Rationale

This ballot represents a second round of concurrent balloting, after a first concurrent ballot in December. With the sunset of the old F1159 design standard in November of 2024, patron-directed amusement rides and devices are now within the F2291 standard. However, the F2291 at present does not provide any requirements for how to specifically address these rides. This ballot creates a new section with the F2291 standard to house specific requirements and procedures for addressing patron-directed amusement rides and devices. The model used here is one where the use of patron-directed is broad and inclusive. This ballot creates a high-level structure for future work. Going forward, it is anticipated that these sections will become more detailed and new subsections will be created within this framework in order to address similar pointers and adjustments to other sections within F2291. Modifications to the acceleration limits themselves or to how the axes are used was considered and discussed, but after discussion with the F24.24 acceleration task group, this discussion was transferred as a future work-item for that task group. This ballot does not include a formal definition and handles terminology within a section 22.1 scope. Changes since the last ballot: • Section title change, removing “Criteria for” due to a negative. • Note X after 22.4 converted to a mandatory 22.4.1 after multiple negatives requested this be a requirement. Language altered to account for jurisdictional limits of F2291. • “risk assessment or ride analysis” converted to just “ride analysis” after negatives and discussion at the Charlotte meeting that “ride analysis” will be the term used until the risk assessment TG and sub leadership determine how to reference it and work it into F2291. • There was discussion about “consider” within 22.4 needing stronger language. At the Charlotte meeting it was discussed and the consensus was that F2291 uses “consider” throughout in the usage and it is the proper term. This will be added to a future ballot rationale. • There were questions about how section 22 affects non-F2291 devices with patron-directed elements. It was discussed that they do not; or if they do, it is only at the choice and discretion of those specialty standards, as F2291 excludes anything with its own specialty standard. This will be added to a future ballot rationale. • What “this” information was in 22.3 has been clarified. • Phrasing was cleaned up and made more consistent. The task group suggests the following as an initial step for this work. This is not the final stage; further work is expected. Commentary is welcome and encouraged. We are looking for feedback on this language. If you have questions, please contact William Bussone @ wbussone@cbeconsultants.com to discuss your questions or concerns. Thank you.