1041 Fire Service Instructor Committee however few members on 1403 seem to get the disconnect we were fueling. Again, Instructor II qualification ensures ZERO ZIP NADA prowess in conducting live fire training, drills or exercises. Gordon L. Lohmeyer I see little value in the instructor in charge being trained to the NFPA 1041 Instructor II level. I would however see value in that person being NFPA 1001, 1081 or similarly certified/qualified.

3 SR 4, Section No , See SR 4 Acceptable as written. SR 5, Section No , See SR 5 Acceptable as written. SR 6, Section No , See SR 6 Still have great concern with the amount of material to be covered and the Fire Chief signing that the participant has completed these additional competencies outside of the NFPA 1001 Fire Behavior JPR's.

4 SR 7, Section No , See SR 7 Acceptable as written. SR 8, Section No , See SR 8 Affirmative with Comment 0 Negative 1 Covered in another section.

5 SR 9, Section No , See SR 9 Affirmative with Comment 0 Negative 1 Deleted within the comment.

6 SR 24, New Section after 4.3.3, See SR 24 Affirmative 20 Affirmative with Comment 6 F. Patrick Marlatt Correct the language Robert E. Raheb Additional re writing of this section needs to be done. Kenneth W. Richards, Jr. Need to correct language Roger M. LeBoeuf My notes from the March 2016 meeting in Dallas show that we rejected the proposed through 4.4.4, as well as the proposed A through A Only the two A.4.4.4's were to be kept after some modification. I thought the majority of the language was rejected partly because it would be too restrictive for hot weather climate training centers, such as TEEX. Did I miss something? My notes show that we accepted the following for the new Section 4.4: Instructors and participants shall be rehabbed in accordance with the provisions of NFPA 1584, Chapter When assessing the length and number of live fire training sessions (evolutions) conducted in a training day, the following shall be taken into account: 1. Nature of the work to be performed by the participant, 2. Physical stress of the work on the participant, 3. Temperature of the work and evolution environment, 4. Exposure time in a high temperature environment, and 5. Other circumstances (e.g. weather, heat index). A Further guidance and information may be obtained in "Health and Safety Guidelines for Fire Fighter Training", University of Maryland, Center for Fire Fighter Safety Research and Development, Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute, College Park, Maryland. (End of Revisions) If I am incorrect, I will gladly change my vote to affirmative but some minor edits would be needed, such as fixing the fact that we have two A.4.4.4's and a couple other things.

7 Gary A. Simpson Negative 2 Roger Lunt Brent Norwine The only area I am in agreement with is the provision as stated in The other information was discussed and the majority of the committee wanted the language removed. How the other parameters still made it into the document is questionable. The information that has the appendix language is in line with our committee discussions , 4.4.3, & didnt pass original vote as many parts of the country these temperatures are daily temperatures for a long period of time. This language needs to be deleted from the body and placed in annex. This is combining two NFPA standards where it is not necessary. The establishment of a trained Safety Officer, Rehab section and controls specific to the local training session will address what is be added here. This is not wording that is necessary in this document. I feel no specific number should be placed on number of burns or time frames that are allowed in one day. I also feel the AHJ and lead instructor should monitor instructors along with students and rest cycles, Not a specific temperature. There are several areas in the country that could not train if they followed the heat index chart and temperature. I do not support this being placed in the document. SR 13, Section No , See SR 13 Part of the work with NFPA 1041.

8 SR 14, New Section after 4.6.2, See SR 14 Affirmative 26 Part of the work with NFPA Negative 1 Gordon L. Lohmeyer I see little value in the instructor in charge being trained to the NFPA 1041 Instructor II level. I would however see value in that person being NFPA 1001, 1081 or similarly certified/qualified. SR 16, Section No , See SR 16 Affirmative 26 Agree with current language. Negative 1 Roger Lunt The concern that is being addressed here is already addressed through the establishment of a Safety Officer, Rehab, Lead Instructor duties, and trained instructor duties. This wording is far to invasion on the instructional environment that is managed and controlled by qualified instructors.

9 SR 22, Section No , See SR 22 Agree with language presented. SR 17, New Section after , See SR 17 Affirmative 24 Affirmative with Comment 4 F. Patrick Marlatt The "and" between "with" and "flow" needs to be removed. The statement as written does not make sense. Brent Norwine The typo needs to be corrected. Roger M. LeBoeuf One typo needs to be corrected, specifically to delete the word "and" between "with" and "flow", so that the sentence reads like this: "...conducting live fire training evolutions with flow path and ventilation controlled conditions..." Agree with language presented.

10 SR 18, Section No , See SR 18 Agree with language presented. SR 19, Section No , See SR 19 Affirmative 24 Affirmative with Comment 4 Robert E. Raheb Additional re writing of this section needs to be done. Kenneth W. Richards, Jr. Need to correct language Roger M. LeBoeuf Extensive edits made during the March 2016 meeting in Dallas are not shown in the ballot. Edits included changing all instances of "will", "must", and "shall" to "should", because this is annex material, plus many other edits. There was a Word file that Dan Madrzykowski drafted, I edited, and then the full committee edited it further during discussion. I have the Word file that has my edits, before the full committee's final edits, but I do not have the full committee's final edits. Do you have those final edits? If not, I can forward the Word file that gets us 90% there (forwarded to Curt on May 14, 2016) and the full committee would need to review it one more time. Agree with language presented.