NJ Department of Community Affairs

Board Members Present: Cynthia Wilk (representing William M. Connolly), Chair; William Dauphinee; William Gehlhaus; Lucy Murphy; Geoffrey Rogers; Ernest Niles; Michael Skelly; Nancy Sheridan; William Zumsteg

DCA Staff Present: Michael Baier, Acting Chief, Bureau of Code Services; Michael Triplett, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Carrie Battista, Bureau of Code Services; Andreas Lichter, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Donald VanHouten, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Paul F. Mulherin, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Richard Gallagher, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Robert Latham, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Chris Frankowski, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Thomas Murtha, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Daniel Troy, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Arthur L’Hommedieu, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Gina DeCosta, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit

Members of the Public: Anthony Casale, Fun Party Amusements; Mr. Zientek, NJ Partyworks; Kimberle Samaneli, NJAA; Lary Zucker, NJAA

C. Old Business

1 Rockwall rule proposal - The Department staff reported that there was a court decision after the last meeting of the Board that has lead the Department to alter the scope of the proposal. The court felt that rock walls do not really fit the definition of mechanical devices that propel passengers over a fixed course for the purpose of amusement, thrills or enjoyment. The Department has regulated rock walls because the belay system is a mechanical device. The court felt that the belay device was not the primary thing that gave the passengers the thrills and excitement and opined that the belay device was a safety device. The court felt that the Department was reading the Statute too broadly and that things like the golf carts could be defined as amusement rides if the Department was going to read the statute that broadly. The direction from the court was that the Department would be consistent with the statute if it regulated rock walls as gravity propelled rides. If regulated as a gravity or passenger propelled device it would mean that they would only require a permit when they were located with other rides that would require a permit on their own. A Board member thought that the definition of amusement ride in the statute is flawed and that rock walls should be regulated even when not located with other rides. A Board member asked how the Department viewed rock walls located with another ride that needs a permit. For example, if there was a rock wall at one end of a Mall and a regulated ride at the other would a permit be required for the rock wall. Staff responded that if the rock wall were on the same property as another ride it would require a permit. Even in the case of a Mall where there is a generous amount of separation between the two, both would be regulated because they are on the same site.

Staff reported that it believed the rule was ripe for action. Some Board members asked for additional time to review the proposal and time to share it with the New Jersey Amusement Association. Staff reported that the current proposal has been before the Board for about 4 months with few substantive changes. A motion was made by William Gehlhaus seconded by Geoff Rogers to table action on the proposal for one meeting.

2. Water Park Ride Rule Progress Report – Mr. Rogers reported that the water park subcommittee had met four times since the last Board meeting and had made good progress. It was estimated that the committee could have a document that was ready for the Board to review in the next month to month and a half.

3. Certified Maintenance Technician – Staff reported on three major changes that were made in response to comments at the last Board meeting. The first was to allow programs that the Department deems equivalent to NAARSO or AIMS to be used as the basis for Certification. The second change was a reduction in the amount of time that records must be kept from five years to three years. The third change was to better define the scope of the rule. The assembly, disassembly, set-up and major repair of a ride would require supervision by a Certified Maintenance Technician. A Board member questioned whether everyone working on the ride would need to be trained. Some of the people responsible for the set-up of kiddie rides are simply there for manpower and may not need training. Some board members thought that they needed additional time to review the proposal and analyze what impact it will have on staffing at parks. A member asked what the genesis was for the proposal. Staff responded that the incident where several operators where shocked and a maintenance worker was ultimately electrocuted because of faulty maintenance caused the Department to push for better control of maintenance. A Board member questioned whether all like for like replacements could be done without a CMT. Staff responded that, for electrical, there was limited replacement work that can be done without a CMT, such as changing bulbs and fuses. Replacing transformers and other work that requires some expertise would have to be supervised by a CMT. Staff stated that the purpose of the rules is to put more of the responsibility for ensuring that rides are maintained and repaired correctly on the owner since the Department does not have the staff to do an inspection on all work that is done to the ride. A Board member felt that a working group to discuss the proposal was needed. A Board member asked how direct supervision was interpreted. Staff responded that direct supervision means that the CMT exercises control over the maintenance process to a degree that ensures that the work is being done properly. For example the qualified person may have to stop at some critical point in the process so that the CMT can see what was done and authorize going on to the next step. A Board member suggested that the critical points be established by rule. Staff responded that based on the shear number of different activities that take place that it is impossible to establish all of the critical points. The CMT is responsible for establishing the critical points where work should be looked at before going on to the next step. A Board member asked if a CMT could exercise supervision over the phone by “walking” the qualified person through the process. Staff responded that they would have to be on site. A motion was made by Geoff Rogers seconded by Ms. Murphy to table action on the proposal and to establish a working group to discuss the proposal. The motion passed. A working group of Mr. Skelly, Mr. Gehlhaus, Mr. Rogers, Ms Murphy, Mr. Zumsteg chaired by Mr. Dauphinee was established.

