text:
In applying the doctrine of Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12, to a situation where no transcript of the trial of an indigent defendant is available due to the death of the court reporter, a State may, without violation of the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, deny relief to an indigent prisoner who had a lawyer at his trial and presumably had the lawyer's continuing services for purposes of appeal, and yet failed to pursue an appeal. Pp. 373 U. S. 420-424.
25 Ill.2d 169, 182 N.E.2d 719, affirmed.
Petitioner was convicted of murder in the Illinois courts in 1941, and sentenced to 199 years in prison. Though indigent, he had a lawyer at the trial.
was indigent, he was unable to pay the costs of the transcript, and therefore did not obtain it, and he did not, moreover, pursue an appeal.
". . . In the event the court finds that it is impossible to furnish petitioner a stenographic transcript of the proceedings at his trial because of the unavailability of the court reporter who reported the proceedings and the inability of any other court reporter to transcribe the notes of the court reporter who served at the trial, or for any other reason, the court shall deny the petition."
attended the trial. Ten witnesses testified, including petitioner, but none could recall much of the evidence introduced at the 1941 trial. Thus, in 1956, it was not possible for Illinois to supply petitioner with the adequate appellate review of his 1941 conviction, which he failed to pursue at that time. Cf. Eskridge v. Washington, supra.
The trial judge who heard this motion entered an order denying petitioner a new trial. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. 25 Ill.2d 169, 182 N.W.2d 719. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari. 371 U.S. 860.
The issue in the case is whether Illinois has made an "invidious discrimination" against petitioner. Griffin v. Illinois, supra, p. 351 U. S. 18. More precisely, the question is whether when a transcript cannot subsequently be obtained or reconstructed through no fault of the State, may it constitutionally draw the line against indigents who had lawyers at their trial but, after conviction, did not pursue their remedy? Illinois, on the face of its rules, draws no such distinction. But Illinois, in the application of its rules, has denied relief in such a case. [Footnote 1] And so we have the narrow question -- whether a State may avoid the obligation of Griffin v. Illinois where, without fault, no transcript can be made available, the indigent having had a lawyer at the trial and no remedy having been sought at the time.
If it appeared that the lawyer who represented petitioner at the trial refused to represent him on the appeal and petitioner's indigency prevented him from retaining another, we would have a different case. Cf. 372 U. S.
"I have no independent recollection whether there were motions for a new trial made in the regular course after the trial. All of the constitutional guarantees which were afforded my client, Willie Norvell, were asserted at that time. I have no independent recollection of this case, but I give the defendant every constitutional guarantee that the law affords."
"I have no recollection now on whether or not I was ever called upon for an appeal in this matter. I have no recollection one way or the other whether I was called upon to obtain a transcript of the trial."
Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same."
"The problems of government are practical ones, and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations -- illogical, it may be, and unscientific. . . . What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned."
The "rough accommodations" made by government do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless the lines drawn are "hostile or invidious." Welch v. Henry, 305 U. S. 134, 305 U. S. 144. We can make no such condemnation here. For, where transcripts are no longer available, Illinois may rest on the presumption that he who had a lawyer at the trial had one who could protect his rights on appeal.
The case is analogous to those where this Court's review of a state judgment sustaining a state law is directed to the statute "as applied and enforced in respect of the situation presented." Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380, 274 U. S. 385. And see Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 337 U. S. 4.
The record in Griffin v. Illinois, supra, shows that such was not the case there.
MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent because the majority ignores what to me is the key to disposition of this matter. The Illinois Supreme Court decided this case under a misapprehension as to a crucial point of federal constitutional law, but for which it might have resolved the ultimate question in favor of, rather than against, the petitioner.
and not retroactively, in the sense that it invalidated only "existing financial barriers" to appeal. Given its view of Griffin, it was unnecessary for the state court to consider whether the petitioner, who concededly could not obtain a transcript at the time of his original conviction in 1941 because of his indigency, was at that time deprived of his constitutional rights. Enabled by this erroneous interpretation of Griffin to put aside this basic constitutional issue, the Illinois Supreme Court held only that its present rule, as applied to deny the petitioner a transcript now on his delayed appeal, was not unconstitutional because that denial was based solely upon the present unavailability of the transcript, and not upon anything related to the petitioner's indigency. The majority of this Court seems today to approve at least that holding of the state court, though on grounds different from those relied upon below.
