E54 - Homeland Security Applications

SCOPE
1.1 The scope of this terminology is to provide a standard terminology for body armor providing protection against ballistic threats, stabbing, fragmentation, blunt impact, or a combination of threats.  
1.2 The intent of this terminology is to have terms, abbreviations, and formulas that are applicable across federal agencies, law enforcement and corrections agencies, testing and certification bodies, and manufacturers.  
1.2.1 The terminology is kept general herein and should be defined more specifically as needed within individual test methods or other standards.  
1.3 This terminology is not intended to describe test methods or performance requirements for body armor.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote pilot proficiency. The operational endurance of a robot significantly impacts the performance of the robot during a variety of tasks. Robot endurance is a complex function of robot design, control scheme design, and energy storage selection. This test method evaluates the endurance of a robot through continuous operation. The outdoor and indoor movement tests flight path chosen for endurance testing specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, flight system to maintain position, and remote situational awareness by the remote pilot. As such, it can be used to represent modest outdoor flight or indoor flight within confined areas. The indoor hovering and dwelling tests similarly challenge these capabilities, but for remaining stationary in air within an outdoor or confined indoor area. The endurance test standard provides a method in which the operational endurance of a large variety of robot sizes and locomotion system designs may be compared. The test provides both a measure of the endurance of the robot and a measure of the reliability of the robot when operating continuously for extended periods of time on complex flight paths or continuous use, or both.  
5.2 The indoor tests with containment walls represent repeatable complexity within commercial spaces and residential dwellings with hallways and doorways, or warehouses.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low-cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and remote pilots.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The endurance test apparatus can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variab...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated aerial response robots (that is, unmanned aerial systems [UAS], drones, unmanned aircrafts) operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the mission endurance of an aerial robot while either station keeping or following an approximate flight path defined by obstacles or boundaries, or both, intended to induce repeated cyclical movement. This test method is one of several robot tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote pilot in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote pilot display are typically required. This test method can be used to evaluate assistive or autonomous behaviors intended to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of remotely operated systems.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented. Flying unmanned aircraft without a comprehensive understanding of the laws and regulations enforced by the relevant jurisdiction poses significant safety and legal risks. Failure to comply with these regulations may result in accidents, injuries, property damage, and legal consequences. Users of this standard are strongly advised to review and adhere to all applicable ASTM Committee F38 standards and to ensure full compliance with the authorities holding jurisdiction.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily ava...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Prompt and accurate identification of harmful biological agents on-scene is crucial to decision making for taking action and responding to incidents involving biological agents.  
5.2 The detection and identification of a biological agent will inform how responders prepare for on-site activity (for example, selection of PPE and necessary precautionary actions), treat exposures, secure and decontaminate the incident site, and inform follow up actions to be taken after the incident has occurred.  
5.3 Inclusivity and exclusivity test panels are used to ensure that biological agents targeted by the FSD can be detected (inclusivity) and that biological agents not targeted by the FSD are not detected (exclusivity). The environmental test panel is used to determine if there are potential interferences that could result in a false negative result when spiked whole biological agent is present.
SCOPE
1.1 General:  
1.1.1 This test method provides a procedure for characterizing the performance of nucleic acid-based field screening devices (FSDs) for the detection and identification of biological agents, when utilizing the test samples and statistical considerations described in Specification E3394.  
1.1.2 This test method describes sample preparation and analysis protocols to use when characterizing the performance of nucleic acid-based field screening devices for the detection and identification of biological agents.  
1.1.3 The intent of this test method is to provide a methodology to analyze samples in a manner that is analogous to how they are to be analyzed in the field by federal and state/local/tribal/territorial (SLTT) law enforcement and first responders, but under more controlled and reproducible conditions than those generally achievable when conducting field testing. The analysis of testing results as described in this test method and in Specification E3394 allow for a systematic way of measuring the statistical performance of FSDs.  
1.2 Units:  
1.2.1 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard in this document.  
1.2.2 When creating test sample mixtures, all concentrations are stated as copies/mL or genome equivalents/mL (GE/mL).  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This specification provides system designers, manufacturers, integrators, procurement personnel, end users, practitioners, and other responsible authorities with a common set of criteria to match field screening device capabilities with user requirements for specific applications.  
1.2 This specification describes the required test sample compositions and amounts, and provides a statistically-based testing approach for evaluating FSD performance for the detection of biological agents as described in Test Method E3395. This specification does not address the estimation of limit of detection.  
1.3 Units:  
1.3.1 Values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard in this specification.  
1.3.2 When creating test sample mixtures, all concentrations are stated as copies/mL or genome equivalents/mL (GE/mL).  
1.4 Operational Concepts:  
1.4.1 FSDs used for identifying potentially dangerous biological agents play an important role in the decision-making processes intended to protect responders and the general public. Suitable FSDs require low rates of false positives and false negatives. FSDs are used for surveillance and sample screening, and they are a particularly important tool in responding to incidents where a sample suspected of containing a biological agent is found. FSDs must be rugged enough to withstand storage and operating conditions that include, but are not limited to, temperature and humidity extremes, shock and vibration, radio frequency interference, and rapid thermal and humidity changes. This specification does not address testing to characterize operating limits or storage conditions.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Manufacturers, purchasers, and end-users will need to determine safety requirements including, but not limited to, use by hazardous material (HAZMAT) teams; use with personal protective equipment (PPE); use by firefighters, law enforcement officers, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Urban Search & Rescue (US&R) teams, special electromagnetic compatibility needs, extended usage periods, and extended mission time.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 It is essential for response agency personnel to plan, develop, implement, and train on standardized guidelines that encompass policy, strategy, operations, and tactical decisions prior to responding to a radiological or nuclear incident. Use of this practice is recommended for all levels of the response structure.  
5.2 Documents developed from this practice should be reviewed and revised as necessary on a two-year cycle or according to each jurisdiction’s normal practices. The review should consider new and updated requirements and guidance, technologies, and other information or equipment that might have a significant impact on the management and outcome of radiological incidents.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides decision-making considerations for response to both accidental and intentional incidents that involve radioactive material. It provides information and guidance for what to include in response planning and what activities to conduct during a response. It also encompasses the practices to respond to any situation complicated by radiation in conjunction with the associated guidance for the specific type of incident.  
1.1.1 The intended audience for the standard includes planners as well as emergency responders, incident commanders, and other emergency workers who should be protected from radiation.  
1.1.2 The scope of this practice applies to all types of radiological emergencies. While it does not fully consider response to an NPP accident,3 an explosive RDD, or nuclear detonation, detailed guidance to respond to such incidents is provided in other documents, such as those cited in the introduction. With respect to the guidance documents, this practice provides the general principles that apply to the broad range of incidents and associated planning goals but relies on the AHJ to apply and tailor their response planning based on those documents as well as the limitation of the personnel and equipment resources in the jurisdiction. In addition, the AHJ should use those documents to identify improvements to planning and resources to be better prepared for the more complex emergencies.  
1.1.3 This practice does not expressly address emergency response to contamination of food or water supplies.  
1.1.4 The Emergency Response Guide (ERG) published by the Department of Transportation provides valuable information for response to traffic accidents involving radioactive materials. For other radiological or nuclear incidents, however, the ERG may not provide adequate information on appropriate protective measures and should not be the sole resource used.  
1.2 This practice applies to those emergency response agencies that have a role in the response to an accidental or intentional radiological or nuclear incident. It should be used by emergency response organizations such as law enforcement, fire service, emergency medical services, and emergency management.  
1.3 This practice assumes that implementation begins with the recognition of a radiological or nuclear incident and ends when emergency response actions cease or the response is supported by specialized regional, state, or federal response assets.  
1.4 AHJs using this practice should identify hazards, develop a plan, acquire and track equipment, and provide training consistent with the descriptions provided in Section 6.  
1.5 While response to radiological hazards is the focus of this practice, responders must consider all hazards during a response; it is possible that non-radiological hazards may present a greater danger at an incident, particularly in incidents with wide area dispersion.  
1.5.1 This practice does not fully address assessing the risks from airborne radioactivity. Equipment to determine this potential hazard is not widely available in emergency responder communities. Like other responses to unknown hazards, respiratory protection commonly used by responders is required until a complete hazard i...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of human-system interaction capability including robotic system mobility, dexterity, inspection, remote operator proficiency, and situational awareness. In particular, the operator control unit (OCU) design and interface features may impact the operator’s ability to perform movement and inspection tasks with the robot.  
5.2 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations, dates, and times to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.3 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. It can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.4 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.5 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training, as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within training scenarios. The resulting measures of remote operator proficiency enable tracking of perishable skills over time, along with comparisons of performance across squads, regions, or national averages.  
5.6 Innovation—This test method can be used to inspire technical innovation, demonstrate break-through capabilities, and measure the reliability of systems performing specific tasks within an overall mission sequence. Combining or sequencing multiple test methods can guide manufacturers toward implementing the combinations of capabilities necessary to perform essential mission tasks.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to dexterously inspect objects of interest in the environment at various heights, depths, orientations, and confinement. This test method is one of several related dexterity tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system typically includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors may improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (Imperial Units) are used throughout this test method. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with inter...

SCOPE
1.1 This terminology identifies and precisely defines terms as used in the standard test methods, practices, and guides for evaluating response robots intended for hazardous environments. Further discussions of the terms can be found within the standards in which the terms appear.  
1.2 The term definitions address response robots, including ground, aquatic, and aerial systems. Some key features of such systems are remotely operated from safe standoff distances, deployable at operational tempos, capable of operating in complex environments, sufficiently hardened against harsh environments, reliable and field serviceable, durable or cost effectively disposable, and equipped with operational safeguards.  
1.3 Units—Values stated in either the International System of Units (metric) or U.S. Customary units (inch-pound) are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents. Both units are referenced to facilitate acquisition of materials internationally and minimize fabrication costs. Tests conducted using either system maintain repeatability and reproducibility of the test method and results are comparable.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This practice specifies an in-vivo measurement of CWA decontamination on the skin.  
4.2 CWA skin decontaminants will have different modes of action including absorption, adsorption, removal, chemical neutralization or some combination of the above. There is, therefore, no single representative in-vitro method for validation of decontamination efficacy of products for skin decontamination. For example, measuring the presence of a radiolabelled chemical warfare agent after chemical neutralization, may give a false positive results. It has been shown that if the agent has been chemically neutralized, the radiolabel may still be present in a non-toxic molecule. In addition, some chemical neutralization methods may break down the original agent, but the breakdown product is highly toxic. In the case of VX, hydrolysis produces a highly toxic product, EA2192 (S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methylphosphonothioic acid (8).  
