LARA-BCC-Rules

From:

Sent:

To:

Jones, Rebecca (LARA)

Tuesday, August 29, 2023 8:47 AM

Ohlemacher, Greg (LARA)

LARA-BCC-Rules

Cc:

Subject:

RE: Email Address

Thank you Greg. We should send these to the Rules inbox also just to be sure they are in one place. I am cc’ing them on

this email so they have it also. Thank you.

Becky Jones

Licensing and Regulatory Affairs

Specialty Trades Section

517-420-1833

Jonesr21@michigan.gov

www.Michigan.gov/bcc

**My work schedule is Tuesday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.**

Confidentiality Notice: This message, including any attachments, contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that

any dissemination or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you are the intended recipient, forwarding this

message may result in the waiver of legal privileges and such waiver should be considered before forwarding this

message to others. If you have received this message in error, please notify me by reply e-mail and destroy any and all

copies of the original message. Thank you.

From: Ohlemacher, Greg (LARA) <OhlemacherG@michigan.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 8:32 AM

To: Jones, Rebecca (LARA) <JonesR21@michigan.gov>

Subject: FW: Email Address

Good Morning Becky,

Attached are the rest of Ryan Strayhorn’s concerns from the public hearing. The Rules analyst never sent out the email

address for the rule’s mailbox. Do they still need to be submitted there?

-Greg

From: Ryan Strayhorn <ryan@acpentertainment.com>

Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 10:39 AM

To: Ohlemacher, Greg (LARA) <OhlemacherG@michigan.gov>

Subject: Re: Email Address

CAUTION: This is an External email. Please send suspicious emails to abuse@michigan.gov

Sure thing, I didn’t see anyone CC’d in on the email but it may have been BCC’d. Here are my list of concerns:



First and foremost, we live in and are expected by the state to conform to the age of technology and email

which is fine on my end. However, meetings that regard the potential rule and law changes of the amusement

industry should be communicated directly to operators in the state via email or mail. The state has all licensed

operators email addresses and physical addresses. Posting in 2 obscure newspapers is outdated and frankly

unacceptable for the 21st century. I’m disappointed that we weren’t made aware about law and rule change

discussions prior and now we’re playing catchup only because I heard about this “forum” from our inspector.

I’d like to see a committee formed once again, like there used to be, with multiple representatives of different

industries in the amusement umbrella in the state. I’m not sure who is deciding to make these rules but as

mentioned before, I know I wasn’t made aware or consulted. I’d recommend bringing in people that are in the

industry to help make rules and laws that make sense. Also, inspectors should absolutely be included in rule and

law making. They are the boots on the ground that see what actually goes on. Don’t ignore them and their

expertise.

Onto concerns in the actual proposed rules. I have always been bewildered about rock walls, trackless

trains and bungee trampolines not being inspected. If not maintained or operated properly, these can

absolutely be dangerous amusement attractions. I’d recommend that they be included in future inspections. It

could be included in “gravity rides” since both rely on gravity for the function of the ride. If an almost harmless

fiberglass slide needs to be inspected, why should a fiberglass rock wall doesn’t that you literally leap off of

relying on an auto belay to catch you not have to be?



Trains that were once used for public transit and are now being used on a private rail in an amusement sense

should absolutely be inspected. What’s the difference between a roller coaster and a train car besides speed

and height?

Rule 15- I’d like to see a carve out in this for rental companies. While we do submit our current itinerary upon

renewal, our schedule is ever evolving during the year. We send monthly updates to our itinerary to the state to

try to keep up on it but it’d be nice to see some sort of carve out or caveat for rental companies or companies

who do not know their full route. This may not be necessary but I wanted to point it out.



Rule 16- This ties into what was unfortunately made law last year. While the rules stated in Rule 16 are feasible,

the act that was passed last year are unattainable. To explain, getting written express permission from a

manufacturer that a representative from the company is trained and therefore authorized to setup and run an

attraction is not always going to happen. Not all rides are bought new and therefore not all manufacturers train

the ride owners directly. I have many rides that I’ve bought used; 2nd, 3rd or 4th hand. I did not receive training

from the factory nor will the factory likely sign off on saying they approve of me setting up and operating the

ride because they don’t want that liability. I don’t even think the factory would send someone out to train

myself or my team since the ride isn’t brand new and the factory, once again, doesn’t want the liability. Not to

mention, there are some manufacturers of rides that don’t even exist anymore. Final point, manufacturers

sometimes don’t even train how to setup or operate new rides. They give us the user manual and ship the ride

to us and that is it. We are left to figure out how to safely setup and operate the ride on our own. This is not

right but unfortunately is the truth of the matter. What is also truth is that the operators generally know how to

setup and/or operate rides better than even the manufacturer does because of the operators boots on the

ground experience.