4. Advertising - A Board member asked why DCA was interested in advertising. Staff reported that it is often difficult for the Department to catch rides that are operating illegally especially inflatables, because often they are only set up for a short period of time. It is much easier to try to regulate un-permitted inflatables and other short term use rides by taking action when they advertise. A Board member questioned whether this would have an effect on promotional material for rides such as Kingda Ka. The Board also asked if this would prevent ride manufacturers from advertising rides in Trade magazines that had not been approved in NJ yet. Staff responded that the intent was to prohibit people from advertising that there rides were approved for use in New Jersey when they aren’t. Staff also commented that they would not consider someone advertising a coming attraction as offering it for use. The Board suggested that rather than saying “sell” it should say “enter into a contractual obligation” in 5:14A-5.2 since once the contract is signed the owner will be obligated to buy a ride that is not approved for use in the state. Under the penalties section the Board thought that if there was a pending application at the time of sale that a penalty would not be appropriate since it is assumed that the manufacturer is making a good faith effort to have the ride approved for use. Staff agreed to make those changes and ensure that the rule will not prevent promotional material for rides that are planned for the future. This proposal will be brought back to the board for review.

5. Stop work order - A Board member asked what the purpose of the rule was. Staff responded that the purpose of the rule was to allow the Department to stop work on an amusement ride that may be progressing in a manner that could endanger the public. A motion was made by Mr. Niles to approve the proposal seconded by Ms. Sheridan. The proposal was approved by the Board.

1. Portable verses fixed rides – Staff reported that at the time of the adoption of ASTM F2291 there was a comment from the public asking the Department to clarify the definitions and requirements for portable verses fixed rides. There are two primary issues that need to be clarified. The first is how the connections (electrical and plumbing) are made to the ride. The second is how the applicable environmental loads on the ride are dealt with. A Board member felt that as long as the operator was running and maintaining the ride in accordance with the manufacturer’s requirements, then the rules didn’t need to go any further. Staff responded that they agreed in concept but that there needs to be a plan for how the ride will be secured in the event of an impending storm. A Board member stated that it was the manufacturer’s responsibility to establish both operating and non operating wind conditions for the ride. The Staff will prepare a proposal for a future meeting.

1. Ride Statistics – Staff provided the Board with additional information on the three serious incidents that occurred during the 2006 ride season.

2. Service proven ride proposal – Staff reported that the Department will not be going forward with the rule proposal on Time Tested rides that was previously approved by the Board. The proposal sought to require that the ride be made to comply with the codes in effect at the time of manufacture. Because the definition is statutory, the change could not be made.

Lary Zucker encouraged the use of working groups to craft rule proposals. He indicated that NJAA would be meeting with the Department to discuss some of the issues on the Board’s agenda. He also commented that though the inflatable industry does not always get the best press that they should have a member on the Board. Finally, Mr. Zucker thought that there may be a legislative solution to a number of issues where the scope of the Act is not clear, such as the rock wall issue.