4.3 This standard practice is of significance in that efficacy is thoroughly evaluated to the extent possible to represent use on human skin. In-vivo studies have demonstrated that simple chemical monitoring for disappearance of the chemical agent may not be sufficient to measure decontamination and neutralization effectiveness. A standard practice is needed for determining actual decontamination and neutralization by measuring the decrease in mortality or lesion size caused by the agent.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice establishes an in-vivo method for assessing the comparative efficacy of products used for the decontamination of chemical warfare agents (CWAs) on the skin.  
1.2 This practice provides a quantitative efficacy comparison of different skin decontamination products.  
1.3 To minimize the number of animals used, this in-vivo practice should be performed only after rigorous in-vitro studies of the candidate decontaminant, which can show the implied claims including chemical neutralization, decontamination studies on surfaces and appropriate testing such as cytotoxicity.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with the use of decontamination products or CWAs. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This specification specifies requirements for ballistic-resistant panels to be mounted in or on public safety vehicle doors to protect against complete penetration of projectiles from small arms.2  
1.2 The purpose of this specification is to define minimum performance for ballistic-resistant vehicle door panels.  
1.2.1 In addition to the required tests, optional tests with specific conditions are provided that allow testing beyond the minimum requirements of this specification. Statements of conformance with this specification do not include any optional test unless the optional test is conducted, and the results are included in the test report.  
1.3 This specification requires ballistic testing of vehicle door panels mounted either in a test fixture or mounted on a vehicle door for which the panel is designed.  
1.3.1 Door panels intended to be mounted inside a vehicle door shall be assessed in a test fixture with air backing.
1.3.1.1 Two optional ballistic tests are provided for vehicle door panels intended to be mounted inside a vehicle door:
(1) The preferred optional ballistic test assesses the panel in a vehicle door for which the panel is designed.
(2) If a vehicle door for which the panel is designed is not available, a second optional ballistic test assesses the panel in a test fixture with air backing and a door skin simulant in front of the strike face of the panel.  
1.3.2 Door panels intended to be mounted on the exterior of a vehicle door shall be assessed on a vehicle door for which the panel is designed.  
1.3.3 An optional extreme temperature ballistic test is provided for purchasers concerned with performance of vehicle door panels in very hot or very cold environments.  
1.3.4 The optional ballistic tests are provided in Appendix X1.  
1.4 Selection and procurement guidance is provided in Appendix X2 to assist purchasers in using this specification to procure vehicles with ballistic-resistant door panels or to retrofit existing vehicles with ballistic-resistant door panels.  
1.5 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to non-SI units that are provided for information only.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This specification specifies minimum performance requirements and test methods for the ballistic resistance of helmets used by U.S. public safety officers and intended to protect the head against handgun and rifle ammunition.  
1.1.1 The test methods within this specification were developed and validated for broadly available helmet designs. Some helmet designs may require additional or different testing than that specified in this specification.  
1.2 This specification addresses ballistic performance in terms of:  
1.2.1 Helmet resistance to penetration (RTP) of shell, fasteners, and weak points;  
1.2.2 Helmet shell ballistic limit (V50); and  
1.2.3 Face shield RTP and deformation.  
1.3 Helmets covered by this specification are classified into RTP ballistic protection levels (see Section 8).  
1.4 This specification addresses non-ballistic performance in terms of:  
1.4.1 Helmet impact attenuation;  
1.4.2 Helmet shell compression resistance;  
1.4.3 Face shield resistance to blunt impact, deflection, and projectile impact;  
1.4.4 Face shield optics; and  
1.4.5 Retention system strength.  
1.5 Backface deformation (BFD) measurement is not addressed as a requirement for compliance with this specification. If the user of this specification is interested in BFD measurement, see Appendix X1.  
1.6 Armor appliques are not addressed within this version of the specification.  
1.7 This specification is applicable for compliance testing, verification testing, certification testing, or research and development testing.  
1.8 This specification is divided into the following sections:    
Section  
Title  
1  
Scope  
2  
Referenced Documents  
3  
Terminology  
4  
Significance and Use  
5  
Test Threats, Equipment, and Materials  
6  
Test Item Requirements  
7  
Procedure for Visual Examination  
8  
Helmet Resistance to Penetration (RTP) Ballistic Protection Levels and Test Threats  
9  
Ballistic Performance Requirements for Helmet Shell RTP and BFD  
10  
Ballistic Performance Requirements for Face Shields  
11  
Ballistic Performance Requirements for Helmet Shell Ballistic Limit (V50)  
12  
Ballistic Performance Requirements for Fasteners  
13  
Ballistic Performance Requirements for Weak Points  
14  
Non-ballistic Performance Requirements for Helmets and Face Shields  
15  
Product Documentation Requirements  
16  
Product Label and Package Label Requirements  
17  
Test Report  
18  
Keywords  
Annex A1  
ASTM Helmet RTP Ballistic Protection Levels and Associated Test Threats  
Annex A2  
Ballistic Testing Summary  
Annex A3  
Non-ballistic Testing Summary  
Appendix X1  
Optional Backface Deformation Measurement Acceptance Criteria and Test Procedure  
1.9 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The purpose of this specification is to provide performance requirements and test methods for the evaluation of ballistic-resistant shields used by law enforcement officers.  
4.2 This specification may be used by suppliers, certification bodies, verification bodies, testing laboratories, research and development organizations, and others assessing the performance of ballistic-resistant shields.  
4.3 The specification may be used by purchasers in their evaluation of products to meet their needs and requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This standard specifies minimum performance requirements and test methods for the ballistic resistance of shields used by U.S. law enforcement officers to protect against handgun and rifle ammunition.  
1.1.1 The option for testing either handgun-rated or rifle-rated shields with a shotgun threat is included in Appendix X2.
Note 1: Shields rated as “shotgun only” are not typically produced in the industry because they are not used by law enforcement agencies.  
1.2 Products addressed by this specification include hand-held or hand-carried shields (having single or multiple panels, multi-fold shields) and person-portable shields with wheels.  
1.2.1 Shields may be stand-alone or may incorporate in conjunction with (ICW) armor appliques.  
1.3 Products not addressed by this specification include fixed or mobile barriers not intended to move during an operation and flexible shields that drape across the surfaces upon which they are placed (for example, ballistic blankets).
Note 2: The above products are addressed by Specification E3236/E3236M.  
1.4 This specification addresses ballistic performance in terms of resistance to penetration (RTP) of the shield body, body edges, viewports, fasteners, and weak points.  
1.5 Shields covered by this specification are classified into ASTM shield ballistic protection levels (see Section 10).  
1.6 This specification is applicable for certification testing, verification testing, or research and development testing.  
1.7 Values stated in either the International System of Units (metric) or U.S. Customary units [inch-pound] are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents. Both units are referenced to facilitate acquisition of materials internationally and minimize fabrication costs. Tests conducted using either system maintain repeatability and reproducibility of the test method and results are comparable.  
1.8 This specification is divided into the following sections:    
Section  
Title    
1  
Scope  
2  
Referenced Documents  
3  
Terminology  
4  
Significance and Use  
5  
Equipment and Materials  
6  
Conditioning Requirements  
7  
Test Requirements  
8  
Test Item Requirements  
9  
Procedure for Visual Examination  
10  
Ballistic Protection Levels and Test Threats  
11  
Ballistic Performance Requirements for Handgun-rated Shields  
12  
Ballistic Performance Requirements for Rifle-rated Shields    
13  
Product Documentation Requirements  
14  
Product Label and Package Label Requirements  
15  
Test Report  
16  
Keywords    
Appendix X1  
Example Test Item and Shot Distribution Diagrams  
Appendix X2  
Performance Requirements for Adding a Shotgun Threat to a Handgun-rated or Rifle-rated Shield  
1.9 The tests required by this standard have inherent hazards. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Justice standards and specifications require assessing the penetration resistance and backface deformation of ballistic-resistant body armor.  
5.2 This test method may be used by private-sector and government laboratories, manufacturers, research and development organizations, and others assessing the ballistic resistance of body armor or performing research and development of new materials.  
5.3 It is intended that this test method be referenced by other standards, specifications, or test methods.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method addresses resistance to ballistic penetration and to backface deformation (BFD) for ballistic-resistant torso body armor and shoot packs.  
1.2 This test method is intended for testing of soft body armor, hard armor plates, in conjunction with armor, and shoot packs mounted on a clay block as the backing assembly.
Note 1: This test method does not apply to ballistic helmets, inserts, trauma packs, trauma plates, or accessories.  
1.3 The test method does not specify performance criteria or usage of the test results.  
1.4 This test method does not address conditioning of test items.  
1.5 It is anticipated that this test method will be referenced by certifiers, purchasers, or other users in order to meet their specific needs.  
1.5.1 Purchasers and other users will specify the ballistic test threats to be used. Within this test method, the reference defining the ballistic test threats is called the “test threats document.”  
1.5.2 In this test method, “other standards and specifications” and “unless specified elsewhere” refer to documents (for example, military standards, purchase specifications) that require the use of this test method. Purchasers and other users are responsible for the “other standards and specifications” and for specifying any requirements that supersede those of this test method.  
1.6 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.6.1 The user of this standard will identify the system of units to be used, and it is critical to ensure that any cross-referenced standards maintain consistency of units between standards.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 This specification covers the minimum requirements for the design, performance, testing, and certification of air-purifying respiratory protective smoke escape devices for immediate emergency evacuation without entry/re-entry.  
1.2 The purpose of this specification shall be to provide minimum requirements for respiratory protective escape devices that provide limited protection for 15 min for escape from the by-products of fire, including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, other toxic gases, and the effects of radiant heat.  
1.3 The requirements of this specification specify an air-purifying respiratory protective escape device with a laboratory-tested 15-min service life intended to provide head, eye, and respiratory protection from particulate matter, irritants, and toxic gases and vapors commonly produced by fire.  
1.4 Controlled laboratory tests that are used to determine compliance with the performance requirements of this specification shall not be deemed as establishing performance levels for all situations to which individuals can be exposed.  
