Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 55
Appendix A
RECOMMENDED FIRE SAFETY PRACTICES FOR
RAIL TRANSIT MATERIALS SELECTION
55
1
1
OCR for page 56
OCR for page 57
57
Federal Register / Vol. 49. Jo. 1.58 Tuesday, August 14, 1984! Notices
Urban Mass Transpc~rtation
Administration
Recommended Fire Safety Practices
for Rail Transit Materials Selection
AGENCY: U rban Mass
Transportation Ad m i ni strati on,
DOT
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Urban Mass
Transportation Administration is
issuing recommendations for
testing flammability and smoke
emission characteristics of
materials used in the construction
of rapid rail transit and light rail
transit vehicles. These
recommendations are based on
the Transportation Systems
Center's "Proposed Guidelines for
Flammability and Smoke Emission
Specifications,. which the transit
industry, in general, uses on a
voluntary basis.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1984.
fOR fURTHER INfORMATlON CONTACT:
James A. O'Connor, U.S.
Department of Transportation,
U rban Mass Transportati on
Admi nistration Di rector, Safety
and Security Staff, (202) 426-2896.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 26, 1982, the
Urban Mass Transportation
Administration (UMTA) published
a Notice and Request for Public
Comment on "Recommended Fire
Safety Practices for Rail Transit
Materials Selection," Vol. 47 FR
535S9. That Notice proposed
recommendations for testing the
flammability and smoke emission
characteristics of materials used in
the construction of rapid rail
transit (RRT) and light rail transit
(LRT) vehicles. Li ke the " Proposed
Guidelines for Flammability and
Smoke Emission Specifications" on
which they are based, these
Recommended practices are not
regulatory in nature Rather, these
Recommended Practices are
intended to be used to assess the
fire risk of materials used in RRT
and LRT vehicles. They do not
duplicate actual fire conditions.
However, their use will result in
the selection of more fire resistant
materials, which will minimize the
fire threat in RRT and LRT vehicles
and thereby reduce the injuries
and property damage resulting
from transit vehicle fires.
Moreover, issuance of the Notice
at this time is consistent with the
Department of Transportation's
position on promoting safety in
transportati on.
In response to comments,
UMTA has made one major
substantive change to the
Recommended Practices, es well as
various editorial and minor
substance revisions. The major
change was to delete all references
to National Fire Protection
Association (N FPA) standards. This
change is discussed more fully
below.
Approxi mater y 2 S organ-
i zations responded to the
November 26, 1982 Notice. The
majority of these, including all but
one of the commenting transit
agencies, generally supported the
Recommended Practices. For the
most part, these comments
suggested onl y m i nor changes,
such as correcting various
typographical errors, and clarifying
the list of referenced standards
and the notes to Table 1. Most of
these comments have been
i Incorporated i n this Notice. After
careful review, UMTA has chosen
not to adopt some comments.
UMTA's goal in issuing the
Recommended Practices is to
suggest a means for providing the
highest practical level of safety. It
is Ul~lTA's opinion that the
comments not adopted would not
further this goal.
The or ajor substantive
comments that were not adopted
concerned: usi ng smal I seal e tests,
most notably the American Society
for Testi ng Materials (ASTM) E- 1 62
test method; modifying certain
aspects of the performance
criteria; substituting tests;
addressing toxicity; and expanding
the scope of the Recommended
Practi ces.
In regard to using small scale
tests, several commenters
questioned whether such tests,
which test component materials
separately, can adequately
simulate the synergistic effects of
burning the various vehicle
assemblies, as may occur in an
actu al fi re.$U 1\/1 TA has determ i ned
that small scale tests are the best
method to test for the most
practical level of safety feasible.
Small scale tests are especially
useful as a screening device to
select materials. As such, they have
the advantage of allowing a transit
authority to choose its own
preferred combination of
materials in making up
speci fi cati ons for RRT and LRT
vehicles. The fact that there is
sufficient correlation between the
results of full scale tests and those
in the Recommended Practices to
support use of those smal I scale
tests has been borne out by full
scale tests conducted by the Bay
Area Rapid Transit District.
Furthermore, there are
disadvantages to the use of full
scale tests. There are 18 different
categories of materials application
that require individual testing in a
vehicle. A full scale fire test that
would determine the merits of
combinations of materials would
require a series of such tests that
would be prohibitive in cost and
OCR for page 58
58
i m possi bl e to perform i n a man ner
that wou I d satisfy al I parti es.` I n
addition, they would el i minate the
small manufacturer who would be
unable to compete in such testing
Vloreover, one noted expert has
stated that full scale tests do not
provide basic information on
individual components or allow
extrapolation to conditions other
than those reached in that test.