Art L’Hommedieu stated that based on his inspection experience there was a need for the CMT rule.

Mr. Zientek asked if rental rides fell under the proposed CMT rule. Staff reported that a number of what would be described as rental rides have also been involved in incidents that resulted in injury due to improper maintenance. Mr. Zientek stated that he agreed that maintenance was an issue but felt that assembly of the smaller rental rides did not need a CMT.

The Department asked the Board if there was an objection to putting the Board minutes on the DCA website. There were none.

Board Members Present: William M. Connolly, Chair; Judith Mullins, Vice Chair; William Dauphinee; William Gehlhaus; Lucy Murphy; Geoffrey Rogers; Ernest Niles; Michael Skelly; Nancy Sheridan; William Zumsteg

DCA Staff Present: Cynthia Wilk, Div. of Codes and Standards; Michael Baier, Acting Chief, Bureau of Code Services; Michael Triplett, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Carrie Battista, Bureau of Code Services; Andreas Lichter, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Donald VanHouten, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit

Members of the Public: Robert Hoban, NJAA; Ed McGlynn, NJAA; Kim Samarelli, NJAA; Ed Zakar, NJAA; Anthony Casale, Fun Party Amusements; Mark Zeintek, NJ Partyworks; Lary Zucker, NJAA; Claudine Leone, NJ American Camp Assn.

A motion was made by William Gehlhaus seconded by William Dauphinee to accept the minutes of the 1/25/07 meeting. The minutes were approved without change.

1 Rockwall rule proposal - The Department staff reported that action on the proposal was tabled at the last meeting so that the New Jersey Amusement Association could review the proposal. There were no changes made to the proposal since the last meeting and therefore the Department reported that the proposal was ready for action from the Board. William Gehlhaus reported that the New Jersey Amusement Association reviewed the proposal and had no objection. Judy Mullins made a motion to approve the proposal, Mr. Gehlhaus seconded the motion. The motion passed.

2. Water Park Ride Rule Progress Report – Mr. Rogers reported that the water park subcommittee had continued to meet since the last Board meeting and continues to make progress. It was estimated that the committee could have a document that was ready for the Board to review after one or two more meetings.

3. Certified Maintenance Technician – Staff reported that the proposal had been given to a working committee chaired by William Dauphinee. The Department took the work of the working committee and summarized what could be done by a CMT in section 2.17. Since the Department will not be issuing certifications it changed the title of the position to Chief Maintenance Technician. Mr. Dauphinee confirmed that the new section 2.17 simply restated who may do what type of work which the working group agreed on. A Board member asked how long the NAARSO and AIMS certifications were good for. The certifications must be renewed every 2 years and the appropriate continuing education must be taken. A board member asked who decides what other programs are recognized. The Department is given the right to recognize other equivalent programs in the proposal. A board member asked if New Jersey would recognize Pennsylvania certifications since NAARSO and AIMS do. Staff responded that if NAARSO and AIMS recognize it, then we do too but that we are not contemplating adding the Pennsylvania certification to the list. A board member asked if the item that allows a manufacturer’s employee working on would also extend to a subcontractor of that manufacturer. Staff reported that it does and will add this to the proposal. A board member noted that in the proposal there are now 3 levels of personnel, a CMT, a maintenance technician and a qualified person and questioned whether three levels were needed. Mr. Dauphinee responded that the working group felt that they were. It was noted that the word “to” should be added in 2.18(b) between the words “permitted” and “perform.” A member of the public asked how the rule would affect the installation of a new roller coaster. Staff reported that this would most likely be covered by the provision that lets a manufacturer or their subcontractor act as a CMT. Another member of the public voiced a concern that the term Chief Maintenance Technician is already used by many parks as a job title and may lead to confusion. The board agreed to use the term “Recognized Certified Maintenance Technician (RCMT).” A board member questioned the use of the term “existing state” under the definition of “maintenance” in the proposed rule. Staff responded that the definition was taken form Webster’s dictionary because there does not seem to be a definition in any of the referenced standards used in the rules. There was substantial discussion on a suitable alternative to the term existing state. The board agreed that rides are to be kept in their specified approved state. A member of the public asked if painting should be included in the definition of the term maintenance. Staff reported that it should include painting because that is a type of maintenance. A question about whether repair should be included in the definition of maintenance was raised. Because repairs require a higher level of competency, they need to be defined separate from maintenance. A board member thought that the requirement that minor repairs have a procedure in the maintenance manual could be a problem by unduly limiting what can be done as a minor repair. A member of the public asked if a RCMT was needed for preassembled rides. Staff responded that it is not. A Board member asked if there should be a way of dealing with small rental fixed rides without a RCMT. Staff responded that it thought that the dividing line for hard rides was too hard to define. A member of the public asked if ROAR training would be acceptable for inflatables and smaller rental rides. Staff reported that it had not seen the material and therefore could not say. Mr. Dauphinee suggested that the working group reconvene in the next three weeks to address the issues discussed at this meeting. It was agreed that the committee would meet, it was also agreed that those people interested in having the ROAR training approved would submit it in the same time frame.