1.5 This specification shall not apply to the requirements for provision, installation, or use of air-purifying respiratory protective smoke escape devices.  
1.6 This specification shall not apply to respiratory protective escape devices intended for use in circumstances in which an oxygen deficiency (oxygen less than 19.5 % by volume) exists or might exist.  
1.7 This specification is not intended to be used as a detailed manufacturing or purchase specification, but shall be permitted to be referenced as a minimum requirement in purchase specifications.  
1.8 The conformity assessment requirements of Guide F3050, Model C, shall apply to the certification of products in accordance with this specification.  
1.9 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.10 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.11 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. The operational endurance of a ground robot significantly impacts the performance of the robot during a variety of tasks. Robot endurance is a complex function of robot design, control scheme design, and energy storage selection. This test method evaluates the endurance of a robot through continuous operation on a complex surface. The continuous pitch/roll ramp terrain chosen for endurance testing specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting in complex terrain (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, it can be used to represent modest outdoor terrain complexity or indoor debris within confined areas. The endurance test standard provides a method in which the operational endurance of a large variety of robot sizes and locomotion system designs may be compared. The test provides both a measure of the endurance of the robot and a measure of the reliability of the robot when operating continuously for extended periods of time on complex terrains.  
5.2 The scale of the terrain apparatus can vary to provide different constraints depending on the typical obstacle spacing of the intended deployment environment. For example, the terrain with containment walls can be sized to represent repeatable complexity within bus, train, or plane aisles; dwellings with hallways and doorways; relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars; or unobstructed terrains.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used i...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the mission endurance of a robot while traversing complex terrains in the form of continuous pitch/roll ramps or other standard terrains in the terrain suite. This test method is one of several ground robot tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system are encouraged.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was develo...

SCOPE
1.1 This test method2 applies to personal protective ballistic-resistant shields.  
1.2 The intent of this test method is to evaluate the ballistic resistance of shield products for law enforcement.  
1.3 Certifiers, purchasers, and other users of this test method will specify the ballistic test threats to be used. Within this test method, the reference defining the ballistic test threats will be called the “test threats document.”  
1.4 In this test method, “other standards and specifications” and “unless specified elsewhere” refer to documents (for example, military standards, purchase specifications) that require the use of this test method. Certifiers, purchasers, and other users are responsible for the “other standards and specifications” and for specifying any requirements that supersede those of this test method.  
1.5 Units—Values stated in either the International System of Units (metric) or U.S. Customary units (inch-pound) are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents. Tests conducted using either system maintain repeatability and reproducibility of the test method and results are comparable.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The purpose of these test methods is to provide reliable and repeatable nonballistic test methods and conditioning procedures for the evaluation of head protection used in law enforcement and corrections applications.  
4.2 It is anticipated that these test methods will be referenced by certifiers, purchasers, or other users in order to meet their specific needs. Those users will specify which test methods and conditioning procedures are applicable, and will specify any performance categories or levels.  
4.3 These test methods include some procedures and references to other standards to ensure that relevant properties are addressed.
SCOPE
1.1 This standard provides nonballistic test methods and conditioning procedures for assessing head protection (that is, helmet and face shield) worn by law enforcement and corrections officers.  
1.1.1 Conditioning procedures are included to assess durability in terms of resistance to chemicals and cleaning products, extreme temperatures, weathering, and absorption of liquids.  
1.1.2 Test methods are included to assess the protective performance against hazards including impact/bump, projectiles (other than bullets), flame, and liquids.  
1.1.3 Test methods are included to assess safety and ergonomic aspects of retention system strength, stability of the helmet on the wearer’s head, corrosion resistance, and face shield visual acuity, field of view, scratch resistance, and anti-mist properties.
Note 1: These test methods reference published standards from ASTM International and other standards developing organizations. Appendix X1 contains a summary of test methods included in this standard, along with the source and purpose for each.  
1.2 These test methods do not address eye protection other than face shields that are attached to the helmet.  
1.3 It is anticipated that these test methods will be referenced by suppliers, certifiers, purchasers, or other users to meet their specific needs. Those users will specify, in other standards and specifications, which test methods and conditioning procedures are applicable and will specify any performance categories or levels.  
1.3.1 If there is a discrepancy between these test methods and a user-supplied document, the user-supplied document shall take precedence.  
1.4 In these test methods, “other standards and specifications” and “unless specified elsewhere” refer to documents (for example, military standards, purchase specifications) that require the use of these test methods. Purchasers and other users are responsible for the “other standards and specifications” and for specifying any requirements that supersede those of these test methods.  
1.5 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 It is anticipated that this practice will be referenced by certifiers, purchasers, and other users in order to meet their specific needs. Those users will specify which conditioning procedures are applicable.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice applies to the conditioning of hard armor test items prior to ballistic resistance testing. Hard armor is an item of personal protective equipment that is constructed of rigid materials and is intended to protect the wearer from threats that may include ballistic threats, stabbing, fragmentation, or blunt impact, or combinations thereof. (Terminology E3005.) Hard armor is also referred to as hard armor plate and plate.
Note 1: Ballistic resistance testing is not covered in this practice.  
1.2 This practice describes requirements for subjecting test items to conditions intended to assess the capability of the test item to withstand environmental conditions that induce responses similar to those that might result from conditions encountered during use. This practice includes the conditioning procedures listed below:  
1.2.1 Controlled ambient conditioning procedure,  
1.2.2 Thermal/temperature shock procedure,  
1.2.3 Temperature extremes procedure,  
1.2.4 Weathering procedure,  
1.2.5 Fluid exposure procedure,  
1.2.6 Altitude exposure procedure,  
1.2.7 Vibration conditioning procedure,  
1.2.8 Impact Durability pre-conditioning,  
1.2.9 Impact Durability procedure for torso front and back plates, and  
1.2.10 Impact Durability procedure for other plates (that is, other than torso front and back plates).  
1.3 The user of this practice shall determine which conditioning procedures apply.
Note 2: This practice may not be applicable to all types of hard armor.  
1.4 In this practice, “other standards and specifications” and “unless specified elsewhere” refer to documents (for example, military standards, purchase specifications) that require the use of this practice. Purchasers and other users are responsible for the “other standards and specifications” and for specifying any requirements that supersede those of this practice.  
1.5 This practice does not address pass/fail requirements for test items subjected to these procedures.  
1.6 This practice does not address visual inspections or radiographic inspections of test items that may be required prior to or following conditioning.
Note 3: It is recommended that a thorough visual examination of each test item prior to and after the exposures be performed to document any change in physical appearance resulting from the exposure.  
1.7 This practice does not address subsequent conditioning or testing of test items.  
1.8 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.8.1 The user of this standard will identify the system of units to be used, and it is critical to ensure that any cross-referenced standards maintain consistency of units between standards.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This specification is used to standardize the portable air heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated air for personnel comfort before, during, and after the decontamination for as long as they are needed during the emergency. The heater materials of construction shall be easily cleaned of surface mud and grime with no degradation of the unit’s ability to perform its function. The preferred fuels for the heater section of the portable air heater are diesel fuel, gasoline, or bottled propane gas. Measurement of the air heater unit’s air flow and input and output temperatures shall be performed.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
11.1 The use of these acceptance tests will insure that organizations buying portable heaters will be assured the heaters meet certain performance requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification is used to standardize the portable air heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated air for personnel comfort before, during, and after the decontamination for as long as they are needed during the emergency.
Note 1: These heaters are not intended to be used for the decontamination for any other surface or material. Also, these heaters are intended to be portable and easy to use by first responders during a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) event.  
1.2 This specification contains a specification section and a test methods section so users need to refer to the section applicable to their needs when using this standard specification.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
Note 2: The U.S. first responder personnel using the equipment manufactured under this standard are not likely to be familiar with SI units so English units need to be included as part of the system documentation and shown on control panels for any equipment sold to U.S. organizations.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This specification is used to standardize the portable water heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated water for as long as they are needed during the emergency. The heater materials of construction shall be easily cleaned of surface mud and grime with no degradation of the unit's ability to perform its function. The performance requirements for portable water heaters are presented in details. The rotometer test method, and ASTM test method shall be performed to meet the requirements prescribed. The water heater unit's water flow shall be measured, and recorded. The water heater unit's cold water inlet and warm water output temperature shall be measured and recorded. The water heater unit's water supply and outlet pressures shall be measured and recorded.
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
12.1 The use of these acceptance tests will insure that organizations buying portable heaters will be assured the heaters meet certain performance requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification is used to standardize the portable water heaters used on personnel decontamination lines to insure the heaters provide sufficient heated water for as long as they are needed during the emergency.
Note 1: These heaters are not intended to be used for the decontamination for any other surface or material. Also, these heaters are intended to be portable and easy to use by first responders during a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) event.  
1.2 This specification contains a specification section and a test methods section so users need to refer to the section applicable to their needs when using this standard specification.  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
Note 2: The U.S. first responder personnel using the equipment manufactured under this standard are not likely to be familiar with SI units so English units need to be included as part of the system documentation and shown on control panels for any equipment sold to U.S. organizations.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This specification describes a standardized method for preparation and verification of backing assemblies used in ballistic-resistant torso body armor testing and for reducing variability within and between laboratories. Included in this specification are the equipment used for preparation and verification of clay blocks, namely: backing fixture, backing fixture liner, bridge gauge, conditioning chamber, impactor, striking device, template, test setup, and velocity measurement equipment.
This specification also covers procedures for characterization of clay block verification test setup, clay block preparation, clay block verification procedure prior to ballistic testing, clay block repair, clay block verification between test items, and clay block verification after final shot on clay block.
SCOPE
1.1 The purpose of this specification is to provide standardized methods for preparation and verification of backing assemblies used in ballistic-resistant torso body armor testing and to reduce variability within and between laboratories.  
1.2 The backing assembly is a clay block that contains ROMA Plastilina No. 1®2 clay as the backing material. The clay serves as a witness material and provides a measurable indication of test item performance.  
1.3 This specification identifies two clay-verification impactors that may be used: (1) cylindrical and (2) spherical. Purchasers and other users will specify the clay-verification impactor to be used.  
1.4 This specification is primarily directed toward test laboratories but may be applicable to body armor manufacturers, researchers, and end users performing ballistic-resistance testing of body armor.  
