ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
SpeakerTime StampTranscription
2
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:00:00Thank you, Mr. Miller and the members of the Amusement Ride Safety Board. I appreciate you taking this time to hear the comments and to hear the comments of the community challenge course and other amusement providers in this state. The ACCT takes the position that effective and efficient regulation of the challenge course industry is beneficial for any industry and public safety. We encourage in your deliberations about these rules to strongly consider adding the ANSI ACCT-03-2019 standard or ANSI standards in general to standards listed as referenced standards for these rules. We do that because of the long history that the challenge industry has in the state of Utah using those rules for inspection, operation, training, design and installation. Those standards are comprehensive across all those areas and have been in use for more than 25 years in this state. We also ask that the community of inspectors that have historically inspected education, therapeutic and recreational challenge courses in this state be included through the Act inspector certification program and that be recognized as a qualification for Qualified Safety Inspectors in this state. That is a system that has worked well for a significant number of years. And because they serve a very strong number of courses in the state, we believe upwards of a 100 currently. Taking them out of the pool of qualified inspectors may cause a drought in the number of inspectors available so we strongly encourage the inclusion of those. And lastly, toward just efficient and effective regulation, we ask the safety board to consider clarifying the exemptions within these rules and if necessary to ask the legislature to clarify the exemptions in the original code. We do that because what we'd like to see is that the regulations affect a type of operation and not a type of business. I think we can see that if it's commercial, that is a business type that is not an operation or a thing we are regulating. We would like to see that we regulate a specific thing and not a business model. We also think that providing clarity provides small operators in this state because it eliminates the confusion of could I be penalized for not being permitted when I think I'm actually not required to. That is an important piece as well. The industry has a long history of very skilled and significant skill set represented in this room through inspectors who are here and people who have taken a long time to develop the skills and experience to look specifically at challenge courses and aerial adventure courses and ziplines and to understand how they are built, operated and how to inspect those. We think it is important for public safety to continue to recognize those people as valid inspectors within the state. The example I've given in casual conversations with friends is that I would not want a ferris wheel inspector to inspect my challenge course and I would hope that the ferris wheel inspector would not want me to inspect their ferris wheel even though I have 30 years in the amusement industry by one definition and I think that's an important thing to recognize that they are parallel but not equivalent skills. I would like to see those skill sets and challenge course inspectors recognized. I do want to address that we do know that the ASTM standard referenced currently in the rules and ACCT standards are essentially equivalent. The one place where the ACCT standards are slightly more strict is in the operational side because they have a little more detail than the ASTM standards. I think that is important to recognize that most of the injuries in our industry today happen not because things break, but because of the way that the courses are operated. So looking toward a standard that recognizes that a regularly updated and reviewed around operational parameters is important. I want to thank the committee - the board - for this time and I yield the rest of my time to the rest of the other speakers today.
3
Speaker: Scott Andrews0:07:59Thank you Mr. Miller and the members of the Amusement Ride Safety Board. I appreciate you taking this time to hear the comments and to hear the comments of the community challenge course and other amusement providers in this state. The ACCT takes the position that effective and efficient regulation of the challenge course industry is beneficial for any industry and public safety. We encourage in your deliberations about these rules to strongly consider adding the ANSI ACCT-03-2019 standard or ANSI standards in general to standards listed as referenced standards for these rules. We do that because of the long history that the challenge industry has in the state of Utah using those rules for inspection, operation, training, design and installation. Those standards are comprehensive across all those areas and have been in use for more than 25 years in this state. We also ask that the community of inspectors that have historically inspected education, therapeutic and recreational challenge courses in this state be included through the Act inspector certification program and that be recognized as a qualification for Qualified Safety Inspectors in this state. That is a system that has worked well for a significant number of years. And because they serve a very strong numbers of courses in the state, we believe upwards of a 100 currently. Taking them out of the pool of qualified inspectors may cause a drought in the number inspectors available so we strongly encourage the inclusion of those. And lastly, toward just efficient and effective regulation, we ask the safety board to consider clarifying the exemptions within these rules and if necessary to ask the legislature to clarify the exemptions in the original code. We do that because what we'd like to see is that the regulations effect a type of operation and not a type of business. I think we can see that if it's commercial, that is a business type that is not an operation or a thing we are regulating. We would like to see that we regulate a specific thing and not a business model. We also think that providing clarity provides small operators in this state because it eliminates the confusion of could I be