Also in connection with small
scale tests, several commenters
referred to the fact that the NFPA
states that several of its standards
are intended only for use as
research and develo,oment tools,
not for regulatory purposes.
Although the Recommended
Practi ces are not regu I atory, U MTA
recogni zes that they wi 11 be used
for more than research and
development. Accordingly, I\IFPA
standards have been deleted from
the Recommended Practices.
ASTM tests E-662 and E-648 have
been substituted for these tests.
Another commenter suggested
that a ~disclaimer. for the use of
the flame spread rating required
under a Federal Trade Commission
consent order be included in the
Recommended Practices. When
read in its entirety, however, the
disclaimer'would not affect the use
of the flange spread test as
suggested in the Recommended
Practices. Given that fact,as well
as the fact that the context differs
from that of the FTC Consent
order, repeating the disclaimer is
considered unnecessary.
Several commenters suggested
modifying the performance
criteria of the tests. Most of these
comments suggested relaxing
various performancecriteria. The
most common argument for doing
so was that materials are not
available that will meet the
performance criteria. However,a
review of the UMTA materials data
bank revealed that in all cases
there are sufficient materials to
meet the criteria of the
Recommended Practices.
Moreover, a recent Ul\ATA study,
"Assessment of the Benefits and
Costs associated with the Adoption
of the Recommended Fire Safety
Practices for Rail Transit Materials
Selection,' Transportation Systems
Center, Report U MTA-l\JlA-06-
0098-81-3, December, 1982, found
that the cost of implementing the
Recommended Practices would be
minimal for new vehicle
construction. In addition, several
transit agencies recently have used
the Recommended Practices
successfully in purchasing rail
transit vehicles. Again,UMTA
believes that relaxing any of the
criteria as suggested by the
commenters would result i n an
unacceptable decrease in safety.
Another comment concerning
relax) ng performance criteria was
that the same criteria should not
be used for both LRT and RRT
vehicles. It is U IVlTA's position that
there is not sufficient difference
between the environments on LRT
and RRT vehicles to warrant
separate tests for thei r materials.
An additional comment was that
the restrictions on flammability are
such that the restrictions on smoke
emissions and, for carpets, critical
radiant flux, are unnecessary.
UMTA disagrees. There is not
necessarily a relationship between
flammability and smoke emission,
so that the flammabilty test alone
does not adequately test for those
two characteristics for example,
some situations may result in very
little flame spread, but a great deal
of smoke. The low flammability
will not indicate the smoke
emission characteristics of such
material.
Several commenters suggested
maki ng certai n performance
criteria more restrictive, for
example by requiring additional
vehicle materials categories to
meet specific optical density
requirements for smoke emission.
For the most part, these greater
restrictions would ei i mi nate
otherwise useful materials without
a corresponding increase in safety.
In the case of electrical cable used
for rai I transi t pu rposes, there i s
not at this time enough
information available to develop
Recommended Practices.
I n regard to su bsti tuti ng tests,
several commenters objected to
the use of the ASTM E- 162 test
method. UMTA did not adopt
these comments because the ASTM
E- 162 is widely accepted both in
the United States and abroad as a
means of determining the flame
spread of materials that may be
used in RRT and LRT vehicles. For
example, it is used to test materials
for com merci al ai rcraft. On the
other hand, al though the ASTM
E-84, the suggested substitute test,
is widely used in the construction
industry, it is not necessarily
suitable for testing materials for
use in LRT and RRT vehicles. For
instance, many materials that melt
and sag cannot adequately be
measu red usi ng the ASTM E-84. I n
addition, the ASTM E-84 is a larger
scale test that the ASTM E- 162 and
therefore more costly. A related
issue is whether the Recommended
Practices will exist in addition to
NFPA Standard 130, or be adopted
by the NFPA to replace NFPA
Standard 1 30. One commenter
expressed concern over the
possible existence of two industry
standards. Thefeinfactwillbe
two test protocols if the NFF" does
not fully adopt the Recommended
Practices, i n which case users wi 11
choose the best method. UMTA
believes that the Recommended
Practices reflect the state of the
art.