Of course, we do not know how the Illinois court would have resolved the petitioner's claim that he is entitled either to a transcript or a new trial if it had viewed Griffin as having retroactive effect, and as controlling with respect to the constitutional deprivation which may have occurred in 1941. Illinois has shown a broad and commendable latitude in implementing the principles enunciated in Griffin, and I would not presume to predict what its courts might do under a proper reading of that case. Because Illinois has not passed upon what is perhaps the controlling issue in the case, and because we ought not to anticipate and resolve difficult constitutional questions unless necessary, I would vacate and remand the case to the Supreme Court of Illinois to permit it to decide the question which it treated as foreclosed only because it believed Griffin's application not to be fully retroactive.
"did not hold that the failure to furnish defendant with a free transcript in 1935 denied him a right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, but held that the failure in 1956 to furnish him with a free transcript which was still available denied him of such a right."
"that such financial barriers could no longer be imposed by the State even though the indigent defendant was sentenced prior to the time the restrictions were invalidated."
Ibid. The issue in Eskridge, however, as presented on review of a 1956 state habeas corpus proceeding, was whether the petitioner there had been deprived of a constitutional right when first convicted in 1935 because he was then denied a transcript with which to prosecute an appeal as an indigent; this Court decided that issue in favor of Eskridge.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
ABRANTES, ALINE B. DE P.; DIAS, GUSTAVO C.; SOUZA-PINTO, NADJA C.; BAPTISTA, MAURICIO S. p53-Dependent and p53-Independent Responses of Cells Challenged by Photosensitization. Photochemistry and Photobiology, v. 95, n. 1, p. 355-363, JAN 2019. Citações Web of Science: 0.
ROUBICEK, DEBORAH A.; DE SOUZA-PINTO, NADJA C. Mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA as relevant targets for environmental contaminants. Toxicology, v. 391, p. 100-108, NOV 1 2017. Citações Web of Science: 16.
FORNI, MARIA FERNANDA; PELOGGIA, JULIA; BRAGA, TARCIO T.; ORTEGA CHINCHILLA, JESUS EDUARDO; SHINOHARA, JORGE; NAVAS, CARLOS ARTURO; SARAIVA CAMARA, NIELS OLSEN; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J. Caloric Restriction Promotes Structural and Metabolic Changes in the Skin. CELL REPORTS, v. 20, n. 11, p. 2678-2692, SEP 12 2017. Citações Web of Science: 3.
SANTOS, CARLA SANTANA; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J.; BERTOTTI, MAURO. Single Cell Oxygen Mapping (SCOM) by Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy Uncovers Heterogeneous Intracellular Oxygen Consumption. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, v. 7, SEP 12 2017. Citações Web of Science: 5.
AMIGO, IGNACIO; MENEZES-FILHO, SERGIO LUIZ; LUEVANO-MARTINEZ, LUIS ALBERTO; CHAUSSE, BRUNO; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J. Caloric restriction increases brain mitochondrial calcium retention capacity and protects against excitotoxicity. AGING CELL, v. 16, n. 1, p. 73-81, FEB 2017. Citações Web of Science: 15.
CAMPOS, JULIANE C.; QUELICONI, BRUNO B.; BOZI, LUIZ H. M.; BECHARA, LUIZ R. G.; DOURADO, PAULO M. M.; ANDRES, ALLEN M.; JANNIG, PAULO R.; GOMES, KATIA M. S.; ZAMBELLI, VANESSA O.; ROCHA-RESENDE, CIBELE; GUATIMOSIM, SILVIA; BRUM, PATRICIA C.; MOCHLY-ROSEN, DARIA; GOTTLIEB, ROBERTA A.; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J.; FERREIRA, JULIO C. B. Exercise reestablishes autophagic flux and mitochondrial quality control in heart failure. AUTOPHAGY, v. 13, n. 8, p. 1304-1317, 2017. Citações Web of Science: 12.
QUELICONI, BRUNO B.; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J.; GOTTLIEB, ROBERTA A. Bicarbonate Increases Ischemia-Reperfusion Damage by Inhibiting Mitophagy. PLoS One, v. 11, n. 12 DEC 14 2016. Citações Web of Science: 6.