penalized for not being permitted when I think I'm actually not required to. That is an important piece as well. The industry has a long history of very skilled and significant skillset represented in this room through inspectors who are here and people who have taken a long time to develop the skills and experience to look specfiically at challenge courses and aerial adventure courses and ziplines and to understand how they are built, operated and how to inspect those. We think it is important for public safety to continue to recognize those people as valid inspectors within the state. The example I've given in casual conversations with friends is that I would not want a ferris wheel inspector to inspect my challenge course and I would hope that the ferris wheel inspector would not want me to inspect their ferris wheel even though I have 30 years in the amusement industry by one definition and I think thats an important thing to recognize that they are parallel but not equivalent skills. I would like to see those skillsets and challenge course inspectors recognized. I do want to address that we do know that the ASTM standard referenced currently in the rules and ACCT standards are essentially equivalent. The one place where the ACCT standards are slightly more strict is in the operational side because they have a little more detail than the ASTM standards. I think that is important to recognize that most of the injuries in our industry today happen not because things break, but because of the way that the courses are operated. So looking toward a standards that recognizes that a regulary updated and reviewed around operational parameters in important. I want to thank the committee - the board - for this time and I yeild the rest of my time to the rest of the other speakers today.
4
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:13:04Alright, well that's good. You were right on 5 minutes, Scott. Thank you. Do we have anyone who wishes to comment on another issue other than those that Scott has brought up already during the meeting this morning? I am required to make sure that each person provides their name, address and affiliation for the record.
5
Speaker: Elise Smith 0:13:54Great, my name is Elise Smith Manning, I'm with Hewitt Construction out of Provo. With some further concerns with the bill, Scott mentioned that many of the accidents happen in operational errors by humans and I don't think the bill recognizes this. That is one of my big concerns is recognition of the human element in operating a challenge course is very different than it is in a fair ride or more typical amusement ride. So I would like recognition from the bill to that factor and I also think it is appropriate for a seat on the committee for someone in the challenge course industry. There is apparently a specific seat for someone in the amusement industry and someone in the fair rides, but not in the challenge course. I've got a list of at least 75 challenge courses in Utah and I think representation for that population would be beneficial.
6
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:14:58Just as a point of clarification, challenge course are clearly exempted in the law. We do not and the committee does not have the authority to regulate challenge courses.
7
Speaker: Elise Smith 0:15:10Challenge course and aerial course. The difference in that definition is, in my opinion, quite vague which is one of my concerns with this bill.
8
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:15:22Yes, we have had significant comment on that and yes we will work with the leglislation on clarification.
9
Speaker: Elise Smith 0:15:31I'm sure you did. Thank you, Johnnie
10
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:15:32Anyone else that would like to make comments next?
11
Speaker: Mike Barker0:15:40This is Mike Barker, I live at 15 Abby Rd. East Hampton, Connecticut. I am here today representing the Professional Ropes Course Association's (PRCA) interest. I'd like to point out, that as I'm sure Scott has said also, there are two sets of standards out there that have been dealing with what we call challenge course which includes aerial adventure parks, canopy, ziplines tours and so forth. That's historically where they fell within the industry. Active PRCA have been the associations dealing with the standards and so forth for many years and we are the people that build these, we are the people that have inspected them all these years, we are the people that have trained people all these years. Originally when the aerial adventure parks started being built, quite massively across the country, and not necessarily by people that had extensive experience in building courses prior to that. And that is where we started to see the injuries start to amount up. Again, like Scott and others have said, very few cases of equipment issues were involved with these injuries. It is mostly operational issues, failure to train, failure to follow training; the same types of things we see in any employment operation. The stuff that OSHA deals with on a regular basis. These two standards address this industry far better than anything ASTM can come up with. ASTM, I'm a member of the F24 committee along with other people in this meeting also, and one of the issues is that our standards are all consensus based, ASTM, ACCT, and PRCA. Our consensus based standards between ACCT and PRCA were developed from within the challenge course industry which includes the aerial adventure parks, ziplines and canopy. We came up with consensus by the people that built these, that inspected these, that designed these, that came up with the concept for these. We are the ones that are basically the industry. When we got to ASTM, we had people from -- engineers, many people involved with the standard amusement ride and devices. ASTM does a phenomenal job dealing with the standard amusement devices, however, these are not standard amusement devices. This is entirely different type of engineering work, entirely different type of design and something far beyond what they normally deal with. I know that when we first started working with ASTM and when ACCT was first working with ASTM, we had asked them to incorporate or reference these two standards that have been developed over the years to deal specifically with