1.5 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to non-SI units that are provided for information only.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Justice standards require ballistic limit determination for assessing the performance of ballistic-resistant body armor.  
5.2 This test method may be used by private-sector and government laboratories, manufacturers, research and development organizations, and others assessing the ballistic resistance of body armor or performing research and development of new materials.  
5.3 It is intended that this test method be referenced by other standards, specifications, and test methods.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method addresses the collection of ballistic limit data for ballistic-resistant torso body armor and shoot packs.  
1.2 This test method is intended for testing of soft body armor, hard armor plates, and shoot packs. This test method does not apply to ballistic helmets.  
1.3 This test method describes procedures for collecting data and does not specify computation or performance criteria for the ballistic limit. Instructions for computation and performance criteria are specified in other standards and specifications.  
1.4 Several commonly used test item mounting procedures and ballistic limit procedures are included in this test method; certifiers, purchasers, and other users will specify the procedures to be used.  
1.5 This test method does not address conditioning of test items.  
1.6 It is anticipated that this test method will be referenced by certifiers, purchasers, or other users to meet their specific needs.  
1.6.1 Certifier, purchasers, and other users will specify and describe the ballistic test threats to be used. Within this test method, the reference will be called the “test threats document.”  
1.6.2 Certifiers, purchasers, and other users will provide specific instructions for the determination of complete penetrations or partial penetrations.  
1.6.3 In this test method, “other standards and specifications” and “unless specified elsewhere” refer to documents (for example, military standards, purchase specifications) that require the use of this test method. Certifiers, purchasers, and other users are responsible for the “other standards and specifications” and for specifying any requirements that supersede those of this test method.  
1.7 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.7.1 The user of this standard will identify the system of units to be used, and it is critical to ensure that any cross-referenced standards maintain consistency of units between standards.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide is intended for use by communities, which may include towns, incorporated cities, counties, or similar entities with the authority to convene and implement resilience planning. The process described in this guide may have applications to a broader set of users, such as those described in Guide E3032.  
5.2 This guide is intended to be applied at a community or regional geographical and administrative scale. Smaller geographic and administrative scales, such as neighborhood scales, may also use this guide; however, there may be limitations in the range of solutions (see Step 4B) that are available due to statutory, regulatory, financial, or administrative constraints caused by limitations in governance bodies.  
5.3 This guide provides an analytical framework for establishing desired versus current anticipated performance in terms of time to recovery of function for clusters and infrastructure systems. The output of this analytical framework provides an objective basis for establishing priorities among proposed strategies and solutions to help meet community resilience goals.  
5.4 The planning and analytical process can be applied to any hazard, though the focus is on natural hazards. Steps 1 and 2 (form a collaborative planning team and understand the situation) do not require the use of hazard information and provide useful information for communities that can be incorporated into a resilience plan. The activities described in Steps 3 and 4 (determine goals and objectives, and develop the plan) require technical information about hazards and an assessment of their impact on community systems.  
5.5 This guide provides a planning process that emphasizes disaster recovery outcomes. However, all phases of preparedness, including prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery, are important to the successful achievement of disaster recovery objectives. The analytical outputs of this guide should inform all phases of preparedness and prov...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide sets forth a flexible approach for communities to develop customized, comprehensive resilience plans for buildings and infrastructure systems that include input from relevant stakeholders; consider the social, economic, and physical systems of a community; establish community-scale performance goals that encourage recovery-oriented planning; and recommend processes to implement and maintain community resilience plans over time as community priorities evolve and change.  
1.1.1 The social dimensions of a community should drive the requirements of a community’s resilience plans and the performance of its physical systems, especially during recovery. The identification of social functions is a fundamental element of developing community resilience plans that accurately reflect priorities for recovery after a hazard event.  
1.2 The guide process steps address how to (1) form collaborative planning teams; (2) evaluate the current condition of social and built dimensions of a community; (3) determine community goals and objectives for built systems and hazards; (4) develop plans that address performance gaps and identify solutions; (5) prepare, review and approve final community resilience plans; and (6) implement and maintain resilience plans.  
1.3 This guide provides a process that facilitates priority setting and decision making regarding the establishment of community resilience goals and associated solutions. The process provides a framework for community resilience planning needs and is not intended to be prescriptive.  
1.4 Limitations of Guide—This guide does not advocate or specify any particular analytical methodology for ascertaining the performance of the built environment. This guide also does not directly address the effects of climate change, although the planning process can incorporate such events and impacts. (For additional information on these processes to address climate resilience pla...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Justice standards and specifications may require these test methods for assessing the penetration resistance and backface deformation of ballistic-resistant helmets and face shields.  
5.2 These test methods may be used by private-sector and government laboratories, manufacturers, research and development organizations, and others assessing the ballistic resistance of helmets and face shields or performing research and development of new materials.  
5.3 It is intended that these test methods will be referenced by other standards and specifications.
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods describe the tests for ballistic-resistant head protection which consists of helmets and face shields. Test methods address backface deformation, resistance to penetration, and ballistic limit. It is anticipated that these test methods will be referenced by purchasers or other users in specifications or performance standards for helmets in order to meet the user’s specific needs.
Note 1: ISO/IEC 17025 specifies the general requirements for the competence to carry out tests or calibrations, or both. It covers testing and calibration performed using standard methods, non-standard methods, and laboratory-developed methods.  
1.2 These test methods do not address eye protection other than ballistic-resistant face shields that are attached to the helmet.  
1.3 These test methods do not specify performance criteria or usages of the test results.  
1.4 These test methods include procedures for conditioning of test items prior to ballistic testing.  
1.5 In these test methods, “other standards and specifications” and “unless specified elsewhere” refer to documents (for example, military standards, purchase specifications) that require the use of these test methods. Purchasers and other users are responsible for the “other standards and specifications,” and for specifying any requirements that supersede those of these test methods.  
1.5.1 Other standards and specifications will specify and describe the ballistic test threats to be used.  
1.6 Units—Values stated in either the International System of Units (metric) or U.S. Customary units (inch-pound) are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents. Both units are referenced to facilitate acquisition of materials internationally and minimize fabrication costs. Tests conducted using either system maintain repeatability and reproducibility of the test method and results are comparable.  
1.7 If there is a discrepancy between these test methods and a user supplied document, the user supplied document takes precedence.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide is intended for non-law enforcement first responders facing increased exposure to scenes of violence where firearms or stabbing weapons may be used.  
4.2 The use and wear conditions are different than for law enforcement, requiring specialized guidance on types of body armor and their limitations, levels of protection, threat assessment, use and care, compatibility with other required protective gear, and training.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides information to non-law enforcement first responders for the selection and use of body armor.  
1.2 Non-law enforcement first responders, including but not limited to fire fighters, emergency medical service providers, fire investigators, and civilian/community response teams, require specialized guidance on types of body armor and their limitations, levels of protection, threat assessment, use and care, compatibility with other required protective gear, and training.  
1.3 This guide is directed to authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) and all non-law enforcement first responders and their agency or department leadership.  
1.4 This guide is not intended for law enforcement and corrections personnel.  
Note 1: See NIJ SAG 0101.06.  
1.5 This guide is divided into the following sections:    
Section  
Title  
1  
Scope    
2  
Referenced Documents  
3  
Terminology    
4  
Significance and Use  
5  
Managing a Body Armor Program    
6  
Understanding Protection Levels    
7  
Selecting the Appropriate Body Armor    
8  
Sizing Body Armor to the End User(s)    
9  
Guidance on Purchasing    
10  
Verifying that Your Body Armor is NIJ Certified    
11  
Fit, Coverage, and Wear Guidance    
12  
Fire Fighter Guidance for Body Armor Use with Turnout Gear    
13  
Inspection, Care, and Maintenance    
14  
Keywords    
Annex A1  
Risk Assessment Guidance    
Appendix X1  
Body Armor Program Management Guidance  
Appendix X2  
Comparison of NIJ Ballistic Protection Levels  
Appendix X3  
General Federal Government Grant Programs    
1.6 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.6.1 The user of this standard will identify the system of units to be used, and it is critical to ensure that any cross-referenced standards maintain consistency of units between standards.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. This k-rail terrain specifically challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting in complex terrain (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, it can be used to represent modest to challenging (when the cross-over slope configuration is used) outdoor terrain complexity or indoor debris within confined areas.  
5.2 The overall size of the terrain apparatus can vary to provide different constraints depending on the typical obstacle spacing of the intended deployment environment. For example, the terrain with containment walls can be sized to represent repeatable complexity within bus, train, or plane aisles; dwellings with hallways and doorways; relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars; or unobstructed terrains.  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. It can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within traini...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to traverse complex terrains in the form of k-rails. This test method is one of several related Terrain tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors that improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system are encouraged.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. This avoids excessive purchasing and fabrication costs. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in ...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of human-system interaction capability including robotic system mobility, dexterity, inspection, remote operator proficiency, and situational awareness. In particular, the operator control unit (OCU) design and interface features may impact the operator’s ability to perform movement and inspection tasks with the robot.  
5.2 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations, dates, and times to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.3 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. It can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.4 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.5 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training, as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within training scenarios. The resulting measures of remote operator proficiency enable tracking of perishable skills over time, along with comparisons of performance across squads, regions, or national averages.  
5.6 Innovation—This test method can be used to inspire technical innovation, demonstrate break-through capabilities, and measure the reliability of systems performing specific tasks within an overall mission sequence. Combining or sequencing multiple test methods can guide manufacturers toward implementing the combinations of capabilities necessary to perform essential mission tasks.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to maneuver and search throughout an environment to inspect objects of interest while negotiating complex terrain. This test method is one of several related human-system interaction tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system typically includes a remote operator in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors may improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this test method. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed i...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. The variable height rail obstacle challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, high-centering tendencies, self-righting (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, the variable height rail obstacle can be used to represent obstacles in the environment, such as railroad tracks, curbs, and debris.  
5.2 The scale of the apparatus can vary to provide different constraints representative of typical obstacle spacing in the intended deployment environment. For example, the three configurations can be representative of repeatable complexity for unobstructed obstacles (open configuration), relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars (rectangular confinement configuration), or within bus, train, or plane aisles, or dwellings with hallways and doorways (square confinement configuration).  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The variable height rail obstacle can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to negotiate an obstacle in the form of variable height rail. This test method is one of several related obstacle tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. This test method can be used to evaluate assistive or autonomous behaviors intended to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of remotely operated systems.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance wit...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system maneuvering and remote operator proficiency. The align ground contacts with parallel rails test challenges robotic system locomotion, operator control, effective camera positioning, chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, the align ground contacts with parallel rails test can be used to represent situations where hazards must be avoided by the robot (for example, debris, puddles) surrounding a path in the environment, highlighting situational awareness demands on the operator while controlling the robot.  