4. Advertising – Staff reported that two changes had been made to the proposal based on the discussion at the last board meeting. The first is that it is now clear in the proposal that promotional materials do not constitute advertising for use. The second is that it is allowable for a manufacturer to sell a ride if type certification is pending. A board member asked how the rule would affect general advertisements of rides in trade magazines. Staff responded that as long as the ads did not purport that the rides were approved in NJ when they in fact were not, the ads were not affected by the rule. A board member noted that the term “that ride” should be changed to “a ride” in section 5:14A – 4.2(d). There was additional discussion about the ability of owners to enter into contracts with manufacturers before approval is granted. It was agreed that they may if there is a contingency that allows the purchaser out of the contract if the manufacturer fails to obtain approval. This will be added to the proposal. It was agreed that the staff would make the changes discussed and submit the proposal to the New Jersey Register.

5. Portable and fixed rides – Staff presented a proposal on the setup of portable rides at amusement parks. The rule addresses how the connections are made when a portable ride is located at a fixed park and addresses how the ride will withstand environmental loads. The proposal requires fixed wiring to within six feet of the ride perimeter and allows environmental loads to be addressed in one of three ways. Either the ride must be taken down, must be partially taken down or must be designed to withstand the environmental loads. Staff clarified that the method used (anchoring, partial or full takedown) and when it must be done is up to the manufacturer. There were some concerns about the current definitions of fixed and portable rides. William Dauphinee suggested that the issue be referred to the working group and be brought back at the next meeting. The board agreed. A revised proposal will be presented at the next board meeting.

1. Business address in New Jersey – The Board was made aware of concerns that were prompted after the Bureau sent a letter concerning the need to have an office in the State of New Jersey. The Department was sent a letter saying that under the Hauge Convention there is established a central office in foreign countries that would meet the intent of the rule. Therefore foreign manufacturers should be able to use that system for receiving official correspondence. Mr. Connolly reported that if it was in accordance with a treaty that the US was a party to that would be fine. A Board member asked if corporations in other states would be offered similar relief. Mr. Connolly said that they would not necessarily be offered the same accommodation, since the exception made was pursuant to a federal agreement. A board member asked what would happen to their permit if a manufacturer did not get a new type certification because they don’t comply with the office requirement. Staff replied that they would give the ride owner 30 days to get an individual approval. The type certification is a condition of the permit so when the type certification lapses the permit is invalid. A board member asked if the proposed rule has any affect on the need to pay income taxes because they have a registered agent in New Jersey. Mr. Connolly replied that there were laws that establish that but that this requirement is independent of and has no affect on that requirement. It was reported that many businesses do not want to have to be registered to do business in NJ because of the tax implications. The January 31 st letter sent by the Department uses the term “registered office” and some people thought that might be the cause of the confusion. Mr. Connolly stated that the Department would send out a letter clarifying that the requirement is separate and distinct from the requirement to have a registered agent in the state and will amend the language in the rule to say that an address to “send official correspondence” is needed.

