<p>Document 4432D-1 Summary of Editorial Changes FROM: following Note 95 (nothing) TO: following Note 95 NOTE: Failure to follow procedural controls (e.g. not venting chamber or removing hardware) may have a significant affect on these structures. It is recommended that such conditions be fully explored using analysis 1 methods listed in ¶18.6.4.2 or other similar methods designed to identify critical deficiencies within a design or process. Justification: (If necessary) Note – editorial by definition Motion to approve this editorial change: Ron Macklin (R. Macklin & Associates) / Sean Larsen (AMEC) Vote: 9-0. Motion passed. FROM: Note 94 Mechanisms supporting hinged loads, including hinges, support hardware such as springs, gas shocks, spring dampeners, and counterbalance mechanisms along with their mounting methods, should conform to ¶18.6.3.1. This does not mean for example, a gas filled spring must be “sized” to hold 3 times the mass of the hinged component it is intended to support. However, it does mean that springs, gas shocks, spring dampeners, and counterbalance mechanisms should be of sufficient strength to handle the stresses applied to them with sufficient margin of safety as denoted within ¶18.6.3.1. TO: Note 94 Mechanisms supporting hinged loads include hinges; support hardware such as springs, gas-filled shocks, 2 and spring dampeners; mounting hardware; and counterbalance mechanisms. This does not mean for example, a gas-filled shock must be “sized” to hold 3 times the mass of the hinged component if it is used only as an ergonomic assist. Justification: (If necessary) Note – editorial by definition Motion to approve this editorial change: Ron Macklin (R. Macklin & Associates) / Sean Larsen (AMEC) Discussion: Lauren Crane (Applied Materials) said that the second sentence qualifies criteria rather than explaining it – it looks like an exception, which should be main body. Vote: 6-1. Motion passed. FROM: Section 18.6.1.1 Exception Exception: hinged loads having a total mass not more than 5 kg. TO: Section 18.6.1.1 Exception Exception: hinged loads having a total mass not more than 5 kg (11 lb) . 3 Justification: (If necessary) Motion to approve this editorial change: Sean Larsen (AMEC) / Alan Rehder (UL) 7-0 . Motion passed. 4 FROM: Section 18.6.3.1 Mechanical strength — Mechanisms supporting hinged loads (including hinges) should be designed such that they have a minimum factor of safety of 3, with the factor of safety determined as the ratio of yield strength to stress on each component, in the least favorable condition. For the purposes of § 18.6, “least favorable condition” is the position and orientation of fixed or moveable elements that places the greatest stress on the components of the support mechanism. TO: Section 18.6.3.1 Mechanical strength — Mechanisms supporting hinged loads (including hinges) should be designed such that they have a minimum factor of safety of 3, where the factor of safety is the ratio of yield strength to stress on each component, in the least favorable condition. For the purposes of § 18.6, “least favorable condition” is the position and orientation of fixed or moveable elements that places the greatest stress on the components of the support mechanism. Justification: (If necessary) Clarification. Motion to approve this editorial change: Ron Macklin (R. Macklin & Associates) / Lauren Crane (Applied Materials) 6-0. Motion passed. FROM: Section 18.6.4.4.4.3 There should be no noticeable signs improper operation or incorrect adjustment of operational features, including mechanical stops, limit switches, and brakes (if fitted). TO: Section 18.6.4.4.4.3 There should be no noticeable signs of improper operation or incorrect adjustment of operational features, 5 including mechanical stops, limit switches, and brakes (if fitted). Justification: (If necessary) Motion to approve this editorial change: Ron Macklin (R. Macklin & Associates) / Ed Karl (Applied Materials) 6-0. Motion passed.</p>