5.2 The scale of the apparatus can vary to provide different constraints representative of typical intended deployment environments. For example, the three configurations can be representative of repeatable complexity for unobstructed environments (open configuration), relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars (rectangular confinement configuration), or within bus, train, or plane aisles, or dwellings with hallways and doorways (square confinement configuration).  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The parallel rails apparatus can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with ex...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to align its ground contacts while maneuvering across parallel rails. This test method is one of several related maneuvering tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. This test method can be used to evaluate assistive or autonomous behaviors intended to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of remotely operated systems.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in acc...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The purpose of this specification is to specify performance requirements, conditioning procedures, and test methods for nonballistic-resistant head protection used in public order police applications.  
4.2 It is anticipated that this specification will be referenced by certifiers, purchasers, or other users in order to meet their specific needs.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification specifies performance requirements, conditioning procedures, and test methods for assessing nonballistic-resistant head protection (that is, helmet and face shield) specifically designed to be worn by law enforcement and corrections officers when maintaining order in violent situations.  
1.2 This specification does not address eye protection other than face shields that are attached to the helmet.  
1.3 The threats and hazards addressed in this specification were identified by officers specially trained and equipped to manage any form of public gathering, ranging from concerts, parades, marches, and demonstration events to violent unrest.  
1.4 It is anticipated that this specification will be referenced by suppliers, certifiers, purchasers, or other users to meet their specific needs.  
1.5 The user of this specification may choose to specify additional requirements, and some options are provided in Appendix X1.  
1.6 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The purpose of this standard is to provide reliable and repeatable compression test methods for the evaluation of helmets used in law enforcement, corrections, and military applications.  
4.2 It is anticipated that this standard will be referenced by certifiers, purchasers, or other users in order to meet their specific needs. Those users will specify which test methods apply and will specify any performance categories or levels.
SCOPE
1.1 This standard provides test methods for assessing compression resistance of helmets worn by military, law enforcement, and corrections personnel. These test methods are applicable for many styles of helmet (that is, high-cut, mid-cut, full-cut).  
1.2 Three compression test methods are included: (1) top-to-bottom, (2) side-to-side, and (3) front-to-back.  
1.3 It is anticipated that this standard will be referenced by suppliers, certifiers, purchasers, or other users to meet their specific needs. Those users will specify, in other standards and specifications, which test methods and conditioning procedures are applicable and will specify any performance categories or levels.  
1.4 Units—The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 There have been instances in the past in which undesired collisions between authorized vehicles and AVBS have occurred. Properly selected, designed, and installed safety devices that are able to inhibit deployment of active barriers when authorized vehicles are in the hazard detection space, in direct proximity to the barrier, can minimize the likelihood that such accidents occur.  
4.2 Unintended barrier/vehicle collisions can be very hazardous, will frequently result in significant damage to property, and can also result in personal injury or death, depending on conditions surrounding an incident.  
4.3 It is recognized that some vehicle types may not be reliably detected by an individual detection device and an owner may desire placing AVBS in service even though not all vehicle types may be reliably detected. In such determination of use, an owner shall carefully consider such system performance limitations and safety risks, appropriate alternative controls that will minimize safety hazards, and what risks are able to be accepted before placing equipment into service. This practice is intended to provide the owners, designers, installers, integrators, and equipment providers with information that may be important to such decisions, but it is not intended to determine what risks/hazards are acceptable.  
4.4 It is also recognized that there may be particular conditions in which an owner may determine that it is not acceptable to have safety devices installed in AVBS. For example, there may be conditions under which the security risks are determined to be more important to an owner than the possible safety hazards. In such circumstances, the owner shall accept the safety risks and possible consequences that are associated with such a determination that safety devices will not be used.  
4.5 If an owner determines that safety devices are not to be used, then it is possible that the owner may choose to implement some alternate means to mitigate or reduce a p...
SCOPE
1.1 This practice is intended to provide methods for selecting, integrating, and verification of active vehicle barrier safety devices so that vehicle barrier systems are reliably and safely controlled when in operation.  
1.2 There are a number of risks associated with the operation and use of active vehicle barrier systems (AVBS). One of the risks is that of undesired collision between an active vehicle barrier (AVB) and an authorized vehicle. Such risks can be minimized through proper design, construction, installation, operation, and training in the use of such systems.  
1.3 The proper selection, installation, and use of safety devices that will prevent an AVBS from activating or deploying while an authorized vehicle is transiting the barrier, or when such an authorized vehicle is stopped while a portion of the vehicle is located in the path of or in an unsafe proximity to a barrier, can minimize the likelihood of unintended collision between a barrier and authorized vehicle.  
1.4 For this practice, safety refers to the ability of the barrier to operate without causing unintended damage to vehicles or injury to people via operation or deployment of the barrier, when an authorized vehicle is transiting the barrier. Security refers to the ability to operate or deploy the barrier to serve its intended purpose of stopping an unauthorized vehicle from passing through the barrier location.  
1.5 Pedestrians are excluded from the scope of this practice. It is assumed, for the purposes of this practice, that pedestrians are excluded from potentially hazardous locations in the immediate vicinity of AVBS moving components. It is recognized that authorized pedestrians may be present in the area of the movable AVBS for required purposes, such as inspection of vehicles that are stopped. The presence of “casual” pedestrians shall be kept away from the movable elements of the AVBS.  
1.6 This practice is not intended to addr...

ABSTRACT
This specification establishes the ruggedness requirements for equipment used in Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) instrumentation, including devices used to detect or monitor for hazardous material. It defines for design and test purposes the environment in which HAZMAT equipment will likely be exposed during storage, transport, and field use. Passive personal protective equipment such as respirators and protective suits are not covered. The specification addresses materials and manufacture, physical and mechanical properties, performance and environmental requirements, dimensions, mass and permissible variations, workmanship, and finish and appearance. Definitions of terms specific to this standard are provided, including body-worn, hand-carried, mobile, portable, and transportable.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification describes the ruggedness requirements for equipment used during Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) operations. The conditions defined by this specification include those related to equipment storage, transport, and field use.  
1.2 This specification does not address passive personal protective equipment (PPE) such as respirators and protective suits.  
1.3 The equipment addressed by this specification includes devices used to detect or monitor for hazardous material.  
1.4 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. When using a HAZMAT instrument, follow the manufacturer’s guidance and appropriate safety practices for the threat expected or suspected in the environment where the instrument will be used.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide provides information that could be used to:  
5.1.1 Establish a hazardous material instrument program;  
5.1.2 Help ensure that consistently reliable instruments are available for the detection of hazardous materials; and  
5.1.3 Provide the safety professional with the means to evaluate the risk and facilitate the mitigation of the threat from hazardous materials.  
5.2 This guide provides information to help perform the following:  
5.2.1 Select detection equipment;  
5.2.2 Maintain the equipment in a manner that supports its immediate use when required; and  
5.2.3 Store equipment using proper methods and conditions between uses.  
5.2.4 Calibrate equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and regulatory requirements:
5.2.4.1 At appropriate intervals;
5.2.4.2 Using appropriate standards; and
5.2.4.3 While maintaining proper documentation of calibration and repair.  
5.2.5 Use and verify equipment performance:
5.2.5.1 As recommended by the manufacturer for its intended application;
5.2.5.2 By performing functional checks; and
5.2.5.3 By knowing any limitations of use.  
5.3 This guide also provides information regarding the types of materials to be included in training programs for the use and maintenance of the equipment.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides techniques that can be used to ensure the proper operation and use of Hazardous Material detection equipment. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide may be applicable in all circumstances.  
1.2 This guide is not intended to represent or replace any accreditation or certification documents by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged.  
1.3 This guide does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this guide to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 When using HAZMAT equipment follow the manufacturer’s guidance and appropriate safety practices for the expected or suspected threat.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

ABSTRACT
This specification establishes the baseline performance requirements and additional optional capabilities for stationary point chemical vapor detectors (SPCVD) intended for continuous monitoring of public, non-industrial facilities 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It provides SPCVD designers, manufacturers, integrators, procurement personnel, end users/practitioners, and responsible authorities a common set of parameters to match capabilities and user needs. The document specifies chemical detection performance requirements, system requirements, environmental requirements, manuals and documentation, and product marking.
SCOPE
1.1 General:  
1.1.1 This specification presents baseline performance requirements and additional optional capabilities for stationary point chemical vapor detectors (SPCVD) designed for continuous, 24 h a day 7 days a week, monitoring of public, non-industrial facilities. This specification is one of several that describe chemical vapor detectors (for example, handheld and stationary) and chemical detection capabilities including: chemical vapor hazard detection, identification, classification, and quantification. An SPCVD is capable of detecting and alarming when exposed to chemical vapors that pose a risk as defined by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals (AEGL). For example, chemical vapors of interest for homeland security applications, see Appendix X1. The SPCVD should not alarm to background chemical vapors and should provide low false positive alarm rates and no false negatives. Procurement agents and end users must identify the specific chemicals of interest and environmental requirements for the given facility.
1.1.1.1 An SPCVD samples air from immediate surroundings and is comprised of one or more detectors using one or more chemical detection technologies. An SPCVD also includes air sampling system(s), power system(s), computer(s), data storage, data network communication interface(s), and an enclosure, see Fig. 1. An SPCVD may be combined with other SPCVDs, other chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) detectors, and other monitoring devices such as video. A remote command center may monitor and control these devices and communicate information to the responsible authorities and responders, as depicted in Fig. 2.
FIG. 1 An Example Schematic of a Stationary Point Chemical Vapor Detector (SPCVD)
The SPCVD is a unit which samples air from immediate surroundings and is comprised of one or more detectors using one or more chemical detection technologies. An SPCVD also includes air sampling system(s), power system(s), computer(s), data storage, data network communication interface(s), and an enclosure.