AMIGO, IGNACIO; DA CUNHA, FERNANDA M.; FORNI, MARIA FERNANDA; GARCIA-NETO, WILSON; KAKIMOTO, PAMELA A.; LUEVANO-MARTINEZ, LUIS A.; MACEDO, FELIPE; MENEZES-FILHO, SERGIO L.; PELOGGIA, JULIA; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J. Mitochondrial form, function and signalling in aging. Biochemical Journal, v. 473, n. 20, p. 3421-3449, OCT 2016. Citações Web of Science: 10.
SARAVIA, L. P. H.; ANANDHAKUMAR, S.; PARUSSULO, A. L. A.; MATIAS, T. A.; CALDEIRA DA SILVA, C. C.; KOWALTOWSKI, A. J.; ARAKI, K.; BERTOTTI, M. Development of a tetraphenylporphyrin cobalt (II) Modified glassy carbon electrode to monitor oxygen consumption in biological samples. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, v. 775, p. 72-76, AUG 15 2016. Citações Web of Science: 5.
KAKIMOTO, PAMELA A.; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J. Effects of high fat diets on rodent liver bioenergetics and oxidative imbalance. REDOX BIOLOGY, v. 8, p. 216-225, AUG 2016. Citações Web of Science: 38.
MAGDALON, JULIANA; CHIMIN, PATRICIA; BELCHIOR, THIAGO; NEVES, RODRIGO X.; VIEIRA-LARA, MARCEL A.; ANDRADE, MAYNARA L.; FARIAS, TALITA S.; BOLSONI-LOPES, ANDRESSA; PASCHOAL, VIVIAN A.; YAMASHITA, ALEX S.; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J.; FESTUCCIA, WILLIAM T. Constitutive adipocyte mTORC1 activation enhances mitochondrial activity and reduces visceral adiposity in mice. BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-MOLECULAR AND CELL BIOLOGY OF LIPIDS, v. 1861, n. 5, p. 430-438, MAY 2016. Citações Web of Science: 11.
FORNI, MARIA FERNANDA; PELOGGIA, JULIA; TRUDEAU, KYLE; SHIRIHAI, ORIAN; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J. Murine Mesenchymal Stem Cell Commitment to Differentiation Is Regulated by Mitochondrial Dynamics. Stem Cells, v. 34, n. 3, p. 743-755, MAR 2016. Citações Web of Science: 32.
FORNI, MARIA FERNANDA; CHAUSSE, BRUNO; PELOGGIA, JULIA; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J. Bioenergetic profiling in the skin. EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY, v. 25, n. 2, p. 147-148, FEB 2016. Citações Web of Science: 3.
SILVA-PORTELA, RITA C. B.; CARVALHO, FABIOLA M.; PEREIRA, CAROLINA P. M.; DE SOUZA-PINTO, NADJA C.; MODESTI, MAURO; FUCHS, ROBERT P.; AGNEZ-LIMA, LUCYMARA F. ExoMeg1: a new exonuclease from metagenomic library. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, v. 6, JAN 27 2016. Citações Web of Science: 4.
LUEVANO-MARTINEZ, LUIS ALBERTO; FORNI, MARIA FERNANDA; DOS SANTOS, VALQUIRIA TIAGO; SOUZA-PINTO, NADJA C.; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J. Cardiolipin is a key determinant for mtDNA stability and segregation during mitochondrial stress. BIOCHIMICA ET BIOPHYSICA ACTA-BIOENERGETICS, v. 1847, n. 6-7, p. 587-598, JUN-JUL 2015. Citações Web of Science: 16.
SOLTYS, DANIELA TATHIANA; MARTINS PEREIRA, CAROLINA PARGA; ISHIBE, GABRIELA NAOMI; DE SOUZA-PINTO, NADJA CRISTHINA. Effects of post mortem interval and gender in DNA base excision repair activities in rat brains. MUTATION RESEARCH-FUNDAMENTAL AND MOLECULAR MECHANISMS OF MUTAGENESIS, v. 776, n. SI, p. 48-53, JUN 2015. Citações Web of Science: 3.
GOMES, KATIA M. S.; BECHARA, LUIZ R. G.; LIMA, VANESSA M.; RIBEIRO, MARCIO A. C.; CAMPOS, JULIANE C.; DOURADO, PAULO M.; KOWALTOWSKI, ALICIA J.; MOCHLY-ROSEN, DARIA; FERREIRA, JULIO C. B. Aldehydic load and aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 profile during the progression of post-myocardial infarction cardiomyopathy: Benefits of Alda-1. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, v. 179, p. 129-138, JAN 20 2015. Citações Web of Science: 23.