these courses. ASTM basically refused to do so. So a lot of the information, a lot of the material, a lot of the items that we have in our standards never made it into the ASTM standards. And because of that, there are things missing from there that are important to these courses, important to the operation, important to the training, important to the designs and the equipment. I know the ACCT and PRCA standards both harmonize as much as possible with all the other standards including ASTM. I know the PRCA American National Safety Standards harmonize with worldwide standards - New Zealand, Australia, European Ropes Course, ACCT standards, ASTM standards, NFPA, and OSHA regulations. So all these things were inserted into these to make a full standard that covered every aspect. The ASTM standard, utilizing that all by itself, would require an operator to purchase 11 other ASTM standards to have a concept of what they are doing. That is going to be rather burdensome. I know engineers that I have spoken to before and members of ASTM that I have spoken to before and will all sit there and say, "we can't figure this out unless you jump back and forth between documents 20-30 times per issue". It is confusing. It can be very confusing. When you have something like amusement devices where it is broken down into very specific components as it is being designed, like someone working on the motors, they follow the ASTM standards for the motors, someone is designing the rails, they follow the standards for the rails. But it is more of the installed attitude that the ACCT and PRCA standards have. We deal with all the issues involved with it to try to make it easier for the industry itself to deal with these things and to understand them and to be able to function with them. I do agree we need to clarify the exemption, because the phrasing in the actual standard where it says "aerial adventure parks'', that definition will include challenge courses. That's how we all saw it. And if we all saw it that way - we deal with standards all the time - what do you think your average course owner out there in Utah is gonna believe? They are going to think it excludes them all, or the opposite. The definition of what a challenge course is, if you are looking to apply these standards to aerial adventure parks that are 'amusement' -- that is one thing. However, we will use the ACCT and PRCA standards referencing them and are going to give these operators and these builders and these inspectors a means of looking at standards that are designed specifically to address the issues within this industry. Rather than, as Scott was saying; a roller coaster, Scott won't go out and inspect a roller coaster and neither am I. We inspect the course, because we know what we are looking at and what we are trying to find. I am sure Scott and anybody else that is on the call can tell you that over the years we found a handful of engineers that understand the concepts within the aerial adventure parks, and the ziplines, and the tours. We have engineers that have worked hard on this stuff. I see Troy Richardson on this call right now. Troy is a specialist in ziplines. Troy and I have both been expert witnesses in many cases and in almost all of those cases, it is operator error or failure to follow the ACCT or PRCA standards, which lead to the injury. I have seen them meet the ASTM requirements, but I will not pass them. I think Scott mentioned the ACCT ICE program which is the inspector program. In the PRCA we have accredited vendors who are also certified for inspection. We also have qualified instructor certifications for training. These are things this industry has done to ensure that we are safe and that we are doing the right things. And adding another set of standards is just going to create issues and confusion.
12
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:24:53Alright, thank you Mr. Barker. We are going to move on to the next comment so that we give everyone adequate time to make their comments. Who would like to go next?
13
Speaker: Michael Troy Richardson0:25:08If I may, my name is Michael Troy Richardson. I'm a zipline expert, I've been building ziplines for over two decades. In the state of Utah, I live in Washington. I've been on the board of the PRCA. I'm trying to be a part of the ACCT board. I've been an F24 committee member for over two years. You know, I've been the inspector, the instructor, the installer, and the engineer. What we are finding with the standards is there is a benefit with ASTM. The benefit of the ASTM is that we vote on changes throughout the year. Changes are made almost, not necessarily on-the-fly, but we can recommend changes and get them on the books. Now Scott Andrews and Mike Barker have seen emails that I have recently sent out. About braking changes that need to be made. Right now, the standards for braking is 6 mph. You need an emergency brake device. Well, what I'm finding is the majority of the accidents that I have investigated - at least 20 of almost 50 - have been breaking related. Some of it is operator error, but some of it is possibly an inspector who has missed the fact that the need something more, or don't understand the engineering behind a zipline cable and how much it can shrink for every 20 degrees and how that changes the speed of your zipline when you have a free-wheeling trolley relying on a belly curve to slow down in the middle of January. It just does not work. So some of the accidents have been very severe, over 50 mph. That is horrendous. There are ziplines out there that have that kind of speed that only require one emergency brake or emergency rest device. I lobby and try to get something on to require a second EAD per 15 mph or more, but I guarantee that change is not going to be able to be made in the ACCT or the PRCA in the next coming year. It is going to be a slow process. The odds of it being to come through with a change in ASTM are greater in my opinion. Now granted, ASTM F2959 covers half a dozen other standards and the nice thing about ASTM is that we just adopted 2970 for the trampoline parks. So we are already on board with them. But I don't believe we should exclude ACCT or PRCA inspectors to review and inspect ziplines. I think there ought to be an inclusion for them, but also I like ASTM a little bit better.