FIG. 2 A Conceptual Representation of a Facility Security System with Stationary Point Chemical Vapor Detectors (SPCVDs) integrated with other Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Detectors, and Other Monitoring Devices such as Video  
1.1.2 This specification provides the SPCVD baseline requirements, including performance, system, environmental, and documentation requirements. This specification provides SPCVD designers, manufacturers, integrators, procurement personnel, end users/practitioners, and responsible authorities a common set of parameters to match capabilities and user needs.  
1.1.3 This specification is not meant to provide for all uses. Manufacturers, purchasers, and end users will need to determine specific requirements based on the installation location and environment.  
1.2 SPCVD Chemical Detection Capabilities—Manufacturers document and verify, through testing, the chemical detection capabilities of the SPCVD. Test methods for assessing chemical detection capabilities are available from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense and are listed in Appendix X2.  
1.3 SPCVD System and Environmental Properties—Manufacturers document and veri...

ABSTRACT
This specification establishes baseline performance requirements and additional optional capabilities for handheld point chemical vapor detectors (HPCVD) intended for homeland security applications. It provides HPCVD designers, manufacturers, integrators, procurement personnel, end users/practitioners, and responsible authorities a common set of parameters to match capabilities and user needs. The document specifies chemical detection performance requirements, system requirements, environmental requirements, manuals and documentation, product marking, and packaging.
SCOPE
1.1 General:  
1.1.1 This document presents baseline performance requirements and additional optional capabilities for handheld point chemical vapor detectors (HPCVD) for homeland security applications. This document is one of several that describe chemical vapor detectors (for example, handheld and stationary) and chemical detection capabilities including: chemical vapor hazard detection, identification, and quantification. An HPCVD is capable of detecting and alarming when exposed to chemical vapors that pose a risk as defined by the Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals (AEGL).  
1.1.2 This document provides the HPCVD baseline requirements, including performance, system, environmental, and documentation requirements. This document provides HPCVD designers, manufacturers, integrators, procurement personnel, end users/practitioners, and responsible authorities a common set of parameters to match capabilities and user needs.  
1.1.3 This document is not meant to provide for all uses. Manufacturers, purchasers, and end users will need to determine specific requirements including, but not limited to, use by HAZMAT teams, use in explosive atmospheres, use with personal protective equipment (PPE), use by firefighters and law enforcement officers, special electromagnetic compatibility needs, extended storage periods, and extended mission time. These specific requirements may or may not be generally applicable to all HPCVDs.  
1.2 Operational Concepts—HPCVDs are used to detect, identify, classify, or quantify, or combinations thereof, chemical vapor hazards that pose 30-min Acute Exposure Guideline Level-2 (AEGL-2) dangers. The HPCVD should not alarm to environmental background chemical vapors and should provide low false positive alarm rates and no false negatives. Uses of an HPCVD include search and rescue, survey, surveillance, sampling, and temporary fixed-site monitoring. An HPCVD should withstand the rigors associated with uses including, but not limited to, high- and low-temperature use and storage conditions; shock and vibration; radio frequency interference; and rapid changes in operating temperature, pressure, and humidity.  
1.3 HPCVD Chemical Detection Capabilities—Manufacturers document and verify, through testing, the chemical detection capabilities of the HPCVD. Test methods for assessing chemical detection capabilities are available from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense and are listed in Appendix X3.  
1.4 HPCVD System and Environmental Properties—Manufacturers document and verify, through testing, the system and environmental properties of the HPCVD. Example test methods for assessing the system and environmental properties are listed in Appendix X4.  
1.5 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. Vapor concentrations of the hazardous materials are presented in parts per million (ppm) as used in Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals, Vols 1-9 (see 2.1) and in mg/m3.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was ...

SCOPE
1.1 This specification specifies requirements for ballistic-resistant barriers to be used in homeland security or public safety applications for protection against complete penetration of projectiles from small arms2. The purpose of this specification is to define baseline performance for ballistic-resistant barriers.  
1.2 Items covered by this specification may be rigid or flexible barriers of uniform ballistic layup that are either temporarily or permanently installed. Examples of products include cubicle partitions; non-structural barriers; security checkpoint barriers; and barriers installed in judges’ benches, school safe rooms, and service counters.  
1.2.1 This specification addresses two configurations of barriers: (1) stand-alone and (2) in conjunction.  
1.2.2 For barriers that include a viewport(s), each viewport shall be tested in accordance with Test Method E3141/E3141M.  
1.2.3 This specification is not intended to address architectural products covered by ASTM Committees F12 and F33, such as building materials and security glazing.  
1.3 This specification defines ballistic performance categories, and the supplier shall declare the ballistic performance category(ies) for testing to this specification.  
1.4 This specification requires both Resistance to Penetration (RTP) Testing and Ballistic Limit (V50) Testing.  
1.4.1 In addition to the required tests, an optional test with specific temperature conditions is provided that allows testing beyond the minimum requirements of this specification. See Appendix X1. Statements of conformance with this specification shall not include any optional tests unless the optional test is conducted, and the results are included in the test report.  
1.5 This specification requires testing of ballistic-resistant barriers in one of the following two ways:  
1.5.1 Stand-alone Products—Test items shall be shoot packs, armor coupons, or actual products mounted in a test fixture with air backing.  
1.5.2 In Conjunction Products—Test items shall be actual products mounted in the intended use configuration, including mounting hardware and any materials expected to be in front of and behind the product.  
1.6 It is anticipated that this specification will be referenced by certifiers, purchasers, or other users to meet their specific needs.  
1.7 Selection and procurement guidance is provided in Appendix X2 to assist purchasers in using this specification.  
1.8 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.8.1 The user of this standard will identify the system of units to be used, and it is critical to ensure that any cross-referenced standards maintain consistency of units between standards.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 There is currently no way to ensure consistency among all entities across the nation for access to an incident or event scene. This guide is intended to enable consistency in credentials with respect to verification of identity, qualifications, and deployment authorization (NIMS 0002).  
4.2 This guide is intended to be used by any entity that manages and controls access to an incident scene to facilitate interoperability and ensure consistency.
SCOPE
1.1 The focus of this guide is on the development of guidelines for credentialing for access. The guide addresses the fundamental terms, criteria, references, definitions, and process model for implementation of credentialing or a credentialing program.  
1.2 This guide explains and identifies actions and processes that can provide the foundation for consistent use and interoperability of credentialing for all entities.  
1.3 This guide describes the activities involved in creating a credentialing framework, which may include a physical badge; however, it does not define the knowledge, skills, or abilities required to gain access to a site or event. This guide does not address a requirement for a physical badge as a prerequisite for a credential. A badge may be an accepted credential across jurisdictional lines and other credentials may be issues by the AHJ at the scene.  
1.4 This guide reinforces the importance of controlling access to a site by individuals with the proper identification, qualification, and authorization, which supports effective management of deployed resources.  
1.5 This guide relies on the existing rules, regulations, laws, and policies of the AHJ. Regulations identifying personal and private information as public record may differ from a responder’s home jurisdiction.  
1.6 This guide utilizes the principles of the Data Management Association Guide to the Data Management Body of Knowledge (DAMA-DMBOK) in order to effectively control data and information assets and does not prescribe the use of technology-based solutions.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide includes a wide range of technologies that are currently in use. Considerations and guidance for using these technologies are listed in each technology section.  
5.2 The guide was compiled with significant input, review, and feedback from first responders; assay and instrument manufacturers; and local, state, and federal SMEs.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides end-users and practitioners with information on the optimal use and limitations of assays and instrumentation designed to detect fentanyl and fentanyl-related compounds.  
1.2 This guide also provides summaries and links to guidance documents on training, personal protective equipment (PPE), sampling and detection, and medical countermeasures.  
1.3 This guide is intended for first responders and other end-users of field detection assays or instruments used to detect fentanyl and fentanyl-related compounds while out in the field. These instruments could also be used in a laboratory setting.  
1.4 End-users will need to determine specific requirements including, but not limited to, use by hazardous material (HAZMAT) teams, use in explosive or other hazardous environments or atmospheres, use with PPE, use by firefighters or law enforcement officers, special electromagnetic compatibility needs, extended storage periods, and extended mission times. These specific requirements may or may not be generally applicable to all chemical detection systems.  
1.5 Units:  
1.5.1 The metric system is used for all measures of weight. All temperatures are given in °C.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 The purpose of this test method is to provide a test method for the evaluation of less lethal impact rounds used by law enforcement, corrections, and other public safety officers.  
4.2 This test method may be used by suppliers, certification bodies, testing laboratories, research and development organizations, and others assessing the performance of less lethal impact rounds.  
4.3 This test method may be used by purchasers in their evaluation of products to meet their needs and requirements.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method addresses direct-fire, single-projectile less lethal impact rounds used by public safety officers, including law enforcement, corrections, and others.  
1.2 This test method addresses both blunt impact rounds and payload delivery rounds.  
1.2.1 This test method is limited to direct-fire, single-projectile rounds and excludes skip-fire rounds or multiple-projectile rounds.  
1.3 This test method is used to measure velocity and determine precision and impact energy for a round.  
1.4 A specification is under development by ASTM that addresses the safety of targeted individuals during deployment of less lethal impact rounds. That specification will reference this test method.  
1.5 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 General:  
1.1.1 This test method provides a procedure for characterizing the performance of field portable fentanyl detection equipment and assays when utilizing the test samples and statistical considerations described in Specification E3243.  
1.1.2 This test method describes sample preparation and analysis protocols to use when characterizing the performance of various types of field fentanyl detection equipment or assays in a laboratory environment including gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), high pressure mass spectrometry (HPMS), ion mobility spectrometry (IMS), Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, colorimetric assays, and immunoassays.  
1.1.3 The intent of this test method is to analyze samples in a manner that is analogous to how they are analyzed in the field by Federal and State/Local/Tribal/Territorial (SLTT) law enforcement and first responders, but under much more controlled and reproducible conditions than those that would generally be achievable when conducting field testing.  
1.2 Units:  
1.2.1 When creating test sample mixtures, all concentrations are stated as weight/weight percent (mg/mg) for solid sample mixture test samples, and weight/volume (mg/mL) for solid and liquid test samples that are dissolved in a solvent. When creating diluted liquid test samples (for example, for detection of compounds solubilized in solvent prior to analysis), all concentrations are stated as volume/volume percent (for example, µL/mL).  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SCOPE
1.1 General:  
1.1.1 This specification provides system designers, manufacturers, integrators, procurement personnel, end-users, practitioners, and responsible authorities a common set of parameters to match the capabilities of chemical detection tools with user needs for their specific application.  
