The NFPA 1936 standard for rescue tools was enacted in 1999.  There were two main reasons for creating this standard.  The first was safety.  They wanted to ensure the safety of rescue personnel using the equipment.  The main concern was for over pressurization of the tools.  Most tools operate at high PSI (10,500psi), and a catastrophic failure at that pressure could possibly cause injuries.  Therefore, the NFPA enacted a rule that all rescue tools under the standard must have two forms of over pressurization relief. The other reason for creating the standard was to create an environment where different brands of rescue tools could be compared on a common basis.  There is a difference between “theoretical maximum force” and “usable maximum force.”   The theoretical maximum force is a force that an engineer calculates because there is no possible way to test the force.  For example, when the blades of a cutter move past each other they are still producing more force, but it is impossible to use that force because the blades have already closed.  Hence, the term “Usable Maximum Force”.   It is because of this marketing tactic that NFPA decided to level the playing ground and put the tools to scientific tests carried out by professionals.  The tests require the tools to perform under situations where their performance can be measured and usable.  For example, the cutter test provides different types, and sizes of steel to be cut by the tool being tested.  The tool is given a grade on whether or not it cut a particular size of steel, and that grade is required by NFPA 1936 to be published by the manufacturer.  This allows Fire Departments to evaluate rescue tools based actual performance by the tool.  There are other factors to evaluating rescue tools such as ergonomics, that can only be done by the Firefighters using the tools, but NFPA certainly gives Fire Departments the ability to determine the performance of one rescue tool verses another.