14
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:28:33Thank you, Troy.
15
Speaker: Benjamin Allen0:28:37I can go next, my name is Benjamin Allen. I've been in the ropes course industry for 39 years building ropes courses, ziplines and so forth. I live in Provo, UT. My address is 3606 W. Center Street, Provo. So far I've built over 140 ropes courses or zip lines around the country. Mostly here in Utah. I've been inspecting for about 35 years, training people about the same amount of time. I've seen a lot of changes over the years. You know, most of the courses that I build aren't included in the amusement category. For example, they are at a scout camp or at a church camp, or a therapeutic operation. So most of these courses don't even have a zipline that would go over 20 mph. It is mostly a zipline that is gravity stopped. Those are the safest form of zipline where they can't even reach the end of the zipline and they just come to a stop because of gravity and then go back to the middle where the participant can get off on a ladder. There is a lot of changes that have happened just in the last 10-20 years which is when the ropes course industry has gone more 'amusement' with these real fast ziplines and aerial adventure parks and so forth. I believe that the best way we can help these courses to be safe is to also include ACCT as a inspection standard. I know I sent this in the email and many of you have heard it before, but I wanted the committee to really see why this is so important. In Nevada they have these standards where the amusement park industry has to inspect the ropes courses and so I was down there doing a training for a ropes course there in Nevada and I see that a lot of the stuff in these courses were not meeting the standards and were unsafe in my opinion. I told the owner "we should do an inspection while I am here. I will only charge you $700 for the inspection and then we can make a plan to get these things back to standards." And he said, "Oh no, I had an inspector from the Amusement Park Division of Nevada come and they charged me $2,000, and they told me that everything looks great and we are good to go. So I'm not going to pay you $700 to tell me something fails." So I think that if we just say like it says in the regulations right now, you know, the amusement parks inspectors would be inspecting these courses, I think it would make them much less safe. I'm ok if an engineer and the person who installed that course, is using ASTM standards, then go ahead and let that course continue to use ASTM standards. If they are using ACCT standards right now, then let them continue to use ACCT standards and ACCT inspectors. If they are using PRCA, the same there. That is my vote, is to include, like Scott said, ACCT inspectors and ACCT standards.
16
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:32:52Thank you, Mr. Allen. Ok, so we have had several comments regarding the challenge course, aerial adventure course, ziplines, ACCT standards, PRCA standards. Is there anyone that has comment this morning on one of the other issues - inspection, ride operators - I want to make sure that they are given an opportunity to speak next if someone is out there to make comment on one of those issues.