1.1.2 This specification describes required test sample compositions, amounts, and a statistically-based testing approach to be used for evaluating the performance of field fentanyl and fentanyl-related detection equipment and assays as described in Test Method E3290. This specification does not address the estimation of limit of detection.  
1.1.3 This specification is not meant to provide for all uses. Manufacturers, purchasers, and end-users will need to determine specific requirements including, but not limited to, use by hazardous material (HAZMAT) teams; use in explosive or other hazardous environments or atmospheres; use with personal protective equipment (PPE); use by firefighters, law enforcement officers, or FEMA Urban Search & Rescue teams, special electromagnetic compatibility needs, extended storage periods, and extended mission time. These specific requirements may or may not be generally applicable to all chemical detection systems.  
1.2 Operational Concepts—Chemical detection systems are used to detect or identify chemical hazards to support short-term tactical decision-making to protect responders and the public. The system should provide low false-positive and false-negative rates. Uses of these systems include survey, surveillance, and screening of samples, particularly during a response to a suspected fentanyl or fentanyl-related compound. A field-deployable system should withstand the rigors associated with uses including, but not limited to, operation and storage in high and low temperatures, shock and vibration, radio frequency interference, and rapid changes in operating temperature and humidity. Note that this specification does not address testing the potential impact of the rigors associated with use of systems in the field.  
1.2.1 Units—When creating multicomponent test samples for TM 2, TM3, and TM4, all % compositions are stated as weight/volume percent (mg/mL) for both solid and liquids.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related test methods that provide repeatable measures of robotic system mobility and remote operator proficiency. The variable hurdle obstacle as described challenges robotic system locomotion, suspension systems to maintain traction, rollover tendencies, self-righting (if necessary), chassis shape variability (if available), and remote situational awareness by the operator. As such, the variable hurdle obstacle can be used to represent obstacles in the environment, such as railroad tracks, curbs, and debris.  
5.2 The scale of the apparatus can vary to provide different constraints representative of typical obstacle spacing in the intended deployment environment. For example, the three configurations can be representative of repeatable complexity for unobstructed obstacles (open configuration), relatively open parking lots with spaces between cars (rectangular confinement configuration), or within bus, train, or plane aisles, or dwellings with hallways and doorways (square confinement configuration).  
5.3 The test apparatuses are low cost and easy to fabricate so they can be widely replicated. The procedure is also simple to conduct. This eases comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class systems and operators.  
5.4 Evaluation—This test method can be used in a controlled environment to measure baseline capabilities. The variable hurdle obstacle can also be embedded into operational training scenarios to measure degradation due to uncontrolled variables in lighting, weather, radio communications, GPS accuracy, etc.  
5.5 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.6 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repea...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots operating in complex, unstructured, and often hazardous environments. It specifies the apparatuses, procedures, and performance metrics necessary to measure the capability of a robot to negotiate an obstacle in the form of hurdles. This test method is one of several related mobility tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 The robotic system includes a remote operator in control of most functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. This test method can be used to evaluate assistive or autonomous behaviors intended to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of remotely operated systems.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method for various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 Units—The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internation...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This practice may be used to accomplish several ends: to establish a worldwide frame of reference for terminology, metrics, and procedures for reliably determining trace detection performance of ETDs; as a demonstration by the vendor that the equipment is operating properly to a specified performance score; for a periodic verification by the user of detector performance after purchase; and as a generally-acceptable template adaptable by international agencies to specify performance requirements, analytes and dosing levels, background challenges, and operations.  
5.2 It is expected that current ETD systems will exhibit wide ranges of performance across the diverse explosive types and compounds considered. As in previous versions, this practice establishes the minimum performance that is required for a detector to be considered effective in the detection of trace explosives. An explosives detector is considered to have “minimum acceptable performance” when it has attained a test score of at least 80.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice may be used for measuring, scoring, and improving the overall performance of detectors that alarm on traces of explosives on swabs. These explosive trace detectors (ETDs) may be based on, but are not limited to, chemical detection technologies such as ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) and mass spectrometry (MS).  
1.2 This practice considers instrumental (post-sampling) trace detection performance, involving specific chemical analytes across eight types of explosive formulations in the presence of a standard background challenge material. This practice adapts Test Method E2677 for the evaluation of limit of detection, a combined metric of measurement sensitivity and repeatability, which requires ETDs to have numerical responses.  
1.3 This practice considers the effective detection throughput of an ETD by factoring in the sampling rate, interrogated swab area, and estimated maintenance requirements during a typical eight hour shift.  
1.4 This practice does not require, but places extra value on, the specific identification of targeted compounds and explosive formulations.  
1.5 The functionality of multi-mode instruments (those that may be switched between detection of trace explosives, drugs of interest, chemical warfare agents, and other target compounds) may also be tested. A multi-mode instrument under test shall be set to the mode that optimizes operational conditions for the detection of trace explosives. This practice requires the use of a single set of ETD operational settings for calculating a system test score based on the factors described in 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. A minimum acceptable score is derived from criteria established in Practice E2520 – 07, and an example of such a test is presented in Appendix X1 (Example 2).  
1.6 Intended Users—ETD developers and manufacturers, testing laboratories, and international agencies responsible for enabling effective deterrents to terrorism.  
1.7 Actual explosives as test samples would be preferable, but standard explosive formulations are not widely available, nor are methods for depositing these quantitatively and realistically on swabs. This practice considers sixteen compounds that are available from commercial suppliers. This does not imply that only these sixteen are important to trace detection. Most ETDs are able to detect many other compounds, but these are either chemically similar (hence redundant) to the ones considered, or are unavailable from commercial suppliers for reasons of stability and safety. Under typical laboratory practices, the sixteen compounds considered are safe to handle in the quantities used.  
1.8 This practice is not intended to replace any current standard procedure employed by agencies to test performance of ETDs for specific applications. Those procedures may be more rigorous, use different compounds or actual explosive formulations, employ different or more realistic background...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is part of an overall suite of related tests that provide reproducible measures of radio communications for remotely operated robots. It measures the maximum line-of-sight radio communications range between a robot and its remote operator interface using omnidirectional robot maneuvering and visual acuity tasks to evaluate the degradation of essential mission capabilities due to communications latency and loss.  
5.2 This test method is inexpensive, easy to fabricate, and simple to conduct so it can be replicated widely. This enables comparisons across various testing locations and dates to determine best-in-class system capabilities and remote operator proficiency.  
5.3 Evaluations—This test method can be conducted in a controlled environment with no radio frequency interference and minimal radio propagation effects to measure baseline capabilities that can be compared widely across robotic systems. It also can be embedded into any operational training scenario as a practical measure of line-of-sight radio communications range with additional degradation due to uncontrolled variables such as radio frequency interference, weather, etc. The results of these scenario tests can be compared across robotic systems only when conducted in the same environment in similar conditions. However, the results cannot be compared reliably to results from other venues or environmental conditions due to the uncontrolled variables.  
5.4 Procurement—This test method can be used to identify inherent capability trade-offs in systems, make informed purchasing decisions, and verify performance during acceptance testing. This aligns requirement specifications and user expectations with existing capability limits.  
5.5 Training—This test method can be used to focus operator training as a repeatable practice task or as an embedded task within training scenarios. Operators can learn system behaviors during radio communication degradation and refine techniques to mit...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended for remotely operated ground robots using radio communications to transmit real-time data between a robot and its remote operator interface. This test method measures the maximum line-of-sight radio communications distance at which a robot can maintain omnidirectional steering, speed control, precise stopping, visual acuity, and other functionality. This test method is one of several related radio communication tests that can be used to evaluate overall system capabilities.  
1.2 A remote operator is in control of all functionality, so an onboard camera and remote operator display are typically required. Assistive features or autonomous behaviors may improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the overall system.  
1.3 Different user communities can set their own thresholds of acceptable performance within this test method to address various mission requirements.  
1.4 Performing Location—This test method may be performed anywhere the specified apparatuses and environmental conditions can be implemented.  
1.5 The International System of Units (a.k.a. SI Units) and U.S. Customary Units (a.k.a. Imperial Units) are used throughout this document. They are not mathematical conversions. Rather, they are approximate equivalents in each system of units to enable the use of readily available materials in different countries. The differences between the stated dimensions in each system of units are insignificant for the purposes of comparing test method results, so each system of units is separately considered standard within this test method.  
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.7 This international standard was developed in ...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 A main purpose of using robots in emergency response operations is to enhance the safety and effectiveness of emergency responders operating in hazardous or inaccessible environments. The testing results of the candidate robot shall describe, in a statistically significant way, how reliably the robot is able to perform the specified types of tasks and thus provide emergency responders sufficiently high levels of confidence to determine the applicability of the robot.  
5.2 This test method addresses robot performance requirements expressed by emergency responders and representatives from other interested organizations. The performance data captured within this test method are indicative of the testing robot’s capabilities. Having available a roster of successfully tested robots with associated capabilities data to guide procurement and deployment decisions for emergency responders is consistent with the guideline of “Governments at all levels have a responsibility to develop detailed, robust, all-hazards response plans” as stated in National Response Framework.  
5.3 This test method is part of a test suite and is intended to provide a capability baseline for the robotic communications systems based on the identified needs of the emergency response community. Adequate testing performance will not ensure successful operation in all emergency response environments due to possible extreme communications difficulties. Rather, this standard is intended to provide a common comparison that can aid in choosing appropriate systems. This standard is also intended to encourage development of improved and innovative communications systems for use on emergency response robots.  
5.4 The standard apparatus is specified to be easily fabricated to facilitate self-evaluation by robot developers and provide practice tasks for emergency responders to exercise robot actuators, sensors, and operator interfaces. The standard apparatus can also be used to support operator training ...
SCOPE
1.1 Purpose:  
1.1.1 The purpose of this test method, as a part of a suite of radio communication test methods, is to quantitatively evaluate a teleoperated robot’s (see Terminology E2521) capability to perform maneuvering and inspection tasks in a non-line-of-sight environment.  
1.1.2 Robots shall possess a certain set of radio communication capabilities, including performing maneuvering and inspection tasks in a non-line-of-sight environment, to suit critical operations for emergency responses. The capability for a robot to perform these types of tasks in obstructed areas down range is critical for emergency response operations. This test method specifies a standard set of apparatuses, procedures, and metrics to evaluate the robot/operator capabilities for performing these tasks.  