1. Ride Statistics – Statistics were not provided to the board but staff had them available if there were any questions. A board member asked how many permits had been issued so far this year compared to last. Staff reported that 1,462 permits had been issued so far this year, compared to 1,274 at this time last year.

Board Members Present: William M. Connolly, Chair; William Dauphinee; William Gehlhaus; Lucy Murphy; Geoffrey Rogers; Ernest Niles; Albert Belmont; Nancy Sheridan; William Zumsteg; Carol Kaplan

DCA Staff Present: Cynthia Wilk, Deputy Director; Michael Baier, Acting Chief, Bureau of Code Services; Michael Triplett, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Carrie Battista, Bureau of Code Services; Andreas Lichter, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit; Donald VanHouten, Carnival and Amusement Ride Safety Unit

Members of the Public: Robert Hoban, NJAA; Mark Zeintek, NJ Partyworks; Lary Zucker, NJAA

The meeting was called to order at 10:15 am. Mr. Belmont was introduced as the replacement for Mr. Skelly. He was welcomed by the Board.There was discussion about the status of Judy Mullins. Chairman Connolly reported that Ms. Mullins indicated her desire to resign from the Board though Mr. Connolly was not aware if the Department received her formal letter of resignation. It was also reported later in the meeting that Mr. Dauphinee had left the Philadelphia Toboggan Company and was starting a new ride manufacturing company under the name “Be a Kid Amusements.” Therefore, no change to his Board member status has occurred.

A motion was made by William Gehlhaus seconded by William Zumsteg to accept the minutes of the 3/15/07 meeting. The minutes were approved without change.

2. Certified Maintenance Technician – Staff reported on the changes that had been made to the proposal as a result of the last Board meeting and the review that was performed by the working group. Staff also reported that they had reviewed the ROAR training material that was submitted and at this time do not feel that it is equivalent to NAARSO or AIMS. It was discussed that the working group preferred to have the requirements for a RCMT for maintenance, testing and inspection all in one section. Staff responded that there are existing sections in the rules for these activities and that the RCMT requirement was fitted into these existing sections.

There was a question about the ability of a company to have a grace period to allow for the replacement of a RCMT in case they unexpectedly left employment. It was decided that this was a reasonable request, since without such a provision the RCMT could have the ride owner in a precarious position if they threatened to quit. In addition if the RCMT became ill or was unable to work for some other reason it would also be disruptive to the ride owners business. The Board agreed that there should be a 60 day period where a ride owner could operate without a RCMT while a replacement was sought.

There was discussion about alternate methods of approving RCMT’s rather than the AIMs or NAARSO tests. The committee discussed developing a State test that might be more practicum based. Mr. Connolly responded that this could raise equivalency issues and that such a test would have to be carefully developed and that it would likely be expensive.

There was additional discussion about the need to have an AIMS or NAARSO certification for ride operators who primarily operate and maintain inflatables and simple mechanical rides. Staff reported that one of the difficulties with this was identifying which rides could be covered by this limited training. It was reported that PA has two classes of license. Class 1 is for minor rides and PA has a list or definition that identifies what rides can be looked at by someone with that class of license. There was a question about whether the ROAR training that was submitted is equivalent to the PA class 1 license. The Board suggested that a working committee made up of Mr. Dauphinee, Mr. Gehlhaus and Mr. Belmont and any other interested Board member be formed to review the issues raised about alternatives to the AIMS or NAARSO training. There was no action on the proposal. The working group will submit its recommendations at the next Board meeting.