17
Speaker: Jamie Barrow0:33:31I would like a comment for supporting the current regulation. My name is Jamie Barrow. I'm representing Park City ski area and Vail resorts. My address 390 interlocken crescent, Broomfield, Colorado. I am in support of the current regulation with the note that I agree - and I know that the committee is working through the challenge course and aerial adventure conflict - I'd encourage you to possibly look at how Colorado has defined the difference between a challenge course and an aerial adventure course. They use a model that is pay-to-play for a lack of a better term, that if the camp or conference center were using it as part of their facilities for their camp and the people are renting out the camp, that is not an amusement device. If they are soliciting business outside of the camp rental facility that then becomes an amusement device that needs to meet the standard. I would also like to support the current standards in referencing ASTM. I too have been part of the challenge course industry for 28+ years. But I am one of the few that has made a transition and now I am operating both amusement attractions and ziplines and challenge courses. As an operator that operates both, I feel that the ASTM standard is suitable , especially the standard that you are referencing - ASTM F770 - we need to all remember that this is an operations inspection and not a design and installation standard. With that, all of these individuals have all stated that their standard is more restrictive and robust than the ASTM standard. So they will have no problem meeting the current Utah regulation with no burden and no additional funding needed because we are talking about operations. We are talking about having a manual, following the manual, doing the maintenance, doing the daily inspections that the builder or the manufacturer calls out. There is nothing here that prevents the builder - being ACCT, PRCA - nothing at all that prevents what standards they want to follow above and beyond the Utah regulation. This is fine. I also have concerns of listing multiple standards. I have seen states do that. I believe multiple standards leads to confusion and undue burden not only for the owner/operators, but the general public is confused on what standards the course of the facility is needing to meet. The inspectors can get confused on what standards the course needs to meet and the jurisdiction as well. If you list multiple standards, are you asking us to meet all the applicable standards? Or are you only asking us to pick and choose? That either needs to be clearly defined, and/or we have to meet all of them. As a jurisdiction, you need to be prepared to not only monitor and supervise and vote for your state on one standard; you need to be prepared to be knowledgeable and vote on multiple standards. As a person that does that, it is very difficult. It is a burden to do so. A couple of comments that I would like to bring up that people mention, starting with inspector skills - I'd like to first say that being a part of this industry for a long time, it is the owner/operators job and responsibility to pick a qualified inspector. I have met many crappy ACCT inspectors, many great ACCT inspectors. I have met many amazing PRCA inspectors and I have met many crappy PRCA inspectors. I have also met many great AIMS and NAARSO inspectors and many crappy AIMS and NAARSO inspectors. Also, there was nothing preventing all these members from going and getting their AIMS or NAARSO as a credential as a qualified inspector. If they are qualified to inspect, they will be qualified to inspect under AIMS and/or NAARSO. It is not a burden, and it is a quite easy test and not much time. I caution all of us to refrain from conjecture on injuries. There is no quantifiable injury data in the ziplines amusement industry. We don't even have a clearing house for a number of injuries that happen anywhere. Most of the reports that have been done lump in backyard ziplines and other things from doctors, and the reports that have been done within the industry are probably 30 years old or older. So we don't actually have clear data. For every one that has been an operator error, I can point you to a similar one that was either a design failure, a maintenance issue failure, and/or a structural engineering failure. We have had all of them in the industry. To say that one is more prevalent than the other without actual statistics or facts is just plain conjecture. And at the same time, it is up to the owner/operator if you feel the PRCA standards or ACCT standards are going to better meet your risk management, you are by all means able - under Utah regulation - to meet those regulations as you see fit. There is nothing in the regulations. I have sat on the ASTM harmonization committee with Scott Andrews and we have gone line by line through the standards and I can tell you that there are very few contradictory standards - I think there are two we are addressing, but none of them would have impact on the Utah regulation. As everyone has said, it is far harder to meet the ACCT or PRCA operations standards and so if it is harder to meet, then it will by all means be easy for them to meet what Utah has proposed.
18
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:42:50Alright, Thank you Mr. Barrow. We appreciate those comments. Next person who would like to make comment.
19
Speaker: Mike Lane0:43:06My name is MIke Lane. I am with the National Skiers Association. 133 S Bend Gordon St, Lakewood, CO. My apologies, I just found out about this at 8:45. I don't have a really prepared statement. I just want to make one simple comment. I agree with Jamie Barrow and the direction that the Utah legislation is moving in terms of ASTM. In terms of the other standards. Jamie is exactly right. If you can meet ASTM, there is no burden to any organization or park or facility to also be in compliance with ACCT or PRCA standards. My only comment, and general comment, is the ASTM standard is very inclusive of all diversity, of relationships and those participating. Anybody can participate and we are not finding that with the other groups. So other voices are not necessarily always heard and I think that is a very important aspect of the ASTM process. So everybody's voice is heard with ASTM and everybody gets a vote. That is my only comment, thank you.
20
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:44:34Thank you, Mr. Lane. Anyone else that would like to make comment this morning.