Rule 31: This is completely unattainable for some rides. Having a safety retainer for single means of attachment

is not possible in all cases. To name a few; tubs of fun, tilt and Sellner spin rides. These are all spinning rides that

need to spin 360 degrees so a secondary retainer is not possible. This rule definitely needs to be amended.

Rule 32: Decals provided to amusement operators in the past 2 years have not come in at a proper time (not

until late spring) and they do not stick to the rides surface. Please stop going with the lowest bidder and get a

good quality sticker so we can actually keep the sticker affixed to the ride.

Rule 32 (2)- This rule changes the need to have a ride re-inspected of sold to another company within the

previously inspected year/period. This is unsafe and reckless. If a company buys a ride from another company in

Michigan, assuming it’s been inspected within the last 12 months, how does the state and therefore general

public know that the ride is safe and/or setup properly? A ride isn’t only being inspected for broken welds,

damage that could harm riders, etc. It’s also being inspected for proper installation. If the new owner of said ride

doesn’t know how to properly set up the ride, the ride may not be safe. Not to mention, the ride may have gone

down the road 10-20 times since the last inspection. There could very well be broken welds, damage, etc. that

needs to be addressed. This proposed rule change seems reckless and unnecessary.



Rule 38: After speaking with Greg, it sounds like this was rescinded because the state adopted ASTM standards

which supposedly has blocking rules/guidelines. However, I’m not sure that it does. I’d like to know exactly

where it states blocking guidelines that replaces this rule.

Rule 39- I’d strongly suggest changing the fact that waterslides meant for general public use are allowed to

terminate into the water. Not being able to see the bottom of the landing area could pose a danger to the

public. Not to mention, fresh water is possibly not safe due to unknown fungi and amoeba in the water. Please

look up history on Disney’s River Country water park that closed on November 2, 2001. One example is an 11

year old boy that died after contracting a rare infection caused by an amoeba in the water.



Rule 39 (h)- While I understand eliminating this rule is due to the fact that the health/sanitary department

inspects and tests water quality, it may take away the inspectors ability to shut down the ride for unsafe

conditions. The water also needs to be clear and visible to the bottom of the pool for safety purposes and the

amusement inspector should have the ability to have some sort of control due to the fact that the landing zone

is water. It’s just like saying the landing area of a funhouse slide isn’t inspected because the landing mat or

inflatable padding isn’t a part of the ride.



Rule 43- I’m not sure why the state wants to take away the requirement for reporting personal injuries or death.

I understand that the rule below requires mechanical failures and injuries resulting from mechanical failures to

be reported, however not all injuries come from a mechanical failure. Let’s say a kid jumps off of a swing and

gets injured. The ride did not malfunction at all, the rider just didn’t follow the rules and made a poor choice

resulting in an injury. Does the state not care to know that? What happens if the parents sue the company or

manufacturer and the state has no record of it? What if a patron opens a fence, walks into a restricted area and

gets struck by a ride vehicle? There was no mechanical breakdown but yet the patron got injured and possibly

killed. Does the state not want to know about that?

Thank you for your time, please feel free to email me back or call me to address these concerns further or ask for

additional input/clarification.

Ryan Strayhorn

Desk: (616) 504-4479

Office: (616) 826-8220

www.ACPEntertainment.com

Memorable Events Start Here.

Check out our 2023 Catalog!

On Aug 24, 2023, at 9:03 AM, Ohlemacher, Greg (LARA) <OhlemacherG@michigan.gov> wrote:

Hey Ryan,

I’m not sure which email you are supposed to send those into. I have cc’d my supervisor; she may have

an answer for you. If you would like to send your concerns in a reply to this email I would be happy to

look over them.

Thank you,

Greg Ohlemacher

Inspector Supervisor

Ski/Amusement Safety

State of Michigan

Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs

P: 517-582-0890

From: Ryan Strayhorn <ryan@acpentertainment.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:45 AM