States Enforce Elevator Codes Up to 18 Years Apart in Version Adoption

The ASME A17.1 Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators is the national consensus standard, but each state adopts it on its own timeline through its own legislative or regulatory process. As of 2024, California enforces the 2004 version of ASME A17.1, while Texas and Georgia follow the 2016 version, and states like North Carolina and Alabama have adopted the 2019 version. This means an elevator installed to code in California may be built to a standard that is 18 years behind the current best practice, while the same elevator in Alabama would need to meet significantly more recent safety requirements. This matters because each revision of A17.1 incorporates lessons learned from accidents, new safety technologies, and updated requirements. The 2019 revision, for example, added requirements for video communication capabilities in elevator emergency phones — critical for deaf and hard-of-hearing passengers who cannot use voice-only intercoms during entrapments. Buildings in states still on pre-2019 codes have no obligation to install these features, meaning deaf passengers trapped in those elevators cannot communicate with rescuers. The inconsistency also creates problems for national elevator companies, property management firms, and building owners with portfolios spanning multiple states. A company maintaining 500 elevators across 12 states must track and comply with potentially 12 different code versions, each with different requirements for door reopening devices, seismic safety, machine-room-less configurations, and emergency operations. This compliance burden raises costs and creates opportunities for errors. This persists because elevator code adoption is embedded in each state's building code adoption process, which is legislative or regulatory and therefore slow, political, and subject to lobbying. Some states adopt building codes on a regular three-year cycle; others adopt them sporadically or only when a specific incident creates political pressure. There is no federal mechanism to mandate a minimum code version, and the elevator industry lobby has not pushed for one because code fragmentation actually benefits the major OEMs — it creates complexity that only large national firms can navigate, further disadvantaging smaller independent contractors. Structurally, the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) model means that even within a state, different municipalities may enforce different code versions or interpretations, adding yet another layer of inconsistency. This is a governance problem, not a technical one, and it will not resolve without either federal preemption or a voluntary interstate compact — neither of which has meaningful political momentum.