Freeman Safety Guidelines

Talking Points

• The Exhibitor Advocate, EACA and EDPA all prioritize safety but, requiring new engineering stamps where one is already present is unnecessary and requires additional time and cost (as much as $15,000 in some cases.)
• The Exhibitor Advocate, EACA and EDPA would have preferred to be included in any conversation regarding implementation of new safety initiatives.
• The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) document is a recommendation not a requirement and was originally written in 2017. It’s not new.
• Professional Engineering Seals are recognized nationally.
• State to state differences are based on engineer certification criteria.
• The ANSI document refers to “Qualified Persons” as it relates to hanging signs, tie-offs, etc. but doesn’t define what that means.
• Problematic elements of the Freeman safety standard:
  •  Why is it necessary to provide a state-specific engineering stamp when approval standards are consistent nationally?
  • When blueprints/structures remain unchanged, why is a new approval required?
  • Freeman’s right to refuse shouldn’t be discresionary.  Exhibitors should have clear reasons for refusal, such as variations from blueprints to actual structure. 
  • Why are there variations in policy enforcement from city to city, show to show, or between varying personnel?
• The Exhibitor Advocate, EACA and EDPA recommend that any display that Freeman has approved in previous shows be grandfathered in. There should be no need to require the new safety standard.