21
Speaker: Jeff Borba0:44:42Mr. Miller, I would - Jeff Borba. Hi everyone, I'm Jeff Borba from 3 Deer Canyon Ct., Irvine, Nevada. I am representing Precisioneering, which is a 3rd party amusement ride inspection company for different orgs through the world and country. I have over 25 years of experience inspecting the permanent and portable type rides, including aerial adventure courses as well as instructing several classes in the amusement ride industry including aerial adventure courses. I am here because I have had Utah clients and I inspect my clients for operation maintenance manuals, which appears to me what Utah is proposing. You know, it is unfortunate how other individuals talk negatively towards other safety standards. I am not here, and I don't wish to discuss issues with other standards mentioned today. They are different from each other, and that is not an issue. They are either great or have issues depending on your needs and point of view. I believe Utah has done a great job keeping these regulations, to what I would call bare-bones minimums, which can be met if owner/operators follow their manuals. I am not here advocating which standards are better. All standards, I believe, provide safety information to utilize and help keep the public safe and keep owners in business, which should be everyone's goal. Not to drive membership or give financial burden on any owner/operators. You know, a couple of things that were said in regards to the undue burden. I agree with Jamie. If a site is following and meeting other standards mentioned standards today, they are meeting or exceeding the proposed requirements. Regarding the comment about ASTM requiring 11 different referenced standards, that is just completely inaccurate. Since design and manufacturing requirements are not referenced in Utah regulations, we are talking about the operations of it. Not going back into 2291 or 1193 for manufacturing processes. In my opinion having multiple standards for the owner/operator to select from would be confusing and not really practical. It will create confusion if aerial adventure type rides follow different rules than the other amusement rides or if the sites get to pick and choose with standards they want to follow - which can change from year to year. It is pretty simple the way I look at it, from my point of view, the manufacturer sets the inspection criteria and the state holds the owner/operator accountable for these inspections. In short, the proposed Utah regulations are bare-bone requirements compared to other states, and trust me, I inspect in a lot of different states from Clark County, Nevada to California - you name it. When I read these, I said, "Hey, these are actually going to work for the public''. And because of this, existing amusement rides or devices including the challenge course or zip lines should easily be able to comply without physical changes to the amusement ride systems. It doesn't matter if the provided manuals are in accordance with any aforementioned standards, just follow the requirements in the manual. A little note, as it pertains to the Utah inspector qualification. I am part of a lot of organizations - NAARSO and AIMS - the proposed regulations make it possible for many certified inspectors to perform annual inspections. NAARSO and AIMS combined have over 1300 inspectors which include many ACCT and PRCA members. NAARSO provides many education classes regarding operations and maintenance in aerial adventure courses in accordance with associated standards. They are really not just ferris wheel and coaster inspectors, they do have classes for the aerial adventure courses. In closing, the cost for owners/operators to comply with the Utah proposed rules will be less than in most other states. This is good news for small businesses, family-run businesses, cities and counties with small budgets. With that, I want to say, "good job, Utah and the committee". By the way, I agree with Jamie Barrow, which is not every day I can say that. Thank you, everyone.
22
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:48:36Thank you Mr. Borba. Alright, we have about 10 minutes left before we have to recess this meeting. Is there anyone else, particulary if you have an issue that you would like to discuss and comment this morning that has not already been brought up.
23
Speaker: Michelle Jensen0:48:54My name is Michelle Jensen and I'd like to make a comment. I am from Sun City, Arizona with Midway West. I really want to say I support this Utah standard, however my question is, have you received any commitment from inspectors or have reached out to them. My concern is that they are going to have to pay to inspect in order to participate in this. I know that here are over 1300 inspectors, but if it comes to April and not enough inspectors have signed up for this then that could be a problem for the amusement industry. Does that make sense?
24
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:49:47Certainly.
25
Speaker: Michelle Jensen0:49:49That is my only concern. I feel like a concern like that should be addressed in this because if it comes to April and no one can get inspected, that would be a huge concern for us.
26
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:50:06Thank you, Ms. Jensen. And I will say that the committee has been concerned about that from the very beginning from the legislator when he passed the bill. So it is a priority of ours to try and make sure we are communicating with the inspector community. Thank you for your comments.