MUFTUOGLU, MELTEM; MORI, MATEUS P.; DE SOUZA-PINTO, NADJA C. Formation and repair of oxidative damage in the mitochondrial DNA. MITOCHONDRION, v. 17, p. 164-181, JUL 2014. Citações Web of Science: 29.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Here are the survey results and comments, as of October 2, 2017.
On February 26, 1999, following public hearings, OIP’s administrative rules, “Agency Procedures and Fees for Processing Government Records Requests,” took effect.
These rules are set forth at Chapter 71 of Title 2 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules. See below for an unofficial copy of the rules.
Click here for the official copy of OIP’s administrative rules.
See also Quick Guide to OIP’s Administrative Rules, Impact Statement for OIP’s Administrative Rules, and Guidance: Waiver of Fees in the Public Interest.
§2-71-1 Purpose, scope, and construction.
(2) The fees that agencies may charge for searching for, reviewing, and segregating government records and a waiver of these fees when the public interest would be served. The fees set forth in this chapter are not intended to obstruct public access to disclosable government records, but rather are intended to allow agencies to recover some costs in providing access to disclosable records upon request.
“Access” means inspection of disclosable government records, acquisition of copies of disclosable government records, or both, when requested by any person.
“Agency” shall be as defined in section 92F-3, HRS.
“Business day” means a government agency business day within the office hours set forth in section 80-1, HRS, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays observed pursuant to chapter 8, HRS.
“Disclosable record” means a government record that is required to be made available for public inspection and copying under chapter 92F, HRS, after payment of applicable fees.
“Formal request” means a request that is in written, electronic, or other physical form that a person submits to an agency for access to records and that contains the information prescribed by section 2-71-12(b).
“Government record” shall be as defined in section 92F-3, HRS.
“Individual” shall be as defined in section 92F-3, HRS.
“Informal request” means a request, in any form, that a person submits to an agency for access to records and to which the agency responds in accordance with section 2-71-11.
“Maintain” means to hold, possess, preserve, retain, store, or administratively control.
“OIP” means the office of information practices, office of the lieutenant governor, State of Hawaii.
“Person” shall be as defined in section 92F-3, HRS.
“Personal record” shall be as defined in section 92F-3, HRS.
“Prepayment” means the fees that a requester must tender to the agency before the agency begins processing a request for records in accordance with section 2-71-19(b).
“Record” means one or more government records, or any portion thereof, requested for public inspection or copying.
“Requester” means any person making a request for public inspection or copying of a government record under this chapter.
“Review” means to examine a government record, in response to a request for access to the record, in order to determine which portions, if any, of the record are exempt from disclosure by law. Review does not include the time spent by the agency, or another person, to resolve issues of general law or policy regarding the applicability of exceptions to disclosure under chapter 92F, HRS.
“Search” means to look for a government record, including page-by-page or line-by-line identification of a government record. A search may be performed manually or by computer using existing retrieval or programming capabilities.
“Segregate” means to prepare a government record for disclosure by excising any portion of the record that is protected from disclosure under chapter 92F, HRS.
§2-71-3 Reporting to the OIP.
(2) The number of requests for access to records which qualified for a waiver of fees pursuant to section 2-71-32, and the amount of fees waived for each request.
§2-71-11 Informal requests for access to government records; agency response.
(a) Any person may, during an agency’s regular business hours, submit an informal request for access to records.
(1) Provide access to any disclosable record requested pursuant to part II of chapter 92F, HRS, in a reasonably timely manner; provided that if the agency will charge the requester $15 or more in fees, pursuant to section 2-71-19, the agency shall inform the person of the amount of fees, or an estimate thereof, before processing the request.
(2) Deny access to all or any part of the records requested that are confidential under section 92F-13, HRS, or any other law; provided that if the requester disagrees with the agency’s denial, the agency shall advise the requester of the option of submitting a formal request.
(4) Inform the requester to submit a formal request in accordance with section 2-71-12.
(c) When a requester is not satisfied with the agency’s response, or failure to respond, to the informal request, the requester may make a formal request for access to records in accordance with section 2-71-12.