3. Portable and fixed rides – Staff presented the changes to the proposal that were made after the last Board meeting. These included an allowance that ride wiring and the associated disconnect that distinguishes it from service wiring may extend 20 feet from the ride perimeter rather than the 6 feet included in the original rule proposal. In addition, it was agreed that rather than specifying what wiring method can be used between the service panel and the ride disconnect that the NEC would be referenced. A Board member noted that the definition of “amusement park” used in the proposal was different than the definition contained in the Statute. Staff verified this and agreed that it should be consistent. A Board member discussed that the term “readily racked” in the definition of a “ Mobile ride” should be changed to “readily disassembled.” In addition a Board member noted that for a ride to be considered a “Mobile Ride,” the manufacturer would have to consider it as such. Finally, a Board member was concerned that the provision that a permanent facility or park operated for more than 30 days in a 90 day period was too restrictive. The Board member reported that in some cases facilities choose to have events that last a month or perhaps a little longer. The Board agreed to change the proposal to say that a permanent facility is one that is used for more than 60 days in a 90 day period. A motion was made by William Gehlhaus seconded by William Dauphinee to move the amended proposal forward. The committee voted that the proposal be sent to the New Jersey Register with the aforementioned changes.

1. Bonding Certificate – A Board member asked if it was the Department’s policy to withhold other inspections when the bonding certificate inspection for water amusement rides has not been performed for the season. Staff reported that it was not and that it would conduct any necessary inspections that it could but that approval cannot be granted without the certificate.

2. Ride Approvals – a Board member asked if a white sticker could be applied to a new ride before the Certificate of Fabrication and Certificate of Erection were received by the Department. Staff clarified that a white sticker is issued when the ride is able to be registered in the state and is eligible for an annual permit. The Department will issue a white sticker with a faxed copy of the Certificate of Fabrication or the Certificate of Erection. A green sticker signifies that the ride is able to be used. A green sticker cannot be issued until the actual Certificate of Fabrication and Certificate of Erection are received.

3. Welding procedures – A Board member noted that the Department has likely amassed a large number of welding procedures related to the repair of amusement rides. The Board member questioned whether the Department would share this information with those performing ride repairs or maintenance. The Staff responded that this information would likely have little value since the welding procedures are drafted to address a specific problem with a specific ride and would vary depending on a number of details including for example, the size and orientation of the crack that was being repaired.

4. Rock Wall Rule Proposal – A Board member asked about the status of the Departments efforts to regulate rock walls. Staff reported that the proposal had been submitted to the Office of Administrative Law to be published. As submitted it would regulate Rock Walls as gravity propelled rides. That means they would only be regulated when operated where other amusement devices are located. A Board member expressed concern that the industry as a whole should be regulated because of the inherent dangers associated with rock walls. Mr. Connolly stated that the Department would draft legislation if the Board felt that Rock Walls should be regulated in all cases. The Board voted to have the Department draft legislation.

1. Ride Statistics – Statistics for the period January 1, 2007 through April 30, 2007 were provided for the Board. The Board asked if patron accidents could be broken down by ride type. The Staff reported that it could and would do so in the future. A Board member asked why the number of inspections and the number of permits validated went down this year compared to last. Staff responded that that may be a case of data entry delays because of the time it takes to get data from the field staff and then enter it into the system. A Board member asked what mechanical deficiencies were. Staff reported that they are the equivalent of an ES-3 violation notice, but are issued before the ride is set up. They essentially mean that on the initial inspection that the ride was not ready for operation. They are not administrative in nature and would be mechanical or electrical problems with the ride.

2. Mr. Zucker asked if there were difficulties complying with the ASTM A46 process. Under the standards there are testing and performance requirements that must be performed on new rides. The purpose of the test is to ensure that the ride as manufactured complies with the standards that were used in its manufacture. The New Jersey Amusement Association was concerned that manufacturers were fulfilling this obligation. Staff reported that they were requiring them as part of the approval process and have been getting them. In some cases they are simply a letter from the manufacturer signed by the manufacturer’s representative.

3. A member of the public asked whether people who are caught using unregistered rides are accountable for deficiencies in the same manner that people who operate registered rides are. Staff responded that the fact that the ride is unregistered does not prevent the Department from issuing fines and penalties.