27
Speaker: Michael Troy Richardson0:50:27May I make a quick comment on a rebuttal. I have inspected in over 30 states. Out of the 30 states that I have inspected, I always look at the state regulations and they are all over the board. Some of them say we need ACCT and ASTM and I like that. I like the fact that they can choose which standard they follow but they really should follow all of the standards, in my opinion. When I come in, I look at all of the standards, if there is an active investigation as well. The problem is that our insurance has gone skyrocketing. When I ran and operated my zipline in 2009 in Spanish Fork, my insurance was about $2,000 a year. This year, I tried to get insurance and they wanted a minimum of $12,000 a year. Another problem is that we have 3rd party inspectors that say they are 3rd party inspectors that are going out and inspecting the ride that they built. Now that is ok, if it is the commission's position, but to continue to go back after you've built something and inspect it, that is not a true 3rd party. I welcome all inspectors as long as they follow the standards.
28
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:51:44Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Anyone else that would like to make comment this morning?
29
Speaker: Joe Walker0:52:24I have a comment. My name is Joe Walker and I am in Salt Lake City, Utah with the UNI ropes challenge course. I am just looking over the bulletin and wanted to comment on the permit system. I think there needs to be clarification about whether it is the permits per ride, or can we say challenge courses are one whole ride. I just think there needs to be some clarification on that. That is all I had.
30
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:53:11Thank you, Mr. Walker. That's a very good comment. Alright, anyone else? Alright, I don't see anyone else asking to speak that hasn't spoken yet so Mr. Barker, I'll give you just a minute or two for an additional comment.
31
Speaker: Mike Barker0:53:47I apologize, I lost the call earlier. I have been doing inspection on courses since the 70's. With the multiple standards, typically an inspector has to be familiar with all the standards anyway. And you inspect what that course is operating under. So I've got clients that operate under the ACCT standards, I inspect to the ACCT standards. If it's a PRCA course, PRCA standards. ASTM, ASTM standards. That should be the means of operating for any inspector. If Utah did just go with ASTM, could we still inspect under that? Yes. Could the ACCT inspector still inspect under that? Yes. We are all familiar with the standard. But we need to ensure that we have a good inspector pool by allowing these other inspectors into positions. I do believe having multiple standards in each state is valuable. I have been an expert witness like Troy Richardson has, on probably over 50 cases and I disagree with Jamie in that most of these cases we've seen it is an operational error. I am also the chairman of the PRCA safety committee and everytime an injury involves a challenge course, or an aerial adventure park or zipline, we look at it as much as possible but we don't maintain a running record of it. The insurance companies warn us not to do that and most associations don't do that for that basic reason. Because you create a searchable record for attorneys and nobody wants to have that. But most of the cases I've been on are operational error or a failure to follow one of the standards - when it came to connectors, or ropes or cable. Other than the public letter I sent which has a breakdown of what we would like to see added - both standards - consider a serious clarification of the challenge course definition because that has caused so many problems in so many states already. It has been a nightmare dealing with that in terms of being an expert witness, in terms of being an inspector, builder and so forth. It does create a nightmare. That needs to be really clearly defined. The pay for play comment that was made - I have states where they have taken pay-for-play that have said, if you are signing up for camp and you pay to go to the camp, now it's pay for play. So that is probably going to be one of the hardest things the committee has to figure out which is how to work that exemption language. I'm sure that ACCT and PRCA both would be willing to work with you on trying to come up with a line which would address our membership that is not the amusement device part. Thank you for your time.
32
Speaker: Johnnie Miller0:57:02Alright, we are at one hour and I want to make sure that we have more time. Is there anyone who has not made a comment yet who would like to make a comment in today's public hearing? Hearing none. We are going to end the public hearing, I want to thank everyone that both attended and provided comments and all of those who wrote in comments as well. All of this information will be put in the record and provided to the Amusement Ride Safety Committee for their deliberation going forward and their changes to the rule. Please watch the Utah bulletin in the coming months as any change that we make as a result from the comments today will be submitted to the bulletin and allow for an additional comment period when they are filed in the bulletin. So you will have additional opportunity to provide additional comments and of course all of the meetings of the Amusement Ride Safety Committee are open public meetings. You are allowed to observe and so I invite you to observe those meetings. Those meetings are just open-public, not open hearings so you do not have a right to speak at the committee meeting but at the committee's discretion they may allow comments. This is a new law in Utah, we've never had regulation of amusement rides, so the committee wants to have your thoughts as much as possible as they are creating these rules prior to implementation on April 1st of 2022. So thank you everyone who attended the public hearing and with that, I am going to call the Amusement Ride Safety Committee meeting back to order.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100