(d) A request that complies with section 2-71-12 shall be treated as a formal request under this chapter, unless otherwise agreed upon by the requester and the agency.
§2-71-12 Formal requests for access to government records; contents.
(a) Any person may, during an agency’s regular business hours, submit a formal request for access to records in accordance with this section.
(4) A request to inspect or obtain a copy of the records described and, if applicable, the means by which the requester would like to receive the copy.
§2-71-13 Formal request received; agency response; time limits.
The agency shall disclose the record within a reasonable time not to exceed ten business days.
(2) Disclose the requested record within five business days after providing notice or, when applicable, after receiving a prepayment under section 2-71-19; provided that the agency may disclose incrementally when authorized under section 2-71-15.
(2) Disclose the requested record within five business days after providing notice or, when applicable, after receiving a prepayment under section 2-71-19; except where the agency is authorized to disclose incrementally under section 2-71-15.
(d) When a unit of an agency receives a request for a record that should have been otherwise directed to another unit of the same agency for a response, the unit receiving the request shall promptly forward the request to the head of the unit’s department.
(e) When one unit of an agency forwards a request to the head of that department, the duties of this section do not commence until the head receives the request.
(f) When an agency receives a request for a record that it does not maintain and reasonably believes that another agency maintains the record, the agency receiving the request shall provide a notice in accordance with section 2-71-14(c)(1).
(C) The amount of prepayment required, if any.
(5) A description of extenuating circumstances, if any, under section 2-71-15, and, if it is the case, the agency’s intent to disclose the records incrementally.
(2) The specific legal authorities under which the request for access is denied under section 92F-13, HRS, or other laws.
(3) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compilation of information from records that is not readily retrievable.
§2-71-15 Extenuating circumstances; incremental disclosures.
(4) A natural disaster or other situation beyond the agency’s control prevents the agency from sending a notice or responding to the request within ten business days.
(B) Receipt of each incremental prepayment required under this rule.
(2) The requester abandons the request.
§2-71-16 Requester’s responsibilities; abandonment of request.
(3) If able, provide the agency with further clarification or description of the requested record if so requested by the agency’s notice under section 2-71-14.
(2) The date that the agency made the record available under section 2-71-13 or 2-71-15 if the requester was informed in a reasonable manner as to when and where the record would be made available.
§2-71-17 Segregation of information in records.
(2) Provide a notice to the requester in accordance with section 2-71-14(b) regarding information that is not disclosed.
(b) An agency shall segregate information from a requested record in such a way so that it is reasonably apparent that information has been removed from the record. An agency shall not replace information that has been segregated with information or text that did not appear in the original record.
§2-71-18 Location of disclosure; alternatives.
(a) The location where an agency makes a record available to the requester for inspection or copying shall be where the agency maintains the record or where the agency has accommodations for inspection and copying.
(b) If access to a record is requested at a location other than as provided in subsection(a), the agency shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate the request so long as the record is not the agency’s only original record and the arrangement does not unreasonably interfere with the agency’s functions.
(c) When a requester requests that a copy of a record be transmitted by mail, telefax, or other means, the agency shall make a reasonable effort to transmit the copy of the record in the manner sought by the requester; provided that the requester pays all fees assessed under section 2-71-19 and the transmission does not unreasonably interfere with the agency’s functions.
§2-71-19 Assessment of fees; prepayment.
(2) Any other lawful fees.
(3) One hundred per cent of the outstanding fees from previous requests, including abandoned requests, in accordance with subsection (d).
(c) The agency shall inform the requester of the requirement to prepay in its notice in accordance with section 2-71-14.
(d) A requester is liable for and shall pay any fees outstanding for services rendered by an agency to respond to any previous or current request. Upon written request, the agency shall provide an itemized bill of all fees assessed.
§2-71-20 Public access to disclosable records provided by a secondary source.
(2) Performs, as necessary, any review and segregation of a government record before providing the record, or a copy thereof, to the secondary source for the purpose of making the record available for public inspection and copying upon request.
(b) “Secondary source” means a person, including another agency, commercial entity, or nonprofit organization, with whom an agency makes arrangements to offer public inspection and copying of disclosable information from government records of the agency.
§2-71-31 Fees for searching for, reviewing, and segregating records; exceptions.