Commenters also requested
that UMTA address the issue of
toxicity of the products of
combustion of these materials in
the Recommended Practices.
UMTA recognizes the need to
address this issue, but because of
OCR for page 59
59
its complexity, is not able to do so
in the Recommended Practices.
Instead, in an effort to respond to
transit industry needs Ul\JITA has
i nitiated ~ program to develop
guidelines for assessing the
combustion toxicity of materials.
Recognizing the scope and
extreme complexity of this issue.
UMTA has requested the National
Research Counci l's (1~1 RC)
Transportation Research Board
and Materials Advisory Board of
the Commission on Engi neeri ng
and Technical Systems to assist in
addressing this issue In response
to this request, the NRC has
established a Committee on
Toxicity Hazards of Materials Used
i n Rai I Transit Vehicl es. This
committee, consisting of
representatives of industry and
academia, will review the present
state of knowledge of combustion
toxicity, identify specific toxicity
hazards related to the use of
polymeric materials in transit
vehicles, and recommend a plan of
acti on for devel opi ng gu idel i nes
fortesting materiels. A workshop
will be convened to review the
preliminary findings of the study
group, with interested parties
representing government, mass
transit agencies, user groups, and
industry in attendance.
Commenters also raised
questions about the scope of the
Recommended Practices, and their
relation to the July, 1979,
Proposed Guidel i nes for
Flammability and Smoke Emissions
Specifications.. The
Recommended Practices supersede
those 1979 proposed guidelines.
The Recommended Practices are
intended for use in selecting rail
transit vehicle materiels. UMIA
does not have jurisdiction over
such modes as trucks and mobile
homes. Accordi ngly, it would be
i nappropri ate for U MTA to
recommend fi re safety tests for
selecting materials for those
vehicles. Because buses operate in
a different environment than RRT
and LRT vehicles, UMTA believes it
would be Inappropriate to use RRT
and LRT safety tests for buses.
However, U MTA i ntends to
develop similar fire safety
materials guidelines for transit bus
vehicles in the future
In addition to suggesting
changes to the Recommended
Practices, commenters raised
several questions that require
clarification One commenter
expressed concern that the cost of
retrofitti ng RRT and LRT vehi cl es
would be prohibitively expensive.
The Recommended Practices are
guidelines, not requirements or
regulations. UIVITA believes that
maintenance of safety on transit
systems is a local responsibility and
that the application of the
guidelines by individual transit
systems is a local decision
reflecting operating conditions
and vehicles in each system. It is
not UMTA's intention to direct
when and how the guidelines are
used, but rather to make them
available for use as safety technical
assistance to operating and
planned rail tansit systems.
Another commenter raised a
series of technical questions. The
first was whether the materials
presented in Table 1 are the only
components that requi re testi ng.
They are. the tests usually
prescribe the appropriate
specimen geometry for testing the
material specimens. If not, the
tests should be to the most
appropriate geometry.The second
was whether fed-Std. 191A and
AATCC-86 are indicative of what
will happen to fabrics over their
predictedlives. These tests are
merely meant to determine
whether flame retardant is
removed by cleaning the fabrics.
The third question was why the
Dmax value recommendation for
NFPA 258 was deleted. This value
was deleted because UMTA
determined that measuring smoke
obscuration by time was
preferable to measuring total
maximum smoke obscuration.
Therefore, the Dmax value was
deemed unnecessary. The fi nal
question was when there is more
than one material that can be used
for a function, to which does the
test apply. The answer is that the
test applies to all materials that
can be used for a particular
function.
Recommended fire Safety
Practices for Rail Transit Materials
Selection
Scope
The Recommended Fi re Safety
Practices for Rail Transit Materials
Selection are directed at improving
the vehicle interior materials
selection practices for the pro-
curement of new vehicles and the
retrofit of existing RRT and LRT
veh i cl es. Ad opti on of these
recommended fire safety practices
will help to minimize the fire
threat in rail transit vehicles and,
thereby, red uce the i nj u ri es and
damage resulting from vehicle
fires.
Recommended Fire Safety Practices
for Rail Transit Materials Selection
Application
This document provides
recommended fi re safety practices
for testing the flammability and
smoke emission characteristics of
materials used in the construction
of RRT and LRT vehicl".
Referenced Fire Standards
The source of test procedures
listed in Table ~ are as follows:
( 1 ) Leachi ng Resistance of
Cloth, FED-STO-19lA-TextileTest
Method 5830.
