Scanned from the original--beware of scanner errors!
SNELL
MEMORIAL
FOUNDATION
Snell Memorial Foundation,, Inc.
P.O. Box 493
Flowerfield Bldg., #7, Suite 10
Mills Pond Road
St James, NY 11780
ESTABLISHED 1957
Tel.- (516) 862-6440
Fax: (516) 862-6545
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 21, 1995
To: ANSI Z90 Committee Members
From: Edward B. Becker
Subject: Z90.4 Draft Standard revised 4/13/95
The enclosed draft standard was prepared at the recent meeting of
the ANSI Z90 committees on April 13, 1995. Prior to the
preparation of this draft, the committee members present
considered the following:
1 . There is presently no ANSI bicycle helmet standard. ANSI
withdrew ANSI Z90.4-1984 because the ten years allotted had
expired.
2. The CPSC bicycle helmet standard is still in preparation.
3. The United States Congress and Senate are considering a
moratorium on new regulations which may affect the
implementation of the CPSC standard.
4. Many state laws requiring the use of bicycle helmets make
specific mention of ANSI Z90.4.
For these reasons, the members considered it imperative that a new
ANSI Z90.4 standard be promulgated as quickly as possible.
Once the necessity for continued ANSI activity in bicycle helmet
standards was agreed, the members present considered the following
approaches:
1. Harmonize with the ASTM bicycle helmet standard.
2. Prepare a draft based on the requirements of the current ASTM
1447 standard with anticipated modifications and promulgate
it according to ANSI procedures.
3. Prepare a draft based on one of the Snell standards and
promulgate it according to ANSI procedures.
4. Adopt the draft ANSI Z90.4 as of its last revision in1992.
5. Reenact ANSI Z90.4-1984.
The first approach avoids the confusion of two separate consensus
standards. However, such harmonization, if at all possible, may
incur considerable delays. This approach will be investigated in
parallel with at least one of the other approaches mentioned
above.
The second and third approaches both offer advantages. The
current ASTM 1447 and Snell B-90 plus Supplement present similar
requirements that are met by most products currently offered as
bicycle headgear.
The fourth and fifth approaches would result in standards that are
considerably less demanding than ASTM 1447.
The members present resolved to pursue the first and second
approaches in parallel. The chairman, Dr. Ewing, will investigate
the possibilities and mechanisms for harmonizing the ANSI and ASTM
bicycle helmet efforts. In the meantime, we will prepare and
circulate a draft based on the ASTM 1447 requirements either
currently in place or anticipated.
The enclosed draft is based on the 192 ANSI Z90.4 draft. All
additions are in redline [brackets in this edition], all deletions
are in s-t-r-i-k-e-o-u-t. The modifications raise the performance
requirements of the draft to those of ASTM 1447 either in its
current form or as with anticipated changes.
Every feature of this draft has been weighed carefully to ensure
the swiftest and most general acceptance possible. Any
consideration that might draw out the drafting process or, worse,
elicit a negative vote from any committee member whether present
or not was rejected. Please consider this draft carefully and
identify your comments according to the following categories:
1. Changes without which you must reject the draft.
2. Everything else.
Once enacted, the committee may modify the standard. However,
until the standard is enacted, there is no ANSI bicycle helmet
standard.
The draft standard includes the following changes:
1 The introduction of positional stability requirements.
See sections 1.3.3, 3.7, 8.3, and all of section 13.
2. The introduction of the curbstone anvil. see sections
12.3.1, 12.3.2, and 12.3.5.
3. The introduction of the ISO 0 headform.
4. The implementation of a water spray conditioning.
Immersion is left as a manufacturer's option. The spray
conditioning is subject to further modification
according to recommended ASTM practices. The delays are
expected to be slight and spray conditioning is
considered to be essential.
5 . The implementation of a test line based on the Snell B-
84 and B-90 Standards as converted to ISO headforms.
This test line description ensures coverage proportional
to the headform size and is currently satisfied by most
bicycle helmets. The Snell description was adopted
after one of the members present reported that there may
be objections to the current draft test line being
considered for ASTM 1447.
The members present also discussed the phrase I inadvertent
release in section 4.3, the phrase 'useful life' in section 6.0
and the question of attachments. It was determined that no swift
resolution was possible in any of these areas. However, none of
these matters should be allowed to delay timely enactment of a new
ANSI Z90.4 standard.
An ANSI Z90 committee meeting has been set for Wednesday, 17 May,
1995 at 9:00 AM at the City Center Marriot in Denver CO. ASTM
will be holding meetings all that week at the same location. It
is hoped that the time and place will be convenient for the entire
membership to participate.
DRAFT Minutes of ANSI Z90 Helmet Committees Meeting
Crystal City Marriot, Crystal City, Virginia
April 13, 1995
Dr. Ewing called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. There were
seven members present:
C.L. Ewing, (chair) Snell Memorial Foundation
W.C. Chilcott - Marine Testing Co.