1.1.3 Emergency response robots shall be able to operate remotely using the equipped radios in line-of-sight environments, in non-line-of-sight environments, and for signal penetration through such impediments as buildings, rubbles, and tunnels. Additional capabilities include operating in the presence of electromagnetic interference and providing link security and data logging. Standard test methods are required to evaluate whether candidate robots meet these requirements.  
1.1.4 ASTM E54.08.01 Task Group on Robotics specifies a radio communication test suite, which consists of a set of test methods for evaluating these communication capabilities. This non-line-of-sight range test method is a part of the radio communication test suite. The apparatuses associated with the test methods challenge specific robot capabilities in repeatable ways to facilitate comparison of different robot models as well as particular configurations of similar robot models.  
1.1.5 This test method establishes procedures, apparatuses, and metrics for specifying and testing the capability of radio (wireless) links used between the operator station and the t...

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Coordination of response and recovery support cannot be performed well if the EOC team lacks an appropriate operating environment. An operating environment that increases stress in staff or hinders the ability to perform basic tasks will ultimately degrade the effectiveness of the EOC team. EOC management must be accomplished in parallel with incident management support and should be transparent to the EOC team. EOC management must also be consistent with and support the incident management system used by the EOC team (for example, the Incident Command System mandated for use in the United States under the National Incident Management System). Effective EOC management can be attributed to good preplanning and related training. This guide provides the emergency management community with practical concepts and approaches for effective EOC management.
SCOPE
1.1 This guide provides general guidelines for the management of an emergency operations center (EOC) prior to, during, and after activation for emergency or disaster support.  
1.2 An EOC is where the coordination of response and recovery support is performed, but the EOC is also a physical location that generates its own demands. For the EOC team to perform effectively, the physical and organizational demands of the EOC as a facility must be met. EOC management is distinct from the operational management of the incident.  
1.3 This guide may also serve as a foundation for management of a smaller facility such as a department operations center (DOC), larger facilities such as a regional operations center (ROC), or state operations center (SOC) with a broader area of responsibility and more extensive need to communicate and coordinate with others.  
1.4 This guide applies to fixed facilities and does not specifically address portable or field-deployable EOCs at temporary locations, virtual EOCs using communications technology to link geographically separated participants, or EOC relocation under a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). However, elements within this document will apply to these situations.  
1.5 This guide is the second in a series regarding the EOC. For the Standard Guide for EOC Development, see Guide E2668.  
1.6 This document includes some references and terminology specific to the United States of America but may be adapted for use elsewhere.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 This guide provides recommendations for the local or regional AHJ to use in dealing with persons with disabilities who reside within their area of responsibility or jurisdiction. It provides information that can support development of procedures and protocols in preparing for the impact of emergencies on persons with disabilities, and it includes recommendations addressing such actions as:  
4.1.1 Notification—Alerts and warnings for the general public of a pending emergency, and any additional provisions that may be necessary to assure that persons with disabilities are able to receive the message(s).  
4.1.2 Communications—Information dissemination to the community, including provisions for persons with disabilities so that they are able to receive and respond.  
4.1.3 Preparation—Ensuring that the community knows about the risks and dangers inherent in emergencies and the necessity for personal planning.  
4.1.4 Action and Mitigation—Steps that should be taken when an emergency becomes imminent, and planning in advance how to minimize its impact on the community.  
4.1.5 Evacuation—The process of relocating to a safer area to avoid or lessen the risks associated with an emergency. Generally, evacuation actions are initiated or recommended by local emergency management officials.  
4.1.6 Transportation—Transportation applies to all persons who need to evacuate or relocate in advance of or during an emergency. It may include transportation on his or her own, through a neighbor, a volunteer who can assist, or public conveyances that can be used in an emergency.  
4.1.7 Accommodation—Designated centers or shelters that the local citizens can use in an emergency, and any additional provisions that are made for addressing the needs of those with disabilities.  
4.1.8 Relocation—Facilities where residents can evacuate to before and during an emergency. It may also provide temporary lodging for residents following an event if their homes are in an unsafe area...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide is intended to be used by an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) to initiate preparedness efforts that address issues that the disability community have faced in past emergencies and systematically coupling them with methodologies that will help communities enhance their chances for survival.  
1.2 This guide does not purport to address all of the elements necessary to prepare for an emergency. It is the responsibility of the user (AHJ) of this guide to establish applicable protocols, procedures, systems, and other means to support the health, safety, and well being of persons with disabilities.  
1.3 This guide is intended to provide templates for applicable protocols, procedures, systems, and other mechanisms to promote an integrated approach in local “preparedness” efforts for persons with disabilities. It is intended to complement the planning and preparedness efforts of local emergency responders—Emergency Management Agencies (EMAs) and Offices of Emergency Management (OEM)—for persons with disabilities.  
1.4 This guide is not intended to supersede or replace extant Federal, Tribal, State, or local policies, regulations, laws, or criteria, or standards and guides produced by any other entity, such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).  
1.5 This guide is intended for an AHJ, whether a governmental agency, non-profit, private organization, or other entity involved in the preparedness planning for persons with disabilities.  
1.6 This guide recognizes that the ADA addresses all services and facilities pertinent to the access and care of persons with disabilities, including those associated with emergencies. It also recognizes that the Stafford Act and Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, along with Federal, State, and Local Civil Rights Laws, mandate integration, inclusion, coordination, and non-segregation for people with disabilities in emergency programs, services, and ac...

ABSTRACT
This specification applies to metal canopy systems including structural framing, canopy deck system, drainage system, fascia panels, accessories and trim, and canopy concrete foundations and accessories. It specifies the requirements for pre-engineered metal canopy systems, manufacturer's standard mutually dependent components, and assemblies that form a pre-engineered overhead canopy system to enhance safety and security. The pre-engineered overhead canopy system shall be capable of withstanding required design loads per the International Building Code as adopted or modified by local jurisdictions, thermally induced movement, and exposure to weather without failure. Primary structural frame design shall include fixed-base columns capable of transferring moments and forces into foundations, as well as roof purlins, main frame beams, and tube columns, plus secondary framing, canopy deck and fascia panels, and accessories. The requirements also cover submittals; delivery, storage, and handling; coordination; and warranty. Erection of structural steel, canopy deck panel installation, fascia installation, accessory installation, and cleaning and protection are also covered by this specification.
SCOPE
1.1 This specification includes the following:  
1.1.1 Structural framing,  
1.1.2 Canopy Deck System,  
1.1.3 Drainage system,  
1.1.4 Fascia panels,  
1.1.5 Accessories and trim, and  
1.1.6 Canopy concrete foundations and accessories.  
1.2 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Properly sized and fitted body armor enhances the safety and performance of the wearer by providing protection while not restricting movement. Having body armor that fits well begins with appropriate and accurate measurements. The measurement guidance of this practice will facilitate consistency of measurement across the body armor industry and will help wearers understand proper measurements.  
4.2 Accurate measurements do not necessarily result in well-fitting armor, so this practice goes a step further by providing a description of well-fitting armor along with a personal armor fit assessment that the wearer can do for himself/herself.  
4.3 The measurement and fitting guidance specifically addresses officer-stated requirements for side overlap of front and back body armor panels, minimizing the armhole opening, eliminating any “V” gap (or similar) between the front and back panels, and providing vertical coverage on the front torso from approximately the “2nd uniform shirt button to 2 to 3 finger widths above duty belt.” Those requirements were considered in the development of this practice and the definition of measurements that can be consistently made for any individual.  
4.4 This practice describes measurements for the front, back, and sides of the wearer, in addition to girth measurements, to achieve proper sizing of front and back panels and proper fit of the complete armor.  
4.5 This practice can be used to train individuals on proper measurement techniques and to train wearers on proper fitting of body armor.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice provides measurement and fit guidance for soft ballistic-resistant or stab-resistant body armor, or both, covering the torso. Proper measurement of the wearer and fitting of armor to that individual are necessary to obtain sufficient coverage of the torso and vital organs while allowing the full range of motion required for officer operations.  
1.2 This practice is primarily directed toward law enforcement and corrections officers and addresses measurements for and fit of concealable (normal duty) body armor worn under or over the uniform for both male and female wearers. This practice addresses only body armor composed of front and back protective panels contained within a carrier that positions and holds the panels on the torso.  
1.3 This practice can be used to train individuals on proper measurement techniques and to train wearers on proper fitting of body armor.  
1.4 Measurement guidance is provided in Section 5 of this practice.  
1.5 Guidance for use of a tape measure is provided in Section 6 of this practice.  
1.6 Guidance for use of sizing vests is provided in Section 7 of this practice.  
1.7 A personal armor fit assessment is provided in Section 8 for use by wearers.  
1.8 Units—English units are specified in this practice to be consistent with measurement units used in the United States body armor community. Approximate values in SI units are given in parentheses.  
1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Justice standards for assessing the performance of ballistic-resistant torso body armor require the use of backing assemblies made with Roma Plastilina No. 1®. The creation of appliques behind nonplanar soft armor test items must be done in a consistent manner to reduce variability within and between laboratories.  
4.2 This practice is applicable for certification testing or for research and development testing.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice specifies a procedure for creating appliques (that is, build-up of clay) for use behind nonplanar, soft body armor test items and affixing the appliques to the clay block.
Note 1: This practice describes a single applique shape; additional shapes may be described in other standards.  
1.2 The purpose of this practice is to specify critical parameters for creating appliques in order to improve consistency of the test setup between laboratories.
Note 2: In the past, testing of nonplanar soft armor has been done either with an unspecified buildup of clay behind the test item or with the test item pressed flat against the clay block.  
1.3 This practice is applicable only to nonplanar soft body armor designed for females.  
1.4 This practice is not applicable to hard armor test items.  
1.5 This practice is primarily directed toward test laboratories but may be applicable to body armor manufacturers, researchers, and end users performing ballistic-resistance testing of body armor.  
1.6 In this practice, “other standards and specifications” and “unless specified elsewhere” refer to documents (for example, military standards, purchase specifications) that require the use of this practice. Purchasers and other users are responsible for the “other standards and specifications” and for specifying any requirements that supersede those of this practice.  
1.7 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. Where appropriate, inch-pound units are included parenthetically for information purposes.  
1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.