Available from: General
Services Administration
Specifications Division, Building
197 Washington Navy Yard,
Washington, DC 20407.
(2) Federal Aviation
Admi nistration Vertical Burn Test,
OCR for page 60
60
T^BLE 1. RECO~ENDATiONS FOR TES~NG THE FLA~A8~iTY ANO S~OKE E~iS~ON
CHARACTERlSTlCS OF RAIL TRANSIT VEHICLE ~ATERIALS
Fun~ion Test
category I o1 ~ate ial | Procedure I Performence Cri eria I
T Cushlonl#~'ge 1 ASTv D-3675 I [,525
ASTv E-662 D, ( 1 5) ~ 100; ~4 0) ~200
~~e\\ ~ AST~ E-162 1~15
Seatlng AST~ E-662 D, (1 5) ~ 100; D$ (4 0) ~200
S h roud 1. s AST~ E - 162 l, ~1 5
AST~ E-622 D, (1 s) ~100; D $(4 0) ~200
UphoI~eryt2~ s FAR 25 851 f~me ~me ~ 10 see; burn
(Ve~lcal) len~th < 6 inch
AST~ E-662 D, (4 0) ~ 250 coated
D, (4 0) ~ 100 uncoated
ASTv E-162 1 1,~]
AST~ E-662 D, (1 5) ~ 100; O ,64 0) ~200
CeIling l 5 AST~ E- 162 l, ~ 35
AST~ E-662 D, ( 1 5) ~ 100; D ,(4 0) ~00
-,~n ~ S AST~ E - 162 1$ ~ 3 5
~ST~ E-662
_ _
Wl ndscreen 1 s AST~ E- 1 62 1 < 3 5
AST~ E-662 D$ (1 s) ~ 100; D $(4 O) ~200
HVAC Ou~ing L5 AST~ E-1 62 l, ~ 15
AST~ E-662 D$ (4 0) ~ 100
Wlndow~ 5 AST~ E-162 1~100
AST~ E-662 D, ( 1 5) ~ 1 Q0; D $(4.0) ~200
Llght D'ffusers AST~ E- 1 62 1, ~ 100
I I AST~ E-662 1 D, (1 5) ~ 100; D ,{4.0) ~2 )
Floori ng Structural6 AST~ E- 119 Pass
I Cover~ng, I AST~ E-648 1 C R f ~ 0.5~/cm
Thermall;2;s AST~ E-162 l, ~ 25
nsul~- AST~ E-662 D, (4 0) ~ 100
Acousticl:2:5 AST~ E-162 1~25
I I AST~ E-662 I D,{4 0) 5 10
_ _
Elastomers1 AST~ C-542 Pass
vIsceIlaneous Exterlor Shell l s AST~ E- 1 62 l: ~12 _-
AST~E-662 Ds(1 5)5100;D`(40)~200
~nent 80x AST~ E - 162 l, ~1 5
| covers' 5 I AST~ E-662 | D, { 1 5) ~ 100; D ,{4 0) ~ !00
*Refers to Notes on Table 1.
OCR for page 61
61
Available from
Superi ntendent of Documents, U S.
Government Pri nti ng Offi ce,
Washington, DC 20402.
(3) Ameri can Soci ety for
Testing Materials (ASTM)
(a) Specification for
Gaskets, ASTN1 C-542;
(b) Surface Flammability
for Flexible Cellular !\/ aterials
Using a Radiant Heat Energy
Source, ASTM D-3675;
(c) Fi re Tests of Bui Idi ng
Construction and Materials, ASTM
E-1 19;
Materials Using a Radiant Heat
Energy Sou rce, ASTM E- 1 62;
under test (Q), such that 15 = Fs x Q.
3 Specific optical density (Ds)
is the optical density measured
over unit path length within a
chamber of unit volume produced
from a specimen of unit surface
area, that is irradiated by a heat
flux of 2.5 watts/cm2 for a specified
period of time.
4. Surface flammability
denotes the rate at which flames
wi 11 travel al ong su rfaces.
S. Flaming running denotes
continuous flaming material
leaving the site of material
burning or material installation.
(d) SurfaceFlammabilityof 7. Light railtransit(LRT)
vehicle means a streetcar-type
transi t veh i cl e operated on ci ty
streets, semi-private rights-of-way,
or exclusive private rights-of-way.