D.Fisher - Bell Sports
S.Heh - CPSC
J.J.Liu - NHTSA
R.Swart - BHSI
E.B.Becker (secretary) Snell Memorial Foundation
Prior to the meeting, a draft standard had been prepared and
distributed to most committee members. This draft was prepared by
Becker and was based on the `92 Z90.4 draft and the requirements
of the Snell Memorial Foundation's B-90 Standard and B-90
Supplement. The draft had no official status and was proposed
only as a strawman which the committee might reject out of hand or
modify according to its best judgement.
Dr. Ewing asked Mr. Heh to discuss the status of ANSI Z90.4-1984
as a CPSC interim standard and whether the withdrawal of that
standard by ANSI would have any effect. Mr. Heh stated that the
ANSI action did not effect CPSC policy. Helmets meeting the
requirements of Z90.4-1984 as written would continue to satisfy
the interim standards for bicycle headgear.
Other aspects of the ANSI withdrawal of Z90.4-1984 were discussed.
Mr. Fisher proposed that several options were open to the
committee. The committee might abandon bicycle helmet standards
altogether or the committee might consider several different means
to draft a Z90.4-1995. Mr. Fisher added that the many mentions
of ANSI Z90.4 in state helmet laws morally obligated the committee
to continue setting bicycle helmet standards.
Mr. Fisher then discussed a teleconference held the previous week
with a number of manufacturers who were unable to attend the
meeting but who were anxious to communicate their ideas. A straw
vote had been taken and the results were as follows: 2 members
proposed renewing Z90.4-1984 without changes as Z90.4-1995,, 1
member proposed adopting the draft that had been proposed as late
as 1992, and 3 members proposed adopting the requirements of the
ASTM 1447-94.
Dr. Ewing discussed previous attempts to introduce a new ANSI
Z90.4 Standard and proposed that the choices currently available were to
either reenact the 1984 document or to proceed with a modification
of the strawman draft.
Mr. Swart recommended adoption of ASTM F1447-1994.
Mr. Heh discussed the possibility that the similar vetting
procedures for standards might mean that harmonizing with ASTM
would obviate some of the time consuming procedures necessary to
enact a standard.
Dr. Chilcott questioned whether such harmonization would
constitute abandoning Z90.4 committee responsibilities to the ASTM
F08 committees.
Mr. Swart discussed a moratorium on new regulations being
considered by the congress. This moratorium might end the CPSC
effort ceding bicycle helmet standards to private sector
activities.
Dr. Liu mentioned that an extensive review was in place for all
current Federal standards by June 1, 1995.
Mr. Swart proposed that ANSI should adopt ASTM F1447-94 and all
future modifications. There is no need for a different ANSI Z90.4
standard.
Dr. Liu mentioned that ASTM standards are generally recommended
practice and do not consider cost benefit relationships and as
such may be inappropriate.
A discussion of cost-benefit relationships followed.
A straw vote was taken. Three members were in favor of adopting
ASTM F1447-94 without changes. Two favored the straw-man draft.
One favored the original ANSI Z90.4-1984.
Dr. Ewing read a FAX from Mr. A Lastnik. Mr. Lastnik regretted
not being able to attend and recommended adopting the Snell B-95
draft as the new ANSI Z90.'4.
Adoption of ASTM F1447 directly by ANSI was discussed. Mr. Swart
called the ANSI representative assigned to deal with Z90 issues,
Ms. Kayla Serotte. Information was subsequently developed:
It is possible to adopt an ASTM Standard. Joint secretariats
are also possible. However, the mechanisms are uncertain so that
there may be protracted delays in implementation.
It was determined that Dr. Ewing, as chairman, should investigate
the possibility of harmonizing the Z90.4 standard with ASTM F1447.
In parallel, the Z90 committee will pursue implementation of a new
standard. To this end, the committee will modify and circulate
the strawman draft with a suitable cover letter explaining
differences and commonalities with other standards.
The meeting was temporarily adjourned for lunch at 11:30 am.
The meeting resumed at 12:45 pm. Mr. Heh and Dr. Liu were unable
to attend the afternoon session.
The committee discussed and modified the straw-man draft
extensively.
Ms. Karen L. Moran joined the meeting at 3:30 pm.
Discussion continued until 4:30 pm.
Significant attention was devoted to the following items:
What constitutes inadvertent release of chinstrap closures?
What is the useful life of a helmet?
Should the helmet labelling include an expiration date?
How should the standard deal with attachments?
How should wet conditioning be prescribed?
After the review and modification of the strawman draft,, the
committee considered the timing of the next meeting. It was
resolved that the next meeting should be Wednesday, May 17, 1995,
at 9:00 am at the City Center Marriot in Denver, CO.