(3) If applicable, the actual rate of charge, based upon time expenditure, that is charged to the agency by a person other than the agency for services to assist the agency in the search for the record.
The agency shall not assess the first $30 in total amount of the fees under paragraphs (1) and (2).
(B) Additional equipment or software used to search for, review, or segregate the information.
(c) An agency that will establish fees under subsection (b) shall submit, before initiating the chapter 91 rulemaking process, to the OIP for review a copy of the rule, including any amendments, setting forth the fees.
(2) To the extent permitted by section 2-71-32, the agency finds that the public interest would be served by a waiver of these fees.
(e) An agency may waive the fees for any agency or any federal or foreign government entity requesting access to a government record.
§2-71-32 Waiver of fees when public interest served.
(2) The agency finds that the waiver of fees would be in the public interest pursuant to this section.
(3) The requester has the primary intention and the actual ability to widely disseminate information from the government record to the general public at large.
§2-71-33 Fees charged for records that will not be disclosed.
The agency may assess and collect fees for the search or review of a government record in accordance with section 2-71-31 even if the requested record will not be disclosed in its entirety, or a substantial portion thereof, if the agency reasonably believed that the requested record would be disclosable before searching for or reviewing the record. If the requester fails to pay the fees, the agency may assess the outstanding fees in accordance with section 2-71-19.

matches: §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2 §2


§ 50.01 STATE STANDARDS OF SAFETY ADOPTED.
(A) The most current edition of the State Standards of Safety, and all codes a part thereof, as promulgated by the office of the State Fire Marshal of the Department of Insurance of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is hereby adopted in full as an ordinance of the city, as if set out at length herein; a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk-Treasurer/Tax Collector.
(B) The City Clerk-Treasurer/Tax Collector shall at all times keep in his possession for reference a copy of the most current edition of the Standards of Safety.
(C) An attested copy of this section shall be transmitted to the office of State Fire Marshal and the rates section of the Department of Insurance of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
§ 50.02 COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS REQUIRED.
§ 50.03 APPLICATION OF CHAPTER.
This chapter shall apply to both public and privately-owned property; and to all new structures, their owners and occupants, including buildings, structures, and equipment; and, except as otherwise specified, to existing structures and their occupants, including buildings, structures, and equipment which constitute a clear and present hazard to life or to property.
§ 50.04 EFFECT ON EXISTING STRUCTURES.
Existing structures, facilities, and installations as may be covered by regulations promulgated under the authority of this chapter in service or under construction as of the effective date of this chapter and which are not in strict compliance with the terms of this chapter, may be continued or placed in use, provided these do not constitute a distinct hazard to life or adjoining property. When the Chief of the Volunteer Fire Department deems that the continued use will constitute a distinct hazard to life or adjoining property, he shall notify the owner or operator and specify his reason in writing.
§ 50.20 PERMIT REQUIRED FOR OPEN FIRE.
§ 50.21 PERMIT REQUIRED FOR BURNING ON CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION SITES.
§ 50.22 LOCATION AND CONTAINMENT OF OPEN FIRES.
No person, firm, corporation, or agent thereof may kindle or maintain any open fire or authorize any such fire to be kindled or maintained unless the location is not less than 50 feet form any structure and adequate provision is made to prevent fire from spreading closer than 50 feet to any structure; or the fire is contained in an adequate and approved waste burner located safely not less than 25 feet from any structure.
§ 50.23 CONSTANT ATTENTION TO OPEN FIRES REQUIRED.
§ 50.24 GARDEN HOSE OR FIRE EXTINGUISHMENT DEVICES REQUIRED.
A garden hose connected to a water supply or other fire extinguishment equipment must be readily available for use within ten feet of any open fires.
§ 50.25 AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT OPEN FIRES.
The Fire Chief or his designee may prohibit any or all open fires when natural conditions, the materials being burned, or local circumstances make these fires potentially hazardous or harmful.
§ 50.41 STORAGE OF FLAMMABLES AND OTHER MATTER.
(A) All flammable or combustible materials shall be arranged and stored in a manner which affords reasonable safety against the danger of fire.
(B) Waste paper, ashes, oil rags, waste rags, excelsior, or any material of a similar hazardous nature shall not be accumulated in any cellar or any other portion of any building of any kind. Proper fireproof receptacles shall be provided for such hazardous materials.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be fined not more than $500.