(e) Bonded and Laminated
Apparel fabrics, ASTM D-2724;
(f) Critical radiant flux of
floor covering systems using a
radiant heat energy source, ASTM
E-648;
(9) Speci fi c optical density
of smoke generated by solid
materials, ASTM E-662.
Available from: American
Society for Testi ng and Materials,
1916 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103.
In all instances, the most recent
issue of the document or the
revision in effect at the time of
request should be employed in the
evaluation of the material
specified herein.
Definition of Terms
1. Critical radiant flux (CRF) as
defined in ASTM E-648 is the level
of incident radiant heat energy on
the floor covering system at the
most distant flame-out point. It is
reported as W/cm2.
2. flame spread index (is) as
defined in ASTM E-162 is a factor
derived from the rate of progress
of the flame front (fs) and the rate
of heat liberation by the material
8. Rapid rail transit (RRT)
vehicle means a subway-type
transit vehicle operated on
excl usive-private rights-of-way
with high-level platform stations.
Recommended Test Procedures
and Performance Criteria
(a) The materials used in RRT
and LRT vehicles should be tested
according to the procedures and
performance criteria set forth in
Table 1.
(b) Transit agencies should
require certification that
combustible materials to be used
in the construction of vehicles have
been tested by a recognized
testing laboratory, and that the
results are within the
recommended limits.
(c) Although, at present, there
are no Recommended Fire Safety
Practices for electrical insulation
materials, i nformati on perti nent to
the selection and specificationof
electrical insulation for use in the
rail transit environment is
contained in the following UMTA
reports:
1 Electrical Insulation Fire
Characteristics, Volume I,
Flammability Tests, December,
~ 978. U MTA-MA-06-002 5-79- 1,
PB294 840t4GA
2. Electricat I nsul ati on Fi re
Characteristics, Volume II, Toxicity,
Decem ber, 1 978, U MTA-MA-06-
0025-79-2, PB294 841 /2GA
3. Combustibility of Electrical
Wire and Cable for Rail Transit
Systems, Volume I, Flammability,
May 1983, UMTA-MA-06-0025-83-
7, PB83-233742
4. Combustibility of Electrical
Wire and Cable for Rail Transit
Systems, Volume II, Toxicity, May
1983, UMTA-MA-06-0025-83-7,
PB83 233759
Available from: The National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA 22161
Notes
1. Materials tested for surface
flammability should not exhibit
any flaming running, or flaming
. . .
arlpplng.
2. The surface flammability
and smoke emission characteristics
of a material should be demon-
strated to be permanent by
washing if appropriate, according
to FED-STD-19tA Textile Test
Method 5830.
3. The surface flammability
and smoke emission characteristics
of a material should be demon-
strated to be permanent by dry-
cleaning, if appropriate, according
to ASTM D-2724. Materials that
cannot be washed or dry cleaned
should be so labeled and should
meet the appl icable performance
criteria after being cleaned as
recommended by the
manufacturer.
OCR for page 62
62
4 For double window
glazing, only the interior glazing
should meet the material
requi remeets speci fled herei n; the
exterior need not meet those
requl remeets.
5. ASTM E-662 maxi no urn test
I i m i ts for smoke em issi on (speci fi c
optical density) should be
measured in either the flaming or
non-flaming mode, depending on
which mode generates the most
smoke.
6. Structural floor) ng
assemblies should meet the
performance criteria during a
nominal test period determined by
the transit agency. The nominal
test period should be twice the
maximum expected period of time,
under normal circumstances, for a
vehicle to come to a complete, safe
stop from maximum speed, plus
the ti me necessary to evacuate al I
passengers from a vehicle to a safe
area. The nominal test period
should not be less than 15 m i notes.
Only one speci men need be tested.
A proportional reduction may be
made in dimensions of the
specimen provided that it
represents a true test of its ability
to perform as a barrier against
u ndercar fi res. Penetrati ons
(ducts, etc.) should be designed
against acting as conduits for fire
and smoke.
7. Carpeting should be tested
i n accordance with ASTM E-648
with its padding, if the padding is
used in actual installation.
8. Arm rests, if foamed
pi astic, are tested as cushions.
9. Testing is performed
without upholstery.
Issued on: August 8, 1984.
Ral ph L. Stanl ey,
Administrator.
If R Doc 84-2 ~ 478 Filed 8-1 3-84: 8:45 am ]
BILLING COOK 4910-57-1~
Representative terms from entire